Removal of 'do' (etc.)

[Bijo]

As you know, in English it is common to apply 'do' in phrases such as:
Do you know what occurred?
Did you read the book?
I did not view it as such.
You did not sleep well.
Do not be afraid.
Etcetera. It has an auxiliary use. My idea is the following: remove the unnecessary forms of 'do' and always rephrase. Observe:
Know you what occurred? (OR You know what occurred?)
You read the book?
I viewed it not as such.
You slept badly.
Be not afraid.Etcetera.


Another use of 'do' would be:
Do come!Utilized to signify emphasis. This I find... acceptable :saint:
What say you?

[Pannonian]

I n't give a...

[Whacker]

Speaking fine now am I, like yoda!

[Csargo]

Some of them would work fine, but the other's are just plain weird.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Know you what occurred? (OR You know what occurred?)
You read the book?[QUOTE]
These two can be simple sentences also, making inflection very important.

[QUOTE] I viewed it not as such.
That's weird.


You slept badly.
Good.

I do not see the point of this. (The point of this, I see not)

Unnecessary complication.

CR

[Bijo]

I do not see the point of this. (The point of this, I see not)

Unnecessary complication.

CR Actually: "I see not the point (t)hereof" or "I see not the point of this(/it)" but I get you. Perhaps you recall the language optimization thread. This is something like it.

Perhaps a fitting description is that it goes in the direction of "archaic" nature or that it would resemble more a language like German or Dutch in phrase construction. It is true that English has had much of what is Germanic anyway.

The auxiliary usage of do is clear and common, but it still adds an... "unnecessary" word.

[Gregoshi]

Know you that speaking like this can get you in deep do-do? ~;)

I'll give you your do's, it is an interesting thought.

[KukriKhan]

Marriage ceremonies would need to be reworded. And court-swearing-in of witnesses.

I look forward with anticipation, to exploring elimination of word "the"; talk about an unnecessary word.

[Andres]

I look forward with anticipation, to exploring elimination of word "the"; talk about an unnecessary word.

How about the elimination of "taxes"...

[Warmaster Horus]

I look forward with anticipation, to exploring elimination of word "the"; talk about an unnecessary word.

Indeed, it is most unnecessary word of english language. Find you not, that it is best word to be eliminated?

Joking aside, I think English is fine the way it is.

[Bijo]

Heh heh heh :) The removal of 'the' and still having proper expressive linguistical ability must be possible. Everything is possible. Main problem I foresee is the mentalities of people, as they would have to acquaint themselves with it.


EDIT: ATTEMPT AT REMOVAL OF 'THE':
Heh heh heh :) Removal of 'the' and still having proper expressive linguistical ability must be possible. Everything is possible. Main problem I foresee is mentalities of people, as they would have to acquaint themselves with it.

[Warmaster Horus]

Everything is relative, too. Therefore, possibility is relative. I mean, ask a blind (since birth) man to admire the view, and there is no way he'll do that.

And, anyway, there's enough trouble in the world. Let's not add to it the difficulties of language.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Do away with do? You want English to sound like a pidging, n't you?

You'd be amazed at the extend to which English can be reduced to it's bare essentials while still being comprehensible. Strip it of all its auxilliaries, dummies, and words whose function is not immediately clear to non-native speakers, and you'll end up with: 'Long time no see!' 'Yes, me buy bana-bana, for cook!' 'Love you long time, mister!'
It's amazing how perfectly comprehensible it is. However, go a few steps beyond that, and eventually you'll end up with a creole-like language:

1. The verb 'to do' belongs in English. Without it, it sounds confusing. We don't want to reduce it to some sort of pidgin just to make English more 'comprehensible', do we?
2. Do belongs English. Without do, is buggered up. We not want talk pidgin for make talk easier. No?
3. Do bilong na ingles. No do bilong bagarap. No wan tokim pisin for make easy tok. No?

Yep, that's an existing language in my last example. It's a creole from New Guinea. I have probably made a few mistakes, because I don't actually speak it of course, but they'll uderstand it perfectly in Port Moresby.

[Bijo]

After heeding your words, dear Louis, I am to conclude they are irrelevant to the actual question which regards not the verb '(to) do' to be excluded in totality nor the construction of a "pidgin" language, but the removal of auxiliary utilization of the verb (to) do in the English language.

