# so do I



## rum7

Hey everyboy! i wanted you to clear me up this:
if you can translate the expression "so am i" like "me too" in sentences with "to be"...
Would you can use "so do i" with other verbs?... 
For instance: 
My sister is going to sky this winter "and so am i"... or "and so do i"?

Thanks a lot!!


----------



## obz

with "to be" it is always "so am I"
My sister IS going to _ski_ (not sky) this winter.... and so am I.

When it comes to other verbs, it is usually "do"

You had chicken for lunch today, and so did I.
You like the new Guns N Roses album, and so do I.

Hope this helps!


----------



## Peterdg

rum7 said:


> Hey everyboy! i wanted you to clear me up this:
> if you can translate the expression "so am i" like "me too" in sentences with "to be"... Yes. That's correct.
> Would you can use "so do i" with other verbs?... I'm not so sure what you mean here.
> For instance:
> My sister is going to ski this winter "and so am i"... or "and so do i"? The verbs should coincide. The first verb is "is(°to be)" so the second verb should also be a form of the verb "to be".
> 
> But you can use "so do I" to mean "me too". For example: "My sister does have a car and so do I" (the verbs "does" and "do" coincide)
> 
> Thanks a lot!!


 
And I agree with OBZ's comment.


----------



## Agró

You must tidy your room... and so must I.
She will turn 20 next week, and so will I.

Hay que usar el auxiliar que corresponda en cada caso.


----------



## obz

> "My sister does have a car and so do I" (the verbs "does" and "do" coincide)


Em, I have to disagree here. It sounds quite alien phrased like that.

Remember that "do" is an auxiliary verb. In this case, "does" is not really a verb, yet an affirmation,  "have" is the real verb. This causes it to sound redundant.

_My sister has a car, and so do I_

Is fine.
You would only say "_my sister does have a car"_ if someone were to question if or not she indeed had a car.

Now, with "_do_" as an actual verb, it's different ;

_ My sister does 5 push ups every morning, and so do I._

There is no affirmation in "do" in this sentence.. until you mention yourself _"I do too"_.


----------



## Peterdg

obz said:


> Em, I have to disagree here. It sounds quite alien phrased like that.
> 
> Remember that "do" is an auxiliary verb. In this case, "does" is not really a verb, yet an affirmation, "have" is the real verb. This causes it to sound redundant.
> 
> _My sister has a car, and so do I _Agree: also OK
> 
> Is fine.
> You would only say "_my sister does have a car"_ if someone were to question if or not she indeed had a car. I agree. And in my example (with "so do I"), that neither of us have a car.
> 
> Now, with "_do_" as an actual verb, it's different ;
> 
> _My sister does 5 push ups every morning, and so do I._
> 
> There is no affirmation in "do" in this sentence.. until you mention yourself _"I do too"_.


 It's possible you are right, but honestly, I'm not sure.

Just one remark: in the sentence "My sister is going to ski, and so am I", "to be" is also an auxiliary verb and it's also that one that is repeated.

I repeat, I don't know what the grammars say about this, so it's very well possible you are right.


----------



## obz

I'll be the first to admit that I can't cite the grammars myself, hwoever the double affirmation use of "do" sounds very bad to me.

I don't go to school, but my sister does.
My sister goes to school, but I don't
My sister does go to school, and so do I
My sister doesn't go to school, and I don't
My sister doesn't go to school, and neither do I

In all cases, "go" is the verb, and "does" is affirming or negating the verb.
"To do" is not a true verb in any of these.

And just to throw a wrench in the gears, the verb "has" is similar to "do" in that it has a standard verbal function, and a more auxiliary one (perfect tenses). The "so am I" or "so do I", etc, do need to agree, here is a break down..

My sister _*has owned*_ a car, and *so have I. *
My sister _*had owned*_ a car, and _*so had I..*_
My sister _*has*_ a car, and _*so do I.* _
My sister _*is*_ going to get a car, and _*so am I*. _


----------



## Sprache

rum7 said:


> Hey everyboy! i wanted you *to clear this up for me*:
> if you can translate the expression "so am i" like "me too" in sentences with "to be"...
> *Could* you can use "so do i" with other verbs?...
> For instance:
> My sister is going to sky this winter "and so am i"... or "and so do i" ?
> 
> Thanks a lot!!


