# EN: He doesn't do his exercises



## whims

Hello everybody,

In my brother's English notebook, he wrote :
"*he doesn't do his **exercises*".

The "doesn't do" part sounds really weird to me ! But... I can't find anything better...

Is this sentence correct ? Why should 2 auxillaries be used ?
If this is not correct, what should be said ?

Thank you for you help.


----------



## truffe2miel

I would prefer to say "he doesn't achieve", but I can't see why it'd be wrong? To do acts as a verb every so often, and also behaves like one most of the time. Here it serves as a verb-like word, so the sentence seems correct.


----------



## Outsider

The second "do" does not act as an auxiliary verb in that sentence.


----------



## MzelleRicaine

Outsider said:


> The second "do" does not act as an auxiliary verb in that sentence.


It acts as the verb "to do," the often-confused cousin of "to make," or simply in French "faire."

Hope that helps!


----------



## geostan

Yes, *doesn't do* is perfectly correct and idiomatic in that sentence.

Cheers!


----------



## timboleicester

I am sorry but you can't say "doesn't achieve" here. "doesn't do" is perfect and feels completely right.


----------



## Keith Bradford

C'est tout aussi normal pour les anglophones que _"je lui ai *fait faire *ses devoirs" _l'est en français.


----------



## whims

Thank you very much everybody for your answers !

*truffe2miel* > What I did not understand is why "do" is used twice in the same sentence, why the negative form need the use of another "do". I understand it now by comparing with other verbs :
"he want a peace of cake" > "he *doesn't* want a peace of cake"
"he do his exercises" > "he *doesn't* do his exercises"

I have to work on it as I never saw it this way !

*Outsider* > I never saw "do" as being used both as a verb OR an axillary. I thought it was both verb AND axillary.

*Keith Bradford* > Je n'ai pas le sentiment que "faire faire" soit la même chose en français car il s'agit alors d'exprimer l'intervention d'une tierce personne. C'est le "make someone do something" en anglais. Les deux sont utilisés en tant que verbe, non ?


----------



## timboleicester

"he want*s* a peace of cake" > "he *doesn't* want a peace of cake"
"he do*es* his exercises" > "he *doesn't* do his exercises"

I have corrected the mistakes above. Remember with he/she/it the verb in the present tense has an "s" or "es" added. I understand that you feel it odd but that's just to be overcome. Sometime the do is repeated and yes this gives rise to some comic effect but it is completely right.So be happy in the knowledge that "you do do it right!"


----------



## Keith Bradford

Whims, je voulais simplement dire que la répétition d'un mot n'est pas en soi une erreur.  _Don't do _(même _do do_) est aussi correct que _faire faire_ l'est dans certaines phrases en français.  Le sens n'a rien à voir, c'est le phénomène de la répétition dont je parlais.

Les Anglophones peuvent même pousser la répétition à l'extrême, qui serait : _In the grammar contest, John, where Mary had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had the judges' approval. _ (= Dans le concours de grammaire, John avait écrit "eût eu" là où Mary avait mis "eu".  C'est "eût eu" qui avait retenu l'approbation des juges.)


----------



## lucas-sp

Also note that "do do" is totally fine as well, when "do" is used as an emphatic:

"He keeps saying that I don't do enough work around here. But I _do_ do my fair share, and more!"

Keith wasn't saying that "faire faire" is the same as "do (not) do." But is true that in French "Je lui ai fait faire ses devoirs" is grammatically correct, just as in English "I made him make me pasta" is correct. The trick is to realize that sometimes the same verb can be doing different things, even in the same sentence.


----------



## vmf

This is so simple.

Positive:   he does / he plays / he eats
Negative: he does not do / he does not play / he does not eat
Contracted negative: he doesn't do / he doesn't play / he doesn't eat

There is no other way to create a negative in English - we bring in a negative version of the verb "to do ".
Bizarre, I know.   Maybe that's why I learned French instead.


----------



## lucas-sp

vmf said:


> There is no other way to create a negative in English - we bring in a negative version of the verb "to do ".


Not quite: "Ask not what your country can do for you..."

And, of course, "he won't" is different from "he doesn't will." ("Can not," "must not," "shall not," etc. just take "not" and not "do not.")

I would also point out that there are other negative adverbs that don't require "do" ("I never go there"), but that might get even more off-topic.


----------



## vmf

OK, slight over-simplification on my part.
I should have said that the basic and most frequently-used way to make a simple present tense negative in English has to involve the verb "to do".
It is certainly the only way to form a simple negative form of "he does": "he does not do"without adding meaning which is not there in the original.


----------



## lucas-sp

"He never does his exercises" would also work. (Sorry, devil's advocate!)


----------



## vmf

No it would not.   

I did say "without adding meaning which is not there in the original."

"Never" adds the information that he has not at any point done them, whereas the original states that he is not at present doing them.   

The former may be true, but is not even implied.