I find your attempts at a pidgin-like English, however, interesting indeed.

[Hosakawa Tito]

There can be no Wah Diddy Diddy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fh7B5zWHzw) without the Do. And that would be a tragedy of epic proportions.

[Marshal Murat]

To do is the same as any verb.
To talk, you don't say I to did to talked Louis
The auxiliary verbs are helpful for continued emphasis.

The auxiliary verbs make it a question, and add or subtract emphasis.
As wikipedia puts it...

an auxiliary (also called helping verb, auxiliary verb, or verbal auxiliary) is a verb functioning to give further semantic or syntactic information about the main or full verb following it. In English, the extra meaning an auxiliary verb imparts alters the basic form of the main verb

Did Mary walk dog? If do not add emphasis, or remove, do, then you cannot find the meaning of the sentence. It could mean...

Mary walk dog!
A very good thing Mary did, walking that dog.
Mary walk dog?
Well, has the dog been walked?
Mary walk dog.
So Mary walked the dog.

While you examples would require more work, shifting subject and verb around.

Did and do add emphasis and provide a context.
If your willing to take out 'to do' as an auxiliary verb, then it would make English more jumbled and confusing.....
Don't reply, I know you'll point out every little 'illogical' thing about the entire argument. I don't care.

[Papewaio]

After heeding your words, dear Louis, I am to conclude they are irrelevant to the actual question which regards not the verb '(to) do' to be excluded in totality nor the construction of a "pidgin" language, but the removal of auxiliary utilization of the verb (to) do in the English language.

I find your attempts at a pidgin-like English, however, interesting indeed.

Actually I think it is highly relevant when a Frenchman and a sterling example of such stands up and defends the English language.

The wording you use Bijo lacks elegance. A human language is not an old style programming language. Human languages need to be effective not efficient. While with old school programming languages you try and make it as compressed as possible, when it comes to writing pseudo-code or later versions of programming it is better to elaborate on what one is doing... makes it far easier to troubleshoot. Which in essence is what do does... it is an effective word in making it easier for a native listener to understand what is being said. At the end of the day the aim of language is effective communication, it is far better to include words and get a message clearly across rather then delete bits and pieces and make assumptions.

In my work sphere an assumption is a very bad thing and to assume is normally broken up into its pieces to remind fledgling techs why not to do so...
"To assume is to make an ass of u and me."

[Tribesman]

"To assume is to make an ass of u and me."

Well if you extend the proposed reworking of the English language and remove the word "me" then only the other fella is an ass :yes:

[Spetulhu]

Leaving out the filler words is possible but not elegant. As my friend the teacher says, English looks like it does today because it sounds good. When in doubt you always choose the option that sounds better.

[Lemur]

Why would you want to eliminate "to do"? And why stop there, since "to do" is rivaled in popularity only by "to be." If you're going to mangle the tongue, go all-out.

[Whacker]

This is all completely irrelevant. As I've said countless times we all need to learn one of the African Click Languages and make that the American official tongue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_language

End of discussion.

Close thread here.

----------------->SNIP<-------------------

[Lemur]

Nonsense, we should all learn Manx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manx_language), the natural universal language. SUre, it may have only sixty-odd speakers, but that's an accident of history. Those sixty Manx-speakers will spread out across the globe, and bring peace and harmony through their superior linguistics.

[Papewaio]

So can I speak an entire click language using a pen click-click-click... or a mouse button.

[discovery1]

This is all completely irrelevant. As I've said countless times we all need to learn one of the African Click Languages and make that the American official tongue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_language

End of discussion.

Close thread here.

----------------->SNIP<-------------------



Click-click-clook-click

[Whacker]

So can I speak an entire click language using a pen click-click-click... or a mouse button.

No no no you Philistine! :grin: There's many nuances in the clicking. For example Click isn't the same as click, which is different from cLick and cliCK.

Edit - See? Disco has it! You're outnumbered Lemur!

[Papewaio]

So I just have to raid the stationary cupboard for a range of pens... make my desk like a mini-me church organ made out of biros...

[Bijo]

To do is the same as any verb.
To talk, you don't say I to did to talked Louis
The auxiliary verbs are helpful for continued emphasis.

