Language desk
< January 8	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 9

Can one use "to do" to intensify a modal verb in English?

Hello, again!

English is extremely unusual—if not unique—among the major world languages in that it has a verb, to do, that one can substitute for any other non-auxiliary verb in the language (except to be).

e.g.

It would be nice if they served pizza, here.
"They do!"

But->

I'd like her car better if it were blue.
It is!

And->

We'd probably enjoy ourselves more if you could play the piano.
I can!

Also, in non-auxiliary verbs (except "to be") in the active voice, simple aspect, and present and past tenses, to do also serves to intensify said verbs.

e.g.

I finished my homework.
I did finish my homework.

He drives carefully.
He does drive carefully.

—————So far, so good, right?—————

I can't help but wonder how (if at all) this relates to both auxiliary verbs as well as to do and to be. [In a very recent post], I lamented the forming of homonym chains.

e.g.

You do this quite well.
You do do this, quite well.

Not to beat a dead horse, but this strikes me as apt to lose the reader's attention.

Also, the following strikes me as very bad English.

e.g.

They are happy to be here.
They do be happy to be here.

And when it comes to modal verbs, I don't even know where to begin!

e.g.

She may sleep in his room while he is away on vacation.
She does be permitted to sleep in his room while he is away on vacation.

We need pour a solider foundation before we attempt to build so tall a structure.
We do need pour a solider foundation before we attempt to build so tall a structure.

I myself believe that to do has no place whatsoever, as an intensifier, in these sentences. Several English professors, however, have told me that it actually may have a place intensifying dare and need—but not can, may, or ought.

And furthermore, when it comes to must, I have become completely bewildered! As I've [| mentioned before], that verb is quite possibly the most difficult one, in 21st-Century English, to properly conjugate.

e.g.

All cars in that lane must exit the motorway.
All cars in that lane do have to exit the motorway.

The American soldiers had to stop their advance at the Elbe river.
The American soldiers did have to stop their advance at the Elbe river.

What you do think, out of curiosity? Except for to be (or a modal-verb tense that uses to be) would it seem proper to use to do to intensify not only simple verbs, but also auxiliary verbs?

Thank you. Pine (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So first of all, "need" is not ordinarily considered a modal verb in English, with the possible exception of a few non-productive fixed phrases like "if need be" (and I'm not actually sure it's a modal there). *We need pour a solider foundation is ungrammatical.

Most of your examples with "do have to" and so on actually sound fine. But again, "have" is not a modal.

With the genuine modal verbs, like "can", "could", "will", "would", "may", "might", "must", I really don't think do-support is possible. All the examples I can think of are obviously ungrammatical, like *he does can drive fast. --Trovatore (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the genuine modal verbs, like "can", "could", "will", "would", "may", "might", "must", I really don't think do-support is possible. All the examples I can think of are obviously ungrammatical, like *he does can drive fast.

No argument here, Trov, considering that can is a finite tense, a more appropriate—if admittedly makeshift—infinitive being to be able to. My question relates, though, to whether one may use do-support on such a jury-rigged periphrase.

e.g.

Yes	He can drive fast.
No	He does can drive fast.
No	He does be able to drive fast.
Maybe?	He does remain able to drive fast.

If one "swats the bes," (with apology to usage commentator Edward Good) then is do-support possible? For what it's worth, I believe in only using it in simple tenses, lest it cause the reader's eyes to glaze over. Some English professors, though, have told me otherwise.

Pine (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You probably need to listen to your English professors more as some of the sentences you have written are invalid.

They do be happy to be here. - invalid; should be "They are happy...".
She does be permitted to sleep in his room while he is away on vacation. - invalid; should be "She is permitted..."
We do need pour a solider foundation before we attempt to build so tall a structure. - invalid in several respects: "We do need to pour a more solid foundation..." is what it should be.
All cars in that lane do have to exit the motorway. - valid, but strange; "...lane must exit.." would be more usual.
He does remain able to drive fast. - invalid; "He remains able...".

The rest are fine, normal, everyday English. Bazza (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that last one is possible. For example: "After his accident, he is no longer able to walk very well, but he does remain able to drive fast." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.23.915} 90.200.41.3 (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same with #4, e.g. "All cars in that lane do have to exit the motorway, but they can get back on at the next interchange." 93.139.63.123 (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is quite simple: You can use "do " as an intensifier, if and only if you can use "don't ". HOTmag (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the proposed uses of "do" above, for example "they do be happy to be here" are perfectly proper in some dialects of English. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even in my dialect, they sound possible, though forced. On the other hand, *we need pour a solider foundation is completely ungrammatical. --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it needs to be "need to". However, in the negative it can be either "we don't need to" or simply "we need not". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's true. I've never figured out what's going on there. Is it a one-off, or is there some larger explanation? You can kind of do the same thing with "dare", though it sounds old-fashioned. --Trovatore (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I kid you not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:-). But that's not the same thing. You can't say *he kid you not. But you can say he dare not venture further, if you don't mind sounding a bit Victorian. --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But also "need" and "dare" are not the same thing, the difference between them being even bigger than the difference between "kid" and "dare", because the difference between "need" and "dare" is not only with "He" (as in your example of kid/dare) but also with "I": You can't say *I need say, But you can say I dare say. HOTmag (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more question that I'd like to ask as long as we're on the subject: Was do-support always required in order to form the interrogative mood before the advent of Modern English?

