# Goes she / Does she go



## Jay Bro

*Moderator note: Thread was originally posted in the English Only forum.*

The question is - why can't English speakers just like all Germanic-speaking people when asking just put the verb in the beginning of sentence? Why do you need to say "do" or "does" if making a question?

And also - does anyone know when such phenomenon appeared in English? In Middle of Early Modern?


----------



## BLUEGLAZE

The 'do' and 'does', the 'will', the 'would' all indicate tense. The verb itself doesn't.
Ex. Swim I in the pool? Does that mean Do I? Will I? Would I? Did I?
When this began in English I do not know but I suspect it was from its origins.


----------



## Andygc

Jay Bro said:


> why can't English speakers just like all Germanic-speaking people when asking just put the verb in the beginning of sentence?


Because we speak English and not a Germanic language. English has multiple sources and Germanic languages are just some of them. The use of the auxiliary "do" in questions has been in English for hundreds of years, <...>


----------



## sdgraham

Jay Bro said:


> The question is - why can't English speakers just like all Germanic-speaking people when asking just put the verb in the beginning of sentence? Why do you need to say "do" or "does" if making a question?



As we tell the large number of learners asking why English can't do things like [some language?] the answer is: *Because that's the way we do it.*

It's the same reason we don't call a critter that quacks and has feathers and webbed feet a "cow."


----------



## JulianStuart

Jay Bro said:


> The question is - why can't English speakers just like all Germanic-speaking people when asking just put the verb in the beginning of sentence? Why do you need to say "do" or "does" if making a question?
> 
> And also - does anyone know when such phenomenon appeared in English? In Middle of Early Modern?


That’s a bit like asking why can’t Russian speakers use articles


----------



## dojibear

According to etymonline.com
--------------------------------------
do (v.)  Middle English do, first person singular of Old English don "make, act, perform, cause; to put, to place," from West Germanic *don, from PIE root *dhe- "to set, put, place."

Use as an auxiliary began in Middle English. Periphrastic form in negative sentences ("They did not think") replaced the Old English negative particles ("Hie ne wendon"). 
-----------------------------


----------



## wolfbm1

BLUEGLAZE said:


> The 'do' and 'does', the 'will', the 'would' all indicate tense. The verb itself doesn't.
> Ex. Swim I in the pool? Does that mean Do I? Will I? Would I? Did I?
> When this began in English I do not know but I suspect it was from its origins.


That is a very interesting explanation, but the third person “s” tells us that it can only be the present simple. It is also interesting why the inflection of verbs in the third person in the present simple has survived.


----------



## SevenDays

Jay Bro said:


> The question is - why can't English speakers just like all Germanic-speaking people when asking just put the verb in the beginning of sentence? Why do you need to say "do" or "does" if making a question?
> 
> And also - does anyone know when such phenomenon appeared in English? In Middle of Early Modern?



Simply put, it's because English has lost most of its verb inflections, something that began in Old English.

Because most verb inflections disappeared, new verb forms ("auxiliary verbs") appeared that allowed English to do what other languages do through verb morphology. For example, in Spanish we can talk about "possibility" by using the proper verb inflection. I understand that we don't do other languages here, but for the sake of clarity, this is what I mean: Spanish says _Ella pod*ría* ir al colegio, _where the verb morpheme *-ría* expresses "possibility." To form a question, the subject and verb switch places (we call this "inversion"): _¿Podría ella ir al colegio? _Modern English doesn't have a verb morpheme that's the equivalent of *-ría*; to talk about "possibility," modern English relies on a modal verb. So, for example, the English translation becomes _She could go to school. _To do the inversion required in questions, the subject "She" gets "inverted" with the verb that immediately follows it, in this case "could" (not with "go"). This tells us a key feature of English syntax: auxiliary verbs are needed for the inversion that happens in the formation of questions.

Now, if there is no auxiliary verb in the sentence (as in "She goes to school"), then, to form a question, English introduces _by necessity_ the auxiliary "do." Again, English does this because "question inversion"_ requires_ the use of an auxiliary verb (as we saw in "Could she go to school?"). Lastly, when you introduce "do," the verb "goes" becomes the infinitive "go" because "tense" is now expressed by auxiliary do: _Does she go to school _(present tense); _Did she go to school? _(past tense).