The auxiliary verbs make it a question, and add or subtract emphasis.
As wikipedia puts it...


Did Mary walk dog? If do not add emphasis, or remove, do, then you cannot find the meaning of the sentence. It could mean...

Mary walk dog!
A very good thing Mary did, walking that dog.
Mary walk dog?
Well, has the dog been walked?
Mary walk dog.
So Mary walked the dog.

While you examples would require more work, shifting subject and verb around.

Did and do add emphasis and provide a context.
If your willing to take out 'to do' as an auxiliary verb, then it would make English more jumbled and confusing.....
Don't reply, I know you'll point out every little 'illogical' thing about the entire argument. I don't care. If you desire no respone due to lack of caring and my critical mind, then avoid replying yourself in the first case. That attitude should exclude you from being read even. And as I quickly noticed your attitude at the end, I indeed avoided reading the rest.

[Bijo]

Actually I think it is highly relevant when a Frenchman and a sterling example of such stands up and defends the English language.
His irrelevant words to the actual topic were addressed, not him -- as a Frenchman -- defending the English language.



The wording you use Bijo lacks elegance.
False. Upon careful analysis one would find it to be elegant -- even without said analysis one is to remark it. And this disregards ego, but includes mere fact-stating.

el·e·gance
n.

Refinement, grace, and beauty in movement, appearance, or manners.
Tasteful opulence in form, decoration, or presentation.
Restraint and grace of style.
Scientific exactness and precision.

Restraint and grace of style.
Scientific exactness and precision.
Something elegant.If my precision, my cautious selection of words, the manner wherein I phrase, the refinement, and so forth, are absent, which is illogical, then perhaps you, sir, are an extra-terrestrial life form having a grayish skin colour, large black flat eyes shaped ovally, and small thin physical stature. With or without the auxiliary utilization of 'do', elegance is present and not lacking.




The wording you use Bijo lacks elegance. A human language is not an old style programming language. Human languages need to be effective not efficient. While with old school programming languages you try and make it as compressed as possible, when it comes to writing pseudo-code or later versions of programming it is better to elaborate on what one is doing... makes it far easier to troubleshoot. Which in essence is what do does... it is an effective word in making it easier for a native listener to understand what is being said. At the end of the day the aim of language is effective communication, it is far better to include words and get a message clearly across rather then delete bits and pieces and make assumptions.
I have merely raised the point of the removal of auxiliary usage of 'do' in English and you speak of programming languages, pseudo code and the likes. Naturally, the human language English is to remain a "natural human" one, but they are to change as it has always been so. The previous point before this current quote may address this to some extent as well, for it appears you intended to have the first sentance and the following one adjoined as is the whole paragraph.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Actually I think it is highly relevant when a Frenchman and a sterling example of such stands up and defends the English language.

The wording you use Bijo lacks elegance. A human language is not an old style programming language. Human languages need to be effective not efficient.Yes, that's it. Human language needs to be expressive first and foremost. And I will admit English is a fantastic language has some redeeming factors in this respect.

It is not done anymore, considered too brutal, but in previous centuries they would often castrate great boy singers. This way, they would grow up a singer with female vocal cords powered by male lungs. A stunning combination.
English has a germanic grammar with a thick layer of Latin vocabulary on top. Like the voices of the castratos, a tremendously powerful combination. English grammar is very simplified compared to its germanic root sources. It's direct, clear, compact. English vocabulary on the other hand is sheer unlimited, drawing from an endless number of influences. There's a word for everything. Often two words for the same object, differing not in content but in register, emotional connotation. The combination makes for a very versatile, expressive language.

The poem below shows what English feels like to me. An endless repetition of short words, in a straightforward structure, to the point, brutally direct. It is not luscious, elegant, sophisticated, gracious or delicate. It also isn't frivolous, bombastic and superficial.
English is powerful, vivid, passionate. Simply breathtaking when used to its full potential by great poets.

I've picked Thomas' poem for three reasons: it is one of my favourite poems; it shows the quality of English in expressing passionate, fiery emotion; and it uses a dummy 'do' to great effect:

Dylan Thomas:


Do not go gentle into that good night,

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

[Myrddraal]

Elegance in maths is used to describe a neat and simple way to encapsulate a proof or method. Elegance in a language doesn't come from streamlining.