Just a few corrections. 
As others have said, you can use this construction with any auxiliary verb, but it must be the same verb used in the first sentence.

_My sister *is* going skiing and so *am* I._
_My sister wants to go skiing and so *do* I._
_My sister *will* go skiing and so *will* I._

On another note, I don't understand why obz has a problem with saying _my sister does have_, etc. That is perfectly fine given the right context, such as for emphasis.

_-I don't think your sister has a car._
_-My sister does have a car, and so do I._


----------



## gengo

Sprache said:


> On another note, I don't understand why obz has a problem with saying _my sister does have_, etc. That is perfectly fine given the right context, such as for emphasis.



Obz said, "You would only say "_my sister does have a car"_ if someone were to question if or not she indeed had a car," thereby indicating agreement with what you say.


----------



## obz

Sprache said:


> On another note, I don't understand why obz has a problem with saying _my sister does have_, etc. That is perfectly fine given the right context, such as for emphasis.
> 
> _-I don't think your sister has a car._
> _-My sister does have a car, and so do I._



I might have failed to be perfectly clear... as you have put it, it was previously challenged, or there was some form of doubt, hence the need to affirm with _"does have"._ Without the need for emphasis, as you well point out, the use of "does" is not needed.

What I mean to say is, you don´t declare blindly "I do have a care" unless there is some question in the matter.
_Do you have a car?
I don´t think you have a car.
I doubt you have a car.
_
Etc.

You own example exemplifies what it is I mean to say. Sorry for any confusion!


----------



## gengo

I will only add that there is another natural option.

_My sister has a car, and I do, too._

This translates into the same Spanish as does "My sister has a car, and so do I."  There is no difference in meaning.


----------



## Removebeforeflight

Hello, I have a question about the use of "so do I" and "so am I". I know that when there's an auxiliary verb we must use it, but couple of days ago I was doing an exercise and there was a dialogue between two people with a sentence that said: "I am trying to stop smoking" and the answer had to be "yo también" in english, so I put "me too" and "so am I" but when I read the answers on the other page, the two possibilities that it gave me were "me too" and "so do I". I haven't find yet an explanation for that, because as far as I know, in this example the verb "to be" is used as an auxiliary verb.
Thank you.


----------



## Gabriel

I agree with you: the right answer is "So am I (trying to stop smoking)", and not "So do I"


----------



## inib

Removebeforeflight said:


> Hello, I have a question about the use of "so do I" and "so am I". I know that when there's an auxiliary verb we must use it, but couple of days ago I was doing an exercise and there was a dialogue between two people with a sentence that said: "I am trying to stop smoking" and the answer had to be "yo también" in english, so I put "me too" and "so am I" but when I read the answers on the other page, the two possibilities that it gave me were "me too" and "so do I". I haven't find yet an explanation for that, because as far as I know, in this example the verb "to be" is used as an auxiliary verb.
> Thank you.


I agree. You are right. We can sometimes even change the auxiliary if the context allows it...eg: A:_ I *have* eaten too much_, B:_ So *will* I tomorrow because I'm going to a wedding banquet_..., but this is not the case in your example. I can't see any good reason to change from present continuous to present simple.


----------



## srb62

I think it's possible (though not the most common possibility) to have 'my sister does have a car and so do I' 
perhaps along these lines:
'Your sister doesn't have a car and neither do you'
'My sister does have a car.... and so do I'


----------



## Klavier

obz said:


> And just to throw a wrench in the gears, the verb "has" is similar to "do" in that it has a standard verbal function, and a more auxiliary one (perfect tenses). The "so am I" or "so do I", etc, do need to agree, here is a break down..
> 
> My sister _*has owned*_ a car, and *so have I. *
> My sister _*had owned*_ a car, and _*so had I..*_
> My sister _*has*_ a car, and _*so do I.* _
> My sister _*is*_ going to get a car, and _*so am I*. _



What about this example I found:
I*’ve got* a lot of money. ~ *So* *have I*.    

In this case, it should be also So do I, because have is not an auxiliary verb here. Or are they both correct?


----------



## obz

Klavier said:


> What about this example I found:
> I*’ve got* a lot of money. ~ *So* *have I*.
> 
> Have is a peculiar verb.
> In this case, it should be also So do I, because have is not an auxiliary verb here. Or are they both correct?




