[CRConrad]

"Have", obviously. That's the only one that goes with "do", being in the present tense. Otherwise it would be "I did (get them)".

Not that it matters anyway, since "have got" is a weird double-barrelled construct: It means exactly the same as just "have" or "got" on their own, so take your pick.

[867-5309]

"do you have them" and "have you got them" are completely different questions. so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious)

[CRConrad]

> "do you have them" and "have you got them" are completely different questions. so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious)

If you've got something, you have it. Sure, you could, logically, have got rid of it in the meantime -- but that's ridiculous pedantry; in the GP's context, it's the same question. All that was, though, a side note.

> so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious)

The actual question, OTOH, was which of the (implied) original questions "Did you get them?" or "Do you have them?" the reply "I do" was in answer to. And as an unambiguous matter of grammar, "I do" is correct in reply to the latter and nonsensical in rey to the former; there, the reply would have been "I did".

So my answer was correct. And that should have been obvious to anyone who knows even the rudiments of English (wich may not include you).

Here, BTW, have some capitals and a full stop: D, S, .

[867-5309]

>If you've got something, you have it. Sure, you could, logically, have got rid of it in the meantime -- but that's ridiculous pedantry; in the GP's context, it's the same question. All that was, though, a side note.

unsure how this little solipsism bolsters your argument or who you're trying to convince. I still contest that it is not the same question. "I do" can follow "do you have?", but not "have you got?". it's not being asked if you have, rather if you have got. of course you could have something without getting it, and other playground grammar, but that just detracts

>The actual question, OTOH, was which of the (implied) original questions "Did you get them?" or "Do you have them?" the reply "I do" was in answer to. And as an unambiguous matter of grammar, "I do" is correct in reply to the latter and nonsensical in rey to the former; there, the reply would have been "I did".

why bother mixing tenses and rephrasing? you're trying to complicate something simple so you can cleverly unravel it, which is just pointless. the point being: "I do" is an unacceptable response to "have you got them?", and if anything is implied it's "do have got" in the first answer, which again is the point of being nonsense

>So my answer was correct. And that should have been obvious to anyone who knows even the rudiments of English (wich may not include you).

of course it was, for you. obviously

>Here, BTW, have some capitals and a full stop: D, S, .

I made the decision to use those more sparingly when I became a scholar of latin - so that little dig came back to bite you and I relish in your embarrassment. since you muddied the waters, you can help yourself to some spelling corrections for 'rey' and 'wich', plus some extra acronyms and commas as you seem, amongst other things, full of them LMAO GTFO ,,,,,,,,

[CRConrad]

> "I do" can follow "do you have?", but not "have you got?". it's not being asked if you have, rather if you have got.

Let me direct your attention to:

>>> that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??"

Where you yourself originally acknowledged that the question had been apparently interpreted as "do you have?". So...

> "Have", obviously. That's the only one that goes with "do", being in the present tense.

...still stands.

> why bother mixing tenses and rephrasing?

To illustrate what was actually being answered; do try to keep up. And, hey... Who introduced the mixed tenses?

> you're trying to complicate something simple so you can cleverly unravel it, which is just pointless.

Sure, if one is determined not to get the point. Actually what I said was pretty simple: Of the two alternatives "do what.. do have? do got??", "do have" is obviously the intended one, because it has the same tense throughout; "do got" is ungrammatical and never used. What's "complicated" about that?

> the point being: "I do" is an unacceptable response to "have you got them?", and if anything is implied it's "do have got" in the first answer, which again is the point of being nonsense

If anything is nonsense, I would have thought it's "which again is the point of being nonsense".

> I made the decision to use those more sparingly when I became a scholar of latin

Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Latin [sic] than I thought.

> - so that little dig came back to bite you and I relish in your embarrassment.

Not at all. Swim in your own in stead.

> you can help yourself to some spelling corrections for 'rey'

Fucking backspace next to 'l' on the phone KB... Ate the 'p' and of course never entered the 'l' in 'reply'. When will I learn not to post to HN on that fucking contraption?

> and 'wich',

My bad.

> plus some extra acronyms and commas as you seem, amongst other things, full of them LMAO GTFO ,,,,,,,,

Why would I need those if I'm so full of them already?!? Get off your high horse, "latin" boi. The Romans valued clear logic, and you're embarrassing them.

[867-5309]

>you yourself originally acknowledged that the question had been apparently interpreted as "do you have?

>>>>it's not being asked if you have, rather if you have got

apparently? no, but from where you falsely quote the 'original questions "Did you get them?" or "Do you have them?"'

again, having and getting are not the same thing

>...still stands

having tripped up so many times you'll be lucky if anything stands again

>To illustrate what was actually being answered

so, to provide a false foundation for your phoney answer. got it

>Who introduced the mixed tenses?

you did with "Did you get them?". keep up laddy!

>Sure, if one is determined not to get the point. Actually what I said was pretty simple: Of the two alternatives "do what.. do have? do got??", "do have" is obviously the intended one, because it has the same tense throughout; "do got" is ungrammatical and never used. What's "complicated" about that?

if anything it's a contraction of "do have got", if it was interpreted as just "do have", then we come back to the point of having not being the same as getting. you're complicating it by changing the verb, which in turn invalidates your answer. throwing the oneage around to try and sound sophisticated doesn't change this fact

>If anything is nonsense, I would have thought it's "which again is the point of being nonsense".

I can't account for your inability to process simple information. swerve noted

>Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Latin [sic] than I thought.

sarcasm from a dimwit, how befitting. punctuation and capitalisation are independent from or at best optional in language. you didn't lose any context and were able (albeit limitedly) to read it, so..

that's also a misuse of sic, but never mind, it's expected at this point

>Not at all. Swim in your own in stead.

remind us one more time

>Fucking backspace next to 'l' on the phone KB... ..

yeeeah, you sure are something special

>Why would I need those if I'm so full of them already?!?

to satisfy your own gluttony? funny how you've refrained though

>Get off your high horse, "latin" boi. The Romans valued clear logic, and you're embarrassing them.

whoosh get off your inferior plodding ass and have a nice day

[CRConrad]

> >Who introduced the mixed tenses?

> you did with "Did you get them?". keep up laddy!

Again, for the umpteenth time:

>>> that's almost as annoying as "have you got them?" - "I do" - "do what.. do have? do got??"

"Have got": past participle or whatever; "do have": present tense. That's yours, the original introduction of mixed tenses.

> >Oh? I thought your previous posts were in English. Damn, I must be better at Latin [sic] than I thought.

> that's also a misuse of sic, but never mind, it's expected at this point

No, it's a perfectly valid use of "sic" in the sense of "this is exactly how that word is supposed to be written". (Given how it's a proper name, and all.) What, you were only familiar with the other sense, that of "this is exactly how you wrote it, you numbskull "? Better piss off back to middle school and get some Bildung then.

You're boring me. See ya when you've grown up.