Viz., once upon a time, might one have formed simple-tense questions simply by inverting the order of verb and pronoun, without using to do as an auxiliary?

Did they go away?
Went they away?

Does she love me?
Loves me she?

I apologize if this is a stupid question, but it's one that's been gnawing at me for quite some time. Pine (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Went the Day Well?. DuncanHill (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vo imja Otsa i Suna i Switaho Ducha, @Twinpinesmall: (User:Twinpinesmall), what have you been doing at the English wikipedia for the last DECADE if you don't speak English? μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twinpinesmall -- it would be "Loves she me?" ... AnonMoos (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was common before the advent of Modern English, and indeed in Early Modern English, as you can see from the King James Version of the Bible: "Sayest thou this thing of thyself?", "Simon, sleepest thou?", "Lovest thou me more than these?". It survived still later in poetic or literary English: "Wakest thou or sleep'st", "Breathes there the man?", "Say you so?". --Antiquary (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read above that need isn't a modal other than in certain fossilized expressions. No: for a significant percentage of speakers of L1 English, it can be a modal. However, as a modal, it's a non-affirmative item (more conventionally called an NPI). Therefore "You needn't stay here" and "Need you make such a racket?" are grammatical (for me), but *"You need stay here" is not. (Modal dare is similar.)

You've missed another (very) marginal modal: use (pronounced with /s/). For a small and diminishing number of English speakers, %"Used they to go there?" is acceptable. (I think that lexical use, "Did they use to go there?", is acceptable for all. People get nervous about the spelling, but this is a side issue.) Lexical use can of course be used with do: "We did use to play tennis on Thursdays: you must have forgotten" (again with the nervousness about spelling).

I read above of "to be (or a modal-verb tense that uses to be)". I've no idea of what the latter might mean. Anyway, be can be a lexical verb as well as an auxiliary verb; the former can and does take do-support. A more polite alternative to "Oh do shut up" is "Oh do be quiet". Those people still won't shut up? I'll have to appeal to them more forcefully: "If you don't be quiet, I'll call the police." (Note that in this context, an unthinking conversion into auxiliary be would bring a result that -- to me at least -- would sound strange: #"If you aren't quiet, I'll call the police".)

All of this and very much more is explained excellently within The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. The book is expensive, but delivers over 1800 rather densely printed (if very legible) pages. So it represents good value for money. The explanation given in that book for what you're asking about is that modal verbs lack any secondary form (e.g. *"musting"), that a catenative construction with do takes the plain form (which for any verb other than be is identical to the plain present form), that the plain form is a secondary form, and that you therefore can't have the sequence DO+modal. -- Hoary (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

And I do thank everybody who contributed. :)

Pine (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Thomas and Prince

How much use does "São Tomé and Príncipe" get? I can't immediately remember seeing much of anything that uses this name, aside from our article. I've occasionally encountered "St. Thomas and Prince", but aside from that, pretty much everything I remember reading is either "Sao Tome and Principe" or "São Tomé e Príncipe"; having diacritics and "and" is unusual in my experience. The CIA World Factbook, the BBC, an international-relations center at the University of Denver, and the UN (member states directory and permanent mission pages) all use "and" and no diacritics, while the English-language pages on the Republic's governmental websites are nonexistent, so I can't see how they represent themselves in English. Neither the US nor the UK has an embassy there, nor vice versa, so there aren't relevant websites there either.

So...can someone find me some significant sources that use diacritics and "and"? I'm looking for authoritative sources, not popular and inexpert stuff like newspapers. Or must I conclude that virtually all authoritative sources use "e" and diacritics, or "and" and no diacritics? Nyttend backup (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the old diacritic wars. Good luck with that. --Jayron 32 20:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While you left this note, I was modifying my question, although I presume that you'd have said the same thing if you'd seen the revised version. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought it was an early collaboration album we had all missed. I had never even heard of these islands... but it seems they have some lovely stamps, all with diacritics, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All schoolboy philatelists know of this place, from spending uncountable hours of delight perusing Stanley Gibbons' Stamps of the World, which incidentally is a first hand way of learning one's history and geography. If you weren't of this ilk, you had an exceptionally severely deprived childhood. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best in our relatively modest coastal home, but I enjoyed philatelic nerdism closer to home. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

From the movie Duck Soup, when Groucho and Margaret are getting romantic:

Mrs. Teasdale: Rufus, what are you thinking of?

Rufus T. Firefly: Oh, I was just thinking of all the years I wasted collecting stamps.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies in railroading this entire thread. We can expect a hat soon, I fear. But in answer to Nyttend backup, that looks to me like an inter-langage amalgam. Martinevans123 (talk)

Hats usually have some sort of grounds. Is boringdom the ground on which you want this thread hatted, @Martinevans123:? Or is it something else? See WP:ANI. But do NOT ping me. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question Nyttend backup, the International Monetary Fund does indeed use all the diacritics together with the translated "and" in São Tomé and Príncipe, selected issues and statistical appendix and again in this report. I also found one or two tourist guide books using the same formula, such as this one. Alansplodge (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that; it's good to know that we're not unique :-) And I've been a stamp collector for years and years; the Scott catalogue is the only place I remember seeing "St. Thomas and Prince" as the preferred name for the country. Nyttend backup (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]