It's the auxiliary verbs that need to to agree. _'Have'_ has an auxiliary use, and a normal transitive type verb use (haber/tener).
But_, Have_ is a peculiar verb. In this case, and others like it, both are valid. I personally use 'do' when in the transitive sense.

_I have a car - *So do I.* (transitive - Tengo coche - Yo tambi_én_)_
_I have seen a car - *So have I.* (auxiliary - He visto un coche - __Yo tambi_én_)_

However;

_I have a car - *So have I* (transitive - Tengo coche - __Yo tambi_én_)_

Is perfectly correct as well. Though I think you will find this use is less common in North America, and more common in other English speaking areas.


----------



## Agró

Klavier said:


> What about this example I found:
> I*’ve got* a lot of money. ~ *So* *have I*.
> 
> In this case, it should be also So do I, because have is not an auxiliary verb here. Or are they both correct?



Sí es un auxiliar aquí: _I *have *got_ (Present Perfect), por tanto lo correcto es _So *have *I_.
Si la frase fuese _I *have *a lot of money_, entonces _So *do *I_ sería correcto.


----------



## obz

Agró said:


> Sí es un auxiliar aquí: _I *have *got_ (Present Perfect), por tanto lo correcto es _So *have *I_.
> Si la frase fuese _I *have *a lot of money_, entonces _So *do *I_ sería correcto.



I disagree, Argo.
It is transitive here. 'I have got' is... not a perfect past tense. That would be 'I have gotten'.

'I have got' for all intents and purposes is equal to 'I have', it's simple present and transitive.
I agree that it can be confusing, and many natives actually use the tenses and participles....'wrong' at times. It remains true that what is understood with _'I have got'_ is the same as '_I have'._.. in the transitive sense. Perfectly unnecessary, and perfectly redundant, but not a perfect present or auxiliary use. 

Eg;

_'Have you got the time?' - 'I do, it's 5:30pm'_

Nothing auxiliary about this, it is simple present, and transitive.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, obz.

I agree with you when you say that _have got_ means exactly the same as _have_ — it is a Present Tense of _have_, not the Present Perfect of _get_ (what you call "perfect past" and "perfect present ).
_Got_-forms of _have_ are informal and most common in the present. Also, they are _not_ used in short answers or tags. I believe the following exchanges are correct:

- Have you got a light?
- No, I *haven't*.

and

-You've got a bike, *haven't* you? 

As regards the _transitivity_ of _have _(= *own, possess*), there'd be much to discuss. _Have_ is usually followed by a Noun Phrase, but that same NP is *never the object*/receiver/patient of any action on the part of the Subject. Some call it a mid-verb because, like transitives, it's followed by a NP, and like intransitives it doesn't have an object. 

Best.

GS


----------



## obz

> (what you call "perfect past" and "perfect present ).



Multitasking, my mistake. Perfect Present is indeed the name, and what I meant to say.



> believe the following exchanges are correct:
> 
> - Have you got a light?
> - No, I *haven't*.
> 
> and
> 
> -You've got a bike, *haven't* you?



I believe that's what I was saying. However these are all correct with 'do/don't' as well. 'You've got a bike, don't you?' Sorry if I was unclear, but this is exactly my point.




> As regards the _transitivity_ of _have _(= *own, possess*), there'd be much to discuss. _Have_ is usually followed by a Noun Phrase, but that same NP is *never the object*/receiver/patient of any action on the part of the Subject. Some call it a mid-verb because, like transitives, it's followed by a NP, and like intransitives it doesn't have an object.



Well, in the most basic sense of the word, it is transitive. _"A transitive verb is a verb that requires one or more objects in a sentence." 
_If there are grammarian hairs to be split about its true nature and classification, that's fine, but in the non auxiliary sense, it requires that _something be had_. To my mind that is transitive, but mid verb, whatever, in the sense of having a light, or the time, etc, it's not auxiliary. Which would normally necessitate_ 'do/don't'_ when agreeing/disagreeing, but since _have_ is an odd duck, we accept both do/have in the_ 'transitive sense',_  and obviously only_ 'have/have not'_ in the auxiliary (perfect present) sense.

Cheers.