----------



## Glenfarclas

SevenDays said:


> Simply put, it's because English has lost most of its verb inflections, something that began in Old English.
> 
> Because most verb inflections disappeared, new verb forms ("auxiliary verbs") appeared that allowed English to do what other languages do through verb morphology. For example, in Spanish we can talk about "possibility" by using the proper verb inflection. I understand that we don't do other languages here, but for the sake of clarity, this is what I mean: Spanish says _Ella pod*ría* ir al colegio, _where the verb morpheme *-ría* expresses "possibility." To form a question, the subject and verb switch places (we call this "inversion"): _¿Podría ella ir al colegio? _Modern English doesn't have a verb morpheme that's the equivalent of *-ría*; to talk about "possibility," modern English relies on a modal verb. So, for example, the English translation becomes _She could go to school. _To do the inversion required in questions, the subject "She" gets "inverted" with the verb that immediately follows it, in this case "could" (not with "go"). This tells us a key feature of English syntax: auxiliary verbs are needed for the inversion that happens in the formation of questions.
> 
> Now, if there is no auxiliary verb in the sentence (as in "She goes to school"), then, to form a question, English introduces _by necessity_ the auxiliary "do." Again, English does this because "question inversion"_ requires_ the use of an auxiliary verb (as we saw in "Could she go to school?"). Lastly, when you introduce "do," the verb "goes" becomes the infinitive "go" because "tense" is now expressed by auxiliary do: _Does she go to school _(present tense); _Did she go to school? _(past tense).



This is all question-begging; i.e. you say that the auxiliary is required because there was no auxiliary.  It is also patently false, because English _could_ and still _can_ form questions without any auxiliary.

The truth is, the root causes of the use of the auxiliary _do_ in English are not well understood.  John McWhorter traces the structure to an influence from Welsh and Cornish, which have a nearly identical structure using their own verbs that mean "do."  This is an appealing theory but has not, to my knowledge, gained wide acceptance. 

In any event, it is clear that this use of _do_ is obligatory in modern English because that's how the language is spoken, and not, contrary to your claims, because there was any sort of grammatical lacuna or defect in the langauge that it was necessary to remedy.  Act I, Scene I of _Romeo and Juliet_ contains the questions "Do you quarrel, sir?" and "Why call you for a sword?", in which one uses _do_ and the other doesn't, and which are equally intelligible and grammatical to us just as they were to Shakespeare.


----------



## ELance

It can be said 'Goes she to the park?', 'Went she to the park?', 'Swam he in the pool?', 'Swims he in the pool?'.  Were this already said forgive me.


----------



## SevenDays

Glenfarclas said:


> This is all question-begging; i.e. you say that the auxiliary is required because there was no auxiliary.  It is also patently false, because English _could_ and still _can_ form questions without any auxiliary.
> 
> The truth is, the root causes of the use of the auxiliary _do_ in English are not well understood.  John McWhorter traces the structure to an influence from Welsh and Cornish, which have a nearly identical structure using their own verbs that mean "do."  This is an appealing theory but has not, to my knowledge, gained wide acceptance.
> 
> In any event, it is clear that this use of _do_ is obligatory in modern English because that's how the language is spoken, and not, contrary to your claims, because there was any sort of grammatical lacuna or defect in the langauge that it was necessary to remedy.  Act I, Scene I of _Romeo and Juliet_ contains the questions "Do you quarrel, sir?" and "Why call you for a sword?", in which one uses _do_ and the other doesn't, and which are equally intelligible and grammatical to us just as they were to Shakespeare.



English _could _and _can _form questions without any auxiliary because _could _and _can _*are* auxiliary verbs. This is patently clear.

To turn "She goes to school" into a direct question, you need to insert an auxiliary verb precisely because there is no auxiliary verb (and you need an auxiliary verb in questions). This is also patently clear. (And we are not talking about _rhetorical questions, _which don't use auxiliary do.)