Have a happy weekend, cycling like me, or grooming your dog, or cooking Thai, or recording Gregorian chant.


----------



## lucas-sp

Hm. "He doesn't do his exercises" is not itself necessarily equivalent to "He is not at present doing his exercises." I would suggest that the opposite you're implying is "He isn't doing his exercises." (Technically, that's a negation of the present progressive, which itself doesn't take a "to do" helper, since "to be" is negated merely with "not.") And "He isn't doing his exercises" (only an at-present meaning) is not equivalent to "He doesn't do his exercises."

"He doesn't do his exercises" - just like "he isn't Scottish" - can be entirely existential, meaning that at no point, now or earlier and even in the future, does he do his exercises. "He never does his exercises" would work.

"He never does his exercises" is entirely understandable as a corollary to "He doesn't do his exercises," particularly without any context. In fact, it can refer only to a recent present, if I want it to: "What happened to Billy after spring break? Now, he never does his exercises and he's always asleep in class."

In short, "never" can mean "at present"; just as "does not do" can mean "at no point has he done." Both senses are possible in both kinds of negative sentences.

Negation, particularly when compounded by time-problems with English verbs, is in fact tricky. But it's not pedagogically helpful to say something categorical like "There is no other way to create a negative in English," when there are, in fact, others.


----------



## vmf

So we are talking pedagogy here.
Language is an applied science and does not exist in a hypothetical universe.   It is context-driven.

I post as somebody who has just written 60 school reports and is just about to write 40 more (about 180 over the year - one per pupil for whom I have main responsibility).

"He does not do his homework" (I would never use the word 'exercises') means that in the recent period relevant to the annual report he has done no homework.   He may have done some homework (say between August and December) but for present purposes in April he is doing nothing.   (Incidentally I would never use this expression.   In the ratings section of the reports programme I would indicate a 4 (needs to improve) for homework, and would write something like "He needs to remember to do the home-study set,  which is designed to help him progress.")

"He never does his homework" would suggest that he has done not a smidgeon of homework since I started teaching him last June (or possibly August).
By this time the parent would already know this, since a variety of communications on the subject of lack of homework would have landed through the letter-box.  This report would also indicate a 4 for homework, and would say something like "It is essential that he starts to complete home-study tasks, which will help him learn and make progress".

You are adding context by adding "Now" to "he never does..."   In the case of a pupil who formerly did homework but has suddenly changed attitude and behaviour, I would have long since alerted the pupil's Guidance teacher who would probably have contacted the parent, since a change of behaviour can indicate a new anxiety, a change of mental state, or reaction to physical, sexual or mental abuse.   The parent would never learn this in the first instance from a report.

What planet are your language examples coming from?

Mine are from the planet Scotland.


----------



## timboleicester

Yes but it might be physical exercises and not homework and as the point of confusion was the repeated "do" In any case exercises could refer to the questions at the end of piece of text. But context is every_thing._


----------



## vmf

Yes indeed , context is everything and towards the end of a long career in schools I cannot imagine any context in which a pupil might be required by a native speaker to "do his exercises" in PE.   He might not follow instructions in PE classes, might refuse to take part in activities, might be a member of a team who does not take part properly in the training routine.   "Does not do his exercises" suggests that the pupil stands immobile in singlet and shorts while the ex-army instructor of physical jerks shouts and blows a whistle at him.   Archaic in the extreme.   
Activities based on a written text may still in some places be referred to as "exercises", but here again in the context of 21st century schools, they are a pupil's work, or class-work, or homework.   Said pupil might avoiding doing work, might not follow instructions for classwork, might not co-operate in class, might not complete homework.    "Does not do his exercises" still does not give me even the vaguest notion of whether this unfortunate child is lazy in class, doesn't do homework, or declines to complete the required number of press-ups.   I suggest that your brother finds a teacher who can speak English.


----------



## lucas-sp

We had "exercises" in my classes in the US; we also did not have PE. (In "21st-century schools" there is increasingly less and less PE class.) VMF, you're importing a context to this sentence that doesn't have one. To me, "he doesn't do his exercises" refers primarily to homework, and not to physical exercise.

You're also assuming that the teacher wrote "does not do his exercises." We don't know that either.


----------



## vmf

Your context too may or may not be relevant.

Well I refuse to be exercised about this matter any more and am signing off this thread.
I am about to enjoy some exercise in the form of a long cycle ride.
I won't do any exercises beforehand to warm up, just cycle gently to start with.
My pupils may or may not do exercises this weekend, depending on whether they are sporty types or not.
They may forget to do their homework as it's a holiday long weekend.
They will all have compulsory PE twice next week when they are back in school.
They will be doing lots of different activities when they are back in my class, some of which will be questions in response to a text.   If they don't work in class I might write in the next report that they don't take part properly in classwork, if they don't work at home I will write that they don't do homework.   
Whether they do exercises or not I will leave to their sports trainer (if they have one) to judge.


----------

