This question is prompted by (and I see it more as a combination, rather than a mere duplicate of) the following questions previously asked on this forum:
this older one with recent activity concerning
the lack of indefinite articles when announcing/declaring one’s profession
(e.g., “Je suis peintre”)
and this newer one concerning “[the use of] “en” with the verb “être.”
Taking “advocat” and “Je suis advocat” as an example of describing or declaring one’s profession, I’ve witnessed on several occasions anglophone lawyers being [good-naturedly] questioned by French speakers if they truly meant to say:
“I am an advocado” when announcing “Je suis un avocat”
because otherwise they should have said simply “Je suis avocat” to let it be known that they are lawyers.
Although I seriously doubt that the simple inclusion of the “un” in the above exchange does, in fact, change the meaning as drastically as my nit-picking French wife^^ would have me believe, it does make me wonder if the indefinite article should (or at least can) also be omitted by a fellow lawyer who wants to respond using the “J’en suis [un?] aussi” construction to say:
“Moi aussi [je suis avocat, moi aussi]”?
In short:
1) Would “J’en suis, aussi” in response to “Je suis avocat” (or any profession where the indefinite article is omitted) be correct, or can/should one include the article (i.e., “J’en suis un, aussi”) without fear, in the case of a lawyer, of the “un” transforming “avocat” to mean the main ingredient of guacamole? And, of course;
2) Why and/or why not?
(^^the said nit-picker says she’d avoid the issue altogether by using “Je suis avocat/e aussi” or simply “Moi aussi” but if pressed to use “en+être,” she’d use “J’en suis un/e aussi,” but was unable to provide any logical explanation of why the omission/inclusion of the article has meaning in the initial declaration but not in the response)