----------



## gengo

obz said:


> I disagree, Argo.
> It is transitive here. 'I have got' is... not a perfect past tense. That would be 'I have gotten'.



And I must disagree with you, obz.  The "have" in "I have got" is indeed the auxiliary verb in the present perfect tense.  In AmEn we use "gotten" in other cases, but use "got" in the sense of possession, and Brits use "got" in all cases, to the best of my knowledge.  When we say "I've got five dollars," we are literally saying "I have obtained five dollars (and therefore now possess them)."



> _'Have you got the time?' - 'I do, it's 5:30pm'_
> Nothing auxiliary about this, it is simple present, and transitive.



Again, I disagree.  From a grammatical standpoint, that construction is in the present perfect tense, and literally means "have you obtained the time?"  Of course, the way we use it is the same in meaning as "do you have the time?," but when we are talking about grammar, we have to look at the construction and not just the meaning.

I agree with you that in AmEn, at least, we do indeed use "do" to affirm statements with "have got" (in the sense of possession) but that is only because we are thinking of the construction as being present tense, even though grammatically it is not.

Ex.
You've got time, don't you?  (rarely "haven't you" in AmEn)

-Has she got enough money?  
-Yes, she does.  ("has" is also OK)

You've gotten ("got" in BrEn) cheated lots of times, haven't you?  (cannot be "don't you" here because no possession is involved).


----------



## obz

> . In AmEn we use "gotten" in other cases, but use "got" in the sense of possession, and Brits use "got" in all cases, to the best of my knowledge. When we say "I've got five dollars," we are literally saying "I have obtained five dollars (and therefore now possess them)."



Not in the example I cited. And I fully disagree about 'I have obtained' being implicit. It's present, possession as well. People use it all ways, which makes the subject complex.
-I've got 5 dollars... if I say this, I am in now way referring to the event in which I obtained the money, I am referring to the amount I have on my person, at the moment. 
-I got 5 dollars.... yes, obtained somehow somewhere.



> I agree with you that in AmEn, at least, we do indeed use "do" to affirm statements with "have got" (in the sense of possession) but that is only because we are thinking of the construction as being present tense, even though grammatically it is not.


It most certainly is present (as well as past) and grammatically correct. We aren't just thinking it's present tense, it is, see above. We even use 'I got 5 dollars' as a present tense, a vulgar contraction of 'I have got', but quite common.




> You've gotten ("got" in BrEn) cheated lots of times, haven't you? (cannot be "don't you" here because no possession is involved).



Here 100% agreed.


----------



## gengo

obz said:


> -I've got 5 dollars... if I say this, I am in now way referring to the event in which I obtained the money, I am referring to the amount I have on my person, at the moment.
> -I got 5 dollars.... yes, obtained somehow somewhere.



If you reread my previous post you'll see that I distinguish between usage and grammatical construction.  I completely agree with you that we use this form as if it were the present tense.  "I've got it" = "I have it (right now)" 

What I am saying, though, is that the construction is not the present tense, but the present perfect.  Saying otherwise only confuses learners.  We should tell them how it is constructed and why, and how it is actually used.  As a native English speaker, you have probably just never thought about "I've got five dollars" as being the present perfect tense because we don't use it in that meaning, but that is most definitely what it is.


----------



## obz

gengo said:


> What I am saying, though, is that the construction is not the present tense, but the present perfect.  Saying otherwise only confuses learners.  We should tell them how it is constructed and why, and how it is actually used.  As a native English speaker, you have probably just never thought about "I've got five dollars" as being the present perfect tense because we don't use it in that meaning, but that is most definitely what it is.



I'm saying it is not the Perfect Present implicitly, but the Present as well.

Here,

_'Have you met Lisa?' - 'Why yes, I have. We were introduced at an office function last year.'
_
Please respond in the same style to any of the following questions, elaborating on the past in which you obtained the objects in question.

_'Have you got the time?' -
'Have you got a light?' -
'Have got a dollar I can borrow?'_

If I asked someone if they have the time and they said '_Why yes I have, I got it many years ago when my grandfather passed away and left me this stunning pocket watch' _instead of just telling me what time it was,I would deduce that they were affected in the head, or goading me with sarcasm. Either way, responding to these types of questions, in every instance, with the method you suggest (pp), well it would be an unpleasant exchange for me, and I'm probably not the only one.