English got rid of most of its earlier verb inflections; in modern English we have two inflections for regular verbs: -ed (marking part tense) and -s (marking present tense). Irregular verbs rely in part on _apophony_, which is inflection through vowel sound changes (_s*i*ng, s*a*ng, s*u*ng_).

English auxiliary modal verbs express meanings that other languages do through verb inflection. This is also patently clear. No one said "defect in the language," not until you showed up. 

The grammar of early modern English (i.e., the grammar of Shakespeare) is in most ways identical to modern English, but the grammar of early modern English still had remnants of earlier English, so it's no wonder that do-questions (Do you quarrel, sir?) co-existed with questions having subject-lexical verb inversion (Why call you for a sword?). This is also patently clear.

Your answer for the use of "do" in questions ("that's how language is spoken") in no way disproves anything that I've said. To claim that it does _is_ patently false.


----------



## wolfbm1

ELance said:


> It can be said 'Goes she to the park?', 'Went she to the park?', 'Swam he in the pool?', 'Swims he in the pool?'.  Were this already said forgive me.


What about the future form? Will go she to school? It does not exist. Has it ever existed?


----------



## heypresto

ELance said:


> It can be said 'Goes she to the park?', 'Went she to the park?', 'Swam he in the pool?', 'Swims he in the pool?'.  Were this already said forgive me.



When can this be said? Have you ever said any of these?


----------



## wolfbm1

JulianStuart said:


> That’s a bit like asking why can’t Russian speakers use articles


There is a roundabout or periphrastic way of expressing definiteness of nouns in English too, e.g.: "the son of Mr. Smith"  and "Mr. Smith's son."*
* Source: dictionary.com
So, "Does she go to school?" is a periphrastic way of saying "Goes she to school?," which is not used anymore, yet is understood.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

> It can be said 'Goes she to the park?', 'Went she to the park?', 'Swam he in the pool?', 'Swims he in the pool?'. Were this already said forgive me.




"It _can_ be said", of course, if a person wants to sound as if they don't know how to ask questions in English. Or maybe they want to fail all their exams.
This forum is for helping people.


----------



## JulianStuart

wolfbm1 said:


> There is a roundabout or periphrastic way of expressing definiteness of nouns in English too, e.g.: "the son of Mr. Smith"  and "Mr. Smith's son.".


I was referring to the situation where the use of a, the or no article allows the expression of different meanings, usually allowing more specificity in communication, and a language that has no articles lacks that.


----------



## sdgraham

ELance said:


> It can be said 'Goes she to the park?', 'Went she to the park?', 'Swam he in the pool?', 'Swims he in the pool?'.  Were this already said forgive me.





Hermione Golightly said:


> "It _can_ be said", of course, if a person wants to sound as if they don't know how to ask questions in English. Or maybe they want to fail all their exams.
> This forum is for helping people.





heypresto said:


> When can this be said? Have you ever said any of these?



I think the poster was trying to be humorous by posting the above irony to  demonstrate misuse. (Note the question marks)

The lesson for such well-meaning newcomers here is to *be straightforward* lest learners and even native speakers misread the intent of the post.

(As I did the first time through)


----------



## Ihsiin

heypresto said:


> When can this be said? Have you ever said any of these?



In the 16th century, clearly, and texts affecting that speech. C.f. Blackadder, 1983: "Fight you with us on the morrow?"


----------



## berndf

Andygc said:


> Because we speak English and not a Germanic language. English has multiple sources and Germanic languages are just some of them. The use of the auxiliary "do" in questions has been in English for hundreds of years, <...>


Periphrastic _do_-support is an ancient West Germanic feature and has nothing to do with Romance or other influence. Its predominance in questions and negative statements developed gradually during the Middle and Early Modern English stages and is related to the gradual shift from V2 to SVO syntax, which is already rooted in late Old English but mostly happened during the aforementioned period. Romance influence may have played a role in this shift in syntax but this cannot be demonstrated.

