| >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 |
> 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.