So this is a confusing topic, to be sure, but learners should understand the duality of the construction and learn to respond in kind. Saying it's the Perfect Present, when it isn't implicitly so, is not a good idea in my opinion.


----------



## Agró

El significado de "have got" es presente, nadie discute eso, pero _formalmente _se trata de un "Present Perfect", en sus componentes (auxiliar -_have/has_- + participio) y en su funcionamiento.

Raymond Murphy, en su _English Grammar in Use_ (Cambridge, 1985), aporta un ejemplo con _*neither *_que ratifica el uso de "have" como auxiliar (no he encontrado ningún ejemplo en afirmativa que hubiera, lógicamente, llevado a usar _*so*_):

_Sue *hasn't got* a car and neither *has *Martin_.

Puede que esto suene raro a oídos americanos pero es perfectamente habitual en inglés británico.


----------



## levmac

Agró said:


> El significado de "have got" es presente, nadie discute eso, pero _formalmente _se trata de un "Present Perfect", en sus componentes (auxiliar -_have/has_- + participio) y en su funcionamiento.



Excepto que "got" _no es_ el participio de get en el inglés americano. La estructura es una anomalía, y claramente está derivada del present perfect, pero ahora no tiene nada que ver en cuanto al sentido (en todas las versiones de inglés) ni en la estructura (en el inglés americano).  

I have got 10 dollars = Tengo 10 dólares.

I have gotten 10 dollars.= He recibido 10 dólares. (solo me suena normal en un contexto de "ever", por ejemplo para hablar del salario por horario que has conseguido en algún trabajo.)


----------



## gengo

obz said:


> I'm saying it is not the Perfect Present implicitly, but the Present as well.



Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying here.



> _'Have you met Lisa?' - 'Why yes, I have. We were introduced at an office function last year.'
> _
> Please respond in the same style to any of the following questions, elaborating on the past in which you obtained the objects in question.
> 
> _'Have you got the time?' - __Why yes, I have__
> 'Have you got a light?' -  __Why yes, I have__
> 'Have got a dollar I can borrow?'  __Why yes, I have_



Granted, people rarely if ever say that, but it is perfectly correct from a grammatical standpoint.  As I said, the reason we use "Yes, I do" more often is that we _think_ of this construction as being in the present tense, even though it is not, strictly speaking.



> If I asked someone if they have the time and they said '_Why yes I have, I got it many years ago when my grandfather passed away and left me this stunning pocket watch' _instead of just telling me what time it was,I would deduce that they were affected in the head, or goading me with sarcasm. Either way, responding to these types of questions, in every instance, with the method you suggest (pp), well it would be an unpleasant exchange for me, and I'm probably not the only one.



{sigh}
Once again, no one is saying that we use "I've got" in the _meaning_ of "I've obtained."  But that is the historical origin of the construction.  There is just no denying that.


----------



## obz

gengo said:


> {sigh}
> Once again, no one is saying that we use "I've got" in the _meaning_ of "I've obtained."  But that is the historical origin of the construction.  There is just no denying that.



You did. Unless we don't concur on the definition of 'literally'. Origins aside, it's what you said. I can't account for what you meant or inferred. So are we arguing something you said that you no longer mean to say?

_When we say "I've got five dollars," we are literally saying "I have obtained five dollars (and therefore now possess them)."_



> _'Have you got the time?' - Why yes, I have_



So you didn't read what I said. Elaborate, answer in kind to the example I put. Unless you are being sarcastic or goading me.




> Puede que esto suene raro a oídos americanos pero es perfectamente habitual en inglés británico.



No, it doesn't sound strange at all. It just sounds less common, like I said. I also said it is perfectly correct. My only point here is that 'have got' can be both the Present and the Perfect Present. But it is neither, implicitly. Context has to be assessed.


----------



## gengo

obz said:


> You did. Unless we don't concur on the definition of 'literally'. Origins aside, it's what you said. I can't account for what you meant or inferred. So are we arguing something you said that you no longer mean to say?
> 
> _When we say "I've got five dollars," we are literally saying "I have obtained five dollars (and therefore now possess them)."_



By "literally," I mean that that is what the words mean by themselves, outside of any context.  I thought it would be obvious that I wasn't saying that that is the meaning we intend to convey, but if that wasn't clear, I apologize.

