Pedants' Paradise

[ahinton]

[deleted: duplicate]

[jean]

Thank you jean. I hear "I/we do apologize" often and wondered about the added emphasis.

But the question I didn't answer is why we do this.

The alternative form is available to us because at some point in the past we began to use what linguists (or linguisticians) call do-support for negatives and interrogatives. The reasons are surprisingly unclear:

What set the historical stage for the rise of supportive do? Historical linguists point to the following: the influences of Scandinavian Old Norse and Norman French, loss of case, inflections and verb movement; transition from SOV word order to SVO; disappearance of the French negative marker ne; appearance of post-verbal not ... rise of affix-hopping and auxiliary verbs; and the rising importance of word order and subject position...

Other historical linguists argue that the ability to introduce a one-syllable ‘dummy’ word such as do was a big help to Middle English poets, since do could be used as an auxiliary to complete metrical rhythms and rhymes in their verse, e.g.: ‘Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May...’ (Shakespeare, Sonnet 18). In this regard, Jespersen believes the periphrastic do “served chiefly to fill up the line and to make it possible to place the infinitive at the end as a convenient rime-word [in poetry]” ...

...The benefits of do-support can be understood best by analyzing more complex sentences. For example, if the following line from Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing (act IV, sc. II) ‘What heard you him say else’ were uttered in a modern English conversation, the listener would most likely draw a blank. It is interesting to note that Shakespeare’s plays include passages with and without do-support, as the 16th century was reportedly a period when this construction was still optional. “One consequence of the slow development of do-support is the existence of two systems for a time as exemplified in Shakespeare’s English”...Additional examples of competing linguistic constructions include: ‘I know not how I lost him’ (Othello) and ‘Why do we hold our tongues?’ (Macbeth)...

Historically, it appears that we were using a non-emphatic do in declarative sentences before its use in negative and interrogative sentences became standard.

[vinteuil]

.

... many thanks for that, jean.

What a to do!

[Alain Maréchal]

jean, thank you, I had no idea it was so long established. I hear it, it irritates me, and as usual I assume that anything which irritates me must be a neologism. I share Mr. Hardcastle's view of the new.

[Sir Velo]

jean, thank you, I had no idea it was so long established. I hear it, it irritates me, and as usual I assume that anything which irritates me must be a neologism. I share Mr. Hardcastle's view of the new.

Yes but that's partly, I would hazard, because you relate it to the way in which French is constructed. where this formulation does not exist. It is an added emphasis in English, a nuance in our language, which most English speakers understand, even if they couldn't explain it. For example, by inserting "do" it is a clear way of emphasising sincerity - "I do sympathise"; "I do understand" "I do love you, darling".

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Yes but that's partly, I would hazard, because you relate it to the way in which French is constructed. where this formulation does not exist. It is an added emphasis in English, a nuance in our language, which most English speakers understand, even if they couldn't explain it. For example, by inserting "do" it is a clear way of emphasising sincerity - "I do sympathise"; "I do understand" "I do love you, darling".

- possibly an offshoot from when people were questioned about the credibility of what they did? ("Do you really believe that?!" "I do, indeed!" / "Do you actually like Wagner?!" "Yes, I do!" / "Do you take this wo/man to be ... " )

[Sir Velo]

- possibly an offshoot from when people were questioned about the credibility of what they did? ("Do you really believe that?!" "I do, indeed!" / "Do you actually like Wagner?!" "Yes, I do!" / "Do you take this wo/man to be ... " )

Exactly. Also, "I do go to the gym three times a week"; "I do pay my taxes"; "I do believe in democracy"...

[jean]

- possibly an offshoot from when people were questioned about the credibility of what they did? ("Do you really believe that?!" "I do, indeed!" / "Do you actually like Wagner?!" "Yes, I do!" / "Do you take this wo/man to be ... " )

The modern emphatic use of 'do' in declarative sentences is certainly related these days to its use in interrogative and negative sentences in the manner that you suggest.

It might seem that that's where it originates, but not so; 'do' in declarative sentences was an option before the interrogative and negative versions were established, and (as can be seen from the Shakespeare examples) was just an available alternative, often to fill up the metre, and wasn't particularly emphatic.

What's even more interesting is that Alain produced a perfectly-judged example of the modern, emphatic, usage even while he was irritated by it:

Thank you ff, although that article was difficult to unpick...I did learn that I used elision when I should have written contraction. I think.

[Padraig]

Exactly. Also, "I do go to the gym three times a week"; "I do pay my taxes"; "I do believe in democracy"...

A statement? Or a defence?

I do believe the gentleman protests too much.

[Lat-Literal]

A statement? Or a defence?

I do believe the gentleman protests too much.

Yes, quite.

"He is to be doubted" versus "Be in no doubt".

Also, I find ferney's point about the marriage vows persuasive.

[jean]

Also, I find ferney's point about the marriage vows persuasive.

"Do you take this wo/man to be ... " )

What's interesting there is that the priest's question (according to the BCP) is not Do you take... but rather Wilt thou have this Woman to thy wedded wife? to which the reply is I will.

Do you/I do isn't there at all.

[Serial_Apologist]

Wonderful discussion about a matter I would otherwise never have considered - thanks to all!

[Lat-Literal]

What's interesting there is that the priest's question (according to the BCP) is not Do you take... but rather Wilt thou have this Woman to thy wedded wife? to which the reply is I will.

Do you/I do isn't there at all.

Oh yes.

I see what you mean.

That might change things.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

What's interesting there is that the priest's question (according to the BCP) is not Do you take... but rather Wilt thou have this Woman to thy wedded wife? to which the reply is I will.

Do you/I do isn't there at all.

Interesting: having never taken such a vow, I'd never noticed the precise wording - although it does sound familiar. Is the BCP wording used nowadays - for all religious/civil ceremonies, and does the "Do you ... " version not exist? (If so, it spoils the joke in #3336 - but offers another for elderly gentlemen taking such vows.)

[jean]

Having only arrived at being married via a civil partnership ceremony whose wording I cannot now remember, I don't know the answers to your questions - except that I've often heard it said that we think the wording of the marriage service is 'I do' when actually it isn't.

I'll see if I can find some evidence for that as a common misapprehension.