Re: Is "do" derived? (was Re: Question about "do")
|From:||Thomas R. Wier <trwier@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, July 29, 2003, 0:08|
Quoting Nik Taylor <yonjuuni@...>:
> Roger Mills wrote:
> > "Do" also serves to replace a verb phrase in anaphora:
> > He likes toast and jam, and I do too, or
> > .........but I don't.
> > And in the tag questions--
> > He likes toast and jam, doesn't he?
> > He doesn't like toast and jam, does he?
> > There's also the British usage (which may be on its way out, though one
> > still hears it in TV imports)--
> > He doesn't go to church as often as he used to do.
> For these reasons, I'm tempted to analyze the do forms as the *basic*
> form, with the "simple" present and past as being derived. Thus, "He
> likes toast and jam" would be underlyingly "He does like toast and
> jam". Thus, it behaves just like any other auxiliary "He will eat toast
> and jam, but I won't", "He has eaten the toast and jam, hasn't he?".
> The rule then being that when do is unstressed in an affirmative
> statement, the do-less forms are used.
The usual way of phrasing this is that tense is an obligatory
feature of English syntax, and the tense marker has to surface
in the morphology *somewhere*. Whether it surfaces on the auxilliary
or the lexical verb, the system doesn't much care.
Thomas Wier "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally,
Dept. of Linguistics because our secret police don't get it right
University of Chicago half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of
1010 E. 59th Street Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter.
Chicago, IL 60637