No, I'm not goading you, but you seem to be having a hard time believing that "Have you got the time?" comes from a construction that originally meant "Have you obtained the time?"

We could argue this all day, but for the purposes of this forum, I am only saying that if I were a native Spanish speaker trying to learn English, it would help me understand this rather unusual and confusing construction if someone explained _why_ it is constructed as it is, and told me how it is actually used and in what sense in modern English.  That is what I've tried to do.

To recap, although the grammatical construction is in the present perfect tense, "I've got five dollars" is used in the sense of the present tense, and is exactly the same in meaning as "I have five dollars."


----------



## Klavier

gengo said:


> What I am saying, though, is that the construction is not the present tense, but the present perfect.  Saying otherwise only confuses learners.  We should tell them how it is constructed and why, and how it is actually used.  As a native English speaker, you have probably just never thought about "I've got five dollars" as being the present perfect tense because we don't use it in that meaning, but that is most definitely what it is.


I'm sorry, but I think IT IS confusing to say that this expression is the present perfect, when used as the present simple. It just looks like the present perfect, but we should study it as a full form as just another version of have.
Now, the present perfect version of this in AmE is _have gotten_, and in BrE is _have got_, so if you're studying BrE, you should be aware that have got can be used as a present simple (as a full form regardless of what it looks like) and as a present perfect (here taking into account that we have the form: verb + past participle of get).


----------



## obz

> By "literally," I mean that that is...



I didn't invent the word 'literally'. I just use it as its definition suggests - 'exactly'. If you mean something else when you say it, you should post a caveat, an asterisk  something so people know that you don't really mean 'literally'.
Again, inferring is tough on the internet.

You are the only one talking about 'where something came from'. This is not an etymology forum. I have no interest in accepting or not accepting the etymology of words or phrases.
I'm discussing what is written here, what things mean today, relative to the posts in this thread.  
I feel I have to be overly specific because now you, gengo, are accusing me of having a hard time accepting something  that wasn't even under discussion.
Sighs and things of the like give me little faith in your ability to have a discussion with someone who doesn't agree with you.

Grammatically, presently, and literally 'have got' is both the present, and perfect present.

Tell me the etymology, how it's used in another dialect, whatever. It's irrelevant (literally, exactly irrelevant), because the above statement is demonstrably true.


----------



## SevenDays

Parece que se nos escapa el hilo...
Para mí, o a mi entender, "have got" equivale a un _simple present_ en un uso enfático, donde "got" queda _desfuncionalizado_: _I've got to finish this project; I have got 10 dollars; I've got the time_ (_I have to finish this project, I have 10 dollars, I have the time_). El uso enfático siempre depende del hablante, pero el hablante no se lo puede imponer a la otra persona en la conversación. Por eso, para la pregunta _have you got a light? _el que responde puede decir _yes, I have_ o_ yes, I do_. No me puedo pronunciar sobre el inglés Británico, pero me parece que en el inglés Americano, "have gotten" tiende a referirse a una acción _ya acabada_, y "have got" más bien a un _estado_: _I've gotten the supplies_ (ya he completado la acción de conseguir los suministros); _I've got the supplies_ (los tengo). Pero, claro, no lo quiero pasar como una regla ni mucho menos.
Saludos


----------



## gengo

SevenDays said:


> Para mí, o a mi entender, "have got" equivale a un _simple present_ en un uso enfático, donde "got" queda _desfuncionalizado_: _I've got to finish this project; I have got 10 dollars; I've got the time_ (_I have to finish this project, I have 10 dollars, I have the time_). El uso enfático siempre depende del hablante, pero el hablante no se lo puede imponer a la otra persona en la conversación. Por eso, para la pregunta _have you got a light? _el que responde puede decir _yes, I have_ o_ yes, I do_. No me puedo pronunciar sobre el inglés Británico, pero me parece que en el inglés Americano, "have gotten" tiende a referirse a una acción _ya acabada_, y "have got" más bien a un _estado_: _I've gotten the supplies_ (ya he completado la acción de conseguir los suministros); _I've got the supplies_ (los tengo). Pero, claro, no lo quiero pasar como una regla ni mucho menos.



That is a very good summary of the situation.


----------

