Interrogative and Negative Forms with do

§ 508. The Early NE period witnessed the development of a new set of analytical forms which entered the paradigms of the Pres. and Past Tense of the Ind. Mood (and — to a lesser extent — of the Subj. Mood): interrogative and negative forms with the auxiliary verb do. These forms are known in English grammars as the “periphrasis with do ” or “ do -periphrasis”.

In ME the verb don was commonly used together with an Inf. to express a causative meaning, e. g.

And dide him grete opes swere (13th c.)

(‘And made him swear great oaths.’)

In Early NE the causative meaning passed to a similar verb phrase with make, while the periphrasis with do began to be employed instead of simple, synthetic forms. Its meaning did not differ from that of simple forms (see the examples below).

At first the do-periphrasis was more frequent in poetry, which may be attributed to the requirements of the rhythm: the use of do enabled the author to have an extra syllable in the line, if needed, without af­fecting the meaning of the sentence. Then it spread to all kinds of texts.

In the 16th and 17th c. the periphrasis with do was used in all types of sentences — negative, affirmative and interrogative; it freely inter­changed with the simple forms, without do. Cf. the following instances from the works of Shakespeare:

We do not know

How he may soften at the sight o’the child...

Who told me that the pour soul did forsake

The mighty Warwick, and did fight for me?

But what we doe determine oft we break...

Negative statements and questions without do are illustrated by

Heard you all this?

I know not why, nor wherefor to say live, boy...

And wherefore say not I that I am old?

Towards the end of the I7th c. the use of simple forms and the do- periphrasis became more differentiated: do was found mainly in nega­tive statements and questions, while the simple forms were preferred in affirmative statements. Thus the do-periphrasis turned into analy­tical negative and interrogative forms of simple forms: Pres. and Past.

§ 509. The growth of new negative and interrogative forms with do can be accounted for by syntactic conditions. By that time the word order in the sentence had become fixed: the predicate of the sentence normally followed the subject. The use of do made it possible to adhere to this order in questions, for at least the notional part of the predicate could thus preserve its position after the subject. This order of words was already well established in numerous sentences with analytical forms and modal phrases. Cf.:

Do you pity him? No, he deserves no pity...

Wilt thou not love such a woman?

And must they all be hanged that swear and lie? (Shakespeare)

Likewise, the place of the negative particle not in negative sentences with modal phrases and analytical forms set up a pattern for the similar use of not with the do-periphrasis. Cf.: I will not let him stir and If I do not wonder how thou darest venture. The form with do conformed with the new pattern of the sentence much better than the old simple form (though sentences with not in postposition to the verb are still common in Shakespeare: I know not which is which).

In the 18th c. the periphrasis with do as an equivalent of the simple form in affirmative statements fell into disuse (its employment in affir­mative sentences acquired a stylistic function: it made the statement emphatic).