In Australia the observant pedant winces at such phenomena frequently. Here's a typical exchange:

"Have we got time to go shopping?"
"No, we don't."

We don't what? We don't have got time? Ah, you mean we don't have time! But that's not what I asked...

This resembles the diagnosis Languagehat gives; but I also consider these cases to be splicings of two standards: Australian with its very British retention of "got", and American with its loss of it.

Here's a question, while I'm at it. Is the following infelicity gaining ground in Vespuccia, as it is in Ozland?

"We used to work between about nine in the morning, when we'd have to punch the clock on the way in, to about ten at night, with only half an hour for lunch."

A surprising number of educated speakers have lost the notion that "between" demands a continuation of the form "A and B", and that surrounding verbiage softens this requirement not one whit.

I'm surprised that the "Glossary" excludes "recoculous" from the list of ridonkulus-alikes, and that there's a mismatch between "FLOHPA" in the text and "FLOPHA" in the subheading.

"Recockulous" is a different word. The subheading is the mistake of the Times's editors, as are a couple of missing commas and other incongruities.

It is? I thought it was part of the same general class. Fair enough.