4 ms·

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

saghm 5y ago
To be fair, I think "do you have them?" would be more common for a lot of English speakers ("have you got" sounds British to me as an American, but it's possible that this is just a regional American thing). I'm not sure I would either think fast enough to care enough to tailor my automated response to a question like that based on the exact phrasing of the query.
- 867-5309 5y ago
  Americans still use it as a response though, e.g. "You got this!" - "I do!". it's the "I do got" which really bugs me. "I do have" and "I have got" are fine and make sense
smcnally 5y ago
c.f. “It’s raining.” “What's raining?”
- mbg721 5y ago
  "This is water!"
- 867-5309 5y ago
  nice one, I'm sure there's a grammatical name for that, maybe in Truss "She's raining" - "Who is?" - "Mother Nature"
ricardo81 5y ago
That sounds like something I would say, a more understandable aspect of Scots, even if it's no richt, ken.
- 867-5309 5y ago
  a speaker of Scots may be excused
CRConrad 5y ago
"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 5y ago
  "do you have them" and "have you got them" are completely different questions. so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious)
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > "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 5y ago
      >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 ,,,,,,,,

To be fair, I think "do you have them?" would be more common for a lot of English speakers ("have you got" sounds British to me as an American, but it's possible that this is just a regional American thing). I'm not sure I would either think fast enough to care enough to tailor my automated response to a question like that based on the exact phrasing of the query.

867-5309 5y ago
Americans still use it as a response though, e.g. "You got this!" - "I do!". it's the "I do got" which really bugs me. "I do have" and "I have got" are fine and make sense

smcnally 5y ago

c.f. “It’s raining.” “What's raining?”

mbg721 5y ago
"This is water!"
867-5309 5y ago
nice one, I'm sure there's a grammatical name for that, maybe in Truss "She's raining" - "Who is?" - "Mother Nature"

ricardo81 5y ago

That sounds like something I would say, a more understandable aspect of Scots, even if it's no richt, ken.

867-5309 5y ago
a speaker of Scots may be excused

CRConrad 5y ago

"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 5y ago
"do you have them" and "have you got them" are completely different questions. so no, that answer is wrong (and not obvious)
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > "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 5y ago
    >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 ,,,,,,,,