Removing words can only reduce the ways one can express oneself. If there is a language that can provide a phrase or word that can express your thoughts exactly (with all it's subtleties) then that language must surely be the most elegant.

Removing words on the basis that they are supplementary to the basic meaning of the phrase will remove everything but basic communication. To communicate something more subtle or even simple things without auxiliary words would hardly be elegant.

For example, in normal conversation, if elegance is simplicity and restraint (as in the mathematical usage):

X: I saw John yesterday.
Y: You saw John yesterday? Is it not true that Paul said he was undertaking an apprenticeship in Scotland?

Or:

X: I saw John yesterday.
Y: You did? Didn't Paul say he was doing an apprenticeship in Scotland?


Or in times when the message is more subtle:

Do you love me? - Doubting something that has been said.
You love me? - Just a question.

Basically the auxiliary words provide a way of encapsulating subtle or even simple messages. Elegant I'd say :wink:

Wow, why did I write all that? I do hope some of it makes sense :grin:

[Bijo]

First I must inform you I have thoroughly enjoyed heeding your words, Myrddraal. I have not brought into discussion elegance, however, for it is irrelevant indeed to the actual topic. But I shall respond.




For example, in normal conversation, if elegance is simplicity and restraint (as in the mathematical usage):

What if it is to be taken holistically and include all that is elegance as in its provided description?

Normally I would stop at this moment, but if I continue regardless... then:


X: I saw John yesterday.
Y: You saw John yesterday? Is it not true that Paul said he was undertaking an apprenticeship in Scotland?

Or:

X: I saw John yesterday.
Y: You did? Didn't Paul say he was doing an apprenticeship in Scotland?
I accepted the type of "You did?" in my previous words somewhere (or I at least have not excluded it), therefore this piece of example you raise is to be excluded.

The second phrase could be "Hasn't Paul said he was doing an apprenticeship in Scotland?" if relevant(-to-the-topic) auxiliary utilization of 'do' is to be removed.




Or in times when the message is more subtle:

Do you love me? - Doubting something that has been said.
You love me? - Just a question.

Basically the auxiliary words provide a way of encapsulating subtle or even simple messages. Elegant I'd say :wink:
Both possess the exact same meaning. The subltety dependence lies more in the situation wherein -- presumably two -- persons find themselves.

[Lemur]

Both possess the exact same meaning. The subltety dependence lies more in the situation wherein -- presumably two -- persons find themselves.
Riiiiiiight. Here's the lemur's conclusion: I want to know what you're smoking, and where I can get some.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Or in times when the message is more subtle:

Do you love me? - Doubting something that has been said.
You love me? - Just a question.

Basically the auxiliary words provide a way of encapsulating subtle or even simple messages. Elegant I'd sayBoth possess the exact same meaning. The subltety dependence lies more in the situation wherein -- presumably two -- persons find themselves.I do think you miss the subtle change in meaning. ' 'Do you love me?' and 'You love me?' mean different things. The difference in meaning is not situational, but verbal. There are a million different meanings to '(do) you love me?':

Intonation alone can make a world of difference:
Do you love me?
D...do you l..love me...?
DO YOU LOVE ME!!!???!!11??//??

Never mind stressing of words:
DO you love me?
Do YOU love me?
Do you LOVE me?
Do you love ME?
They each mean something very, very different.

Non-verbal communication, here represented by smilies, adds a million different meanings still:
Do you love me? :inquisitive:
Do you love me? :no:
Do you love me? ~:eek:
Do you love me? ~:confused:
Do you love me? :jumping:

For effect and variation, you can sometimes do without do:
YOU love me?
You LOVE me?
You love ME?

But, usually, this form sounds more like a, erm...female professional in Bangkok approaching you with a business proposal. That was what my 'irrelevant comments' earlier were about: 'Mistah! You love me? Me love you long time, mistah! We go in now for make ten-minute panting, yes?'. It is comprehensible, but it is not proper English, and it ultimately fails to use English to its full potential.

It is fine for colloquial English:
What, you love me??
No kidding! You love ME!?
You love me, sweetiepie?