Grammaticalisation of _do_-support is a Modern English (mid to late 17th century to present), if not Late Modern English (1800-present), feature.


----------



## Andygc

Thank you berndf. It's well outside my knowledge, which is why I suggested it didn't belong in English Only.


----------



## Olaszinhok

SevenDays said:


> Now, if there is no auxiliary verb in the sentence (as in "She goes to school"), then, to form a question, English introduces _by necessity_ the auxiliary "do." Again, English does this because "question inversion"_ requires_ the use of an auxiliary verb (as we saw in "Could she go to school?"). Lastly, when you introduce "do," the verb "goes" becomes the infinitive "go" because "tense" is now expressed by auxiliary do: _Does she go to school _(present tense); _Did she go to school? _(past tense).



Not necessarily, Scandinavian languages have lost verbal endings like and even more than English, but they don't make use of auxiliary verbs either in questions or in negatives.


----------



## berndf

Andygc said:


> Thank you berndf. It's well outside my knowledge, which is why I suggested it didn't belong in English Only.


You were absolutely right.


----------



## berndf

Olaszinhok said:


> Not necessarily, Scandinavian languages have lost verbal endings like and even more than English, but they don't make use of auxiliary verbs either in questions or in negatives.


There was no claim that _do_-support has been induced by the loss of endings. He only states that it is a consequence of _do_-support that the finite verb form is expressed by the auxiliary rather than by the main verb and that is absolutely correct.


----------



## Olaszinhok

berndf said:


> There was no claim that _do_-support has been induced by the loss of endings. He only states that it is a consequence of _do_-support that the finite verb form is expressed by the auxiliary rather than by the main verb and that is absolutely correct


Sorry, you are right. I have quoted the wrong person, I was actually questioning Sevendays' post where he claimed that the loss of verb endings in English induced the usage of _do_ and_ does_.


----------



## Määränpää

Is there a difference between grammatical persons (2nd/3rd)? 

Shakespeare uses things like_ "Think'st thou?"_ in the 2nd person but I don't see the same in the 3rd person.

In Wycliffe's Bible you have this:_ "Whi etith and drynkith youre maystir with pupplicans and synneris?" _But even there I couldn't seem to find a 3rd-person YES/NO question beginning directly with the verb (without an interrogative word like "Why").


----------



## fdb

Määränpää said:


> Is there a difference between grammatical persons (2nd/3rd)?
> 
> Shakespeare uses things like_ "Think'st thou?"_ in the 2nd person but I don't see the same in the 3rd person.
> 
> In Wycliffe's Bible you have this:_ "Whi etith and drynkith youre maystir with pupplicans and synneris?" _But even there I couldn't seem to find a 3rd-person YES/NO question beginning directly with the verb (without an interrogative word like "Why").



"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is?"


----------



## Määränpää

Oops.  Turns out Shylock even says "Hath a dog money?"

But maybe the verb "have" sounded natural in that position because it can also be used as an auxiliary. Are there any questions beginning with a rarer verb? [moving the goalposts here...]

*Edit: *OK, this (from 1880!) has "Thinketh he that Justice is on his side?" Looks like I was wrong. Maybe 3rd-person questions are just rarer than 2nd-person questions because it's easier to ask people to provide information about themselves than about someone else.


----------



## David S

If I'm not mistaken, "do"-support with "to have" in non-auxiliary contexts is still possible in British English but not in American English. Hence *_Have you a quarter?_ is incorrect in American English.

Other languages have different ways of forming questions. Spoken French rarely uses inversion, i.e. *_As-tu une voiture?_. is replaced by _Tu as une voiture_?  You could also use "Est-ce que tu as une voiture". So it's not a uniquely English thing to refuse to use inversion and to instead add some words to mark a question, in addition to change in intonation.


----------



## Stoggler

Andygc said:


> Because we speak English and not a Germanic language.



English is a Germanic language.


----------



## gburtonio

David S said:


> If I'm not mistaken, "do"-support with "to have" in non-auxiliary contexts is still possible in British English but not in American English. Hence *_Have you a quarter?_ is incorrect in American English.