In proper English though, 'You love me?' is normally preceded by another verb. It is the system of the language. This was explained earlier in the post you didn't read by MM. Unless you are merely stating a blunt fact, 'you love me.', or are asking a blunt question 'you love me?', this sort of sentence is usually combined with another verb. Try 'will', 'could', 'should', 'can', etc.:
... you love me?
You .... love me.
If you do not want to use any of these auxilliary verbs, if you want the more neutral version, you must use 'do' instead. Omitting 'to do' in this construction, even if it looks redundant at first glance, would in fact make English not easier, but more complicated. The system is undermined.

***

And now for something completely illogical and -dear God- emotional, clear your room, turn up your speakers, and do the twist to Do you love me? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID2Er6_tUU0&mode=related&search=)
http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Musique/0051.gif http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Musique/banane-piano-20060614.gif

[Andres]

***

And now for something completely illogical and -dear God- emotional, clear your room, turn up your speakers, and do the twist to Do you love me? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID2Er6_tUU0&mode=related&search=)
http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Musique/0051.gif http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Musique/banane-piano-20060614.gif

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAA!!!!


I saw that coming from miles away when I read the first few lines of your post :2thumbsup:

Thnx for making me smile and dance Louis, you crazy Frenchie, you :bow:

:iloveyou:

[Watchman]

Your smilie-fu is strong juju, Corpulent One. :bow:

[Papewaio]

I've picked Thomas' poem for three reasons: it is one of my favourite poems; it shows the quality of English in expressing passionate, fiery emotion; and it uses a dummy 'do' to great effect:


My mum is from Carmarthen where Thomas' mother is from... and where Thomas did a lot of his drinking with his mates... one of which being my mum's Tadcu (Grandfather)... not sure if that is a good or a bad thing considering how Thomas died :no: but at least it was typically Celtic, his way on his terms :wall:

[KukriKhan]

and do the twist to Do you love me?


You devil you... :laugh4:

I tried the twist but hurt my back, so switched to the mashed potato; what fun!

This is off-topic, and I do therefore apologize, but I must say, that Louis, over the past 6 months has put me in touch with my inner Frenchman, dormant all these years. :bow:

[Bijo]

I do think you miss the subtle change in meaning. ' 'Do you love me?' and 'You love me?' mean different things. The difference in meaning is not situational, but verbal. There are a million different meanings to '(do) you love me?':

Intonation alone can make a world of difference:
Do you love me?
D...do you l..love me...?
DO YOU LOVE ME!!!???!!11??//??

Never mind stressing of words:
DO you love me?
Do YOU love me?
Do you LOVE me?
Do you love ME?
They each mean something very, very different.

Non-verbal communication, here represented by smilies, adds a million different meanings still:
Do you love me? :inquisitive:
Do you love me? :no:
Do you love me? ~:eek:
Do you love me? ~:confused:
Do you love me? :jumping:

For effect and variation, you can sometimes do without do:
YOU love me?
You LOVE me?
You love ME?

(...)



(...)
Summary: it is situational (which has been stated before).

!---> Utilization without the auxiliary 'do' is properly receptive of the depicted examples. <---!

And as you exemplify the emphasis of words the only one thereof to possess some significance is "DO you love me?" due to the fact that you specifically accent, dramatize, underline, etc., etc., the word 'do' as exclusion hereof is to utterly provide the word's undeniable vitiation.

It is.... logical :saint: With all respect, I am now to rest my case, and therefore see no gain in continuing the discussion. Vous savez ce que je dis, hm?

[Del Arroyo]

I am fairly certain the King James version of the Bible uses not the verb "to do" in its modern auxiliary function. For example:

Do you have? ---> Hast thou?
Do you think? ---> Thinkest thou?

And to quote a previous example:


X: I saw John yesterday.
Y: You did? Didn't Paul say he was doing an apprenticeship in Scotland?

Can be expressed as:

Y: Really? Paul said he was doing an apprenticeship in Scotland, right?

...which is actually shorter.

Plenty of other languages get on just fine without an auxiliary "to do", and we could, too, without really losing out.

"The", on the other hand, is less dispensable-- the definite/indefinite distinction explicitly adds meaning.

P.S.: Lovest THOU me?