I've always had the opposite impression – that such structures are possible in American English, but are considered somewhat quaint / very formal. Definitely not OK in British English, as far as I'm concerned.

It's probably worth pointing out that there are some fixed phrases that do retain the 'older' grammar, e.g. 'I haven't a clue', although I wouldn't say it that way personally.


----------



## Andygc

Stoggler said:


> English is a Germanic language.


I'm not an etymologist, but it seems to me that English was a Germanic language that has been extensively modified and hybridised by later influences arising from migration and invasion. But I wouldn't want to argue the point, even though you have taken that sentence out of context by selective quotation.


Andygc said:


> Because we speak English and not a Germanic language. English has multiple sources and Germanic languages are just some of them.


----------



## berndf

Andygc said:


> I'm not an etymologist, but it seems to me that English was a Germanic language that has been extensively modified and hybridised by later influences arising from migration and invasion. But I wouldn't want to argue the point, even though you have taken that sentence out of context by selective quotation.


The particular non-Germanic influence on English is mainly lexical and not syntactic. Romance influence on grammar, e.g. in the tense system, is similar to other Germanic languages. The developments we are discussing here are internal to English. There is a bit of a checken and egg discussion going on if the change in syntax is caused by the loss of morphological markings or if it is the other way round but _do_-support has certainly nothing to do with extra-Germanic influence.


David S said:


> Other languages have different ways of forming questions. Spoken French rarely uses inversion, i.e. *_As-tu une voiture?_. is replaced by _Tu as une voiture_? You could also use "Est-ce que tu as une voiture". So it's not a uniquely English thing to refuse to use inversion and to instead add some words to mark a question, in addition to change in intonation.


It is certainly not as rare that if deserved and asterisk. All three forms are perfectly normal. But French is a Romance language and "inversion"* as a question marker is not a native syntactic construct but (most likely) an import from Germanic.
---------------------
"Inversion" may be a bit of a misnomer as the word order in sentences starting with a question adverb, like _Who are you?_, is ordinary Germanic V2 syntax and not "inverted" and the V1 syntax in unintroduced questions might be a left over of a lost _yes/no_ question adverb (_Whether are you there? > Are you there?_).


----------



## Ihsiin

gburtonio said:


> I've always had the opposite impression – that such structures are possible in American English, but are considered somewhat quaint / very formal. Definitely not OK in British English, as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> It's probably worth pointing out that there are some fixed phrases that do retain the 'older' grammar, e.g. 'I haven't a clue', although I wouldn't say it that way personally.



I think it's fine in British English, though certainly not common. For example, 'Have you any bananas?' sounds perfectly fine to me.


----------



## jimquk

Much more likely, "Have you got any bananas"


----------



## Hulalessar

Whatever the causes, the mystery is why a straightforward way of asking questions was replaced by one which requires an extra word but still uses inversion, and also why the new system is not employed universally. Of all the languages I have studied or looked at English has the most complex system both of forming questions and negation.

The reason "have" when meaning "possess" is a bit of an oddity is probably because "have" is also used as an auxiliary. When used as an auxiliary inversion is required for a question (unless of course using normal word order and intonation). The nursery rhyme "Baa, baa, Black Sheep, have you any wool?" may be influential!


----------



## dojibear

Hulalessar said:


> Whatever the causes, the mystery is why a straightforward way of asking questions was replaced by one which requires an extra word but still uses inversion



It isn't a mystery, it is just history.

Linguist John McWhorter traces our use of "do" to Celtic roots. So I question calling it a "replacement" -- using "do" is probably more "original" than most other things in English.

English is the language of Viking and other invaders (Norse, germanic) who decided to stay in a conquered island (England) and marry and live with native Celtic-speaking people. The result was a combined language, not simply a variation of germanic. "Do" and "-ing" date back to then, McWhorter says.

Later England was ruled by French speakers for a couple hundred years, adding 7,000+ French words (and some French grammar) to English. Add in ancient Latin and ancient Greek -- which were, for many centuries, the languages of all science, most literature and most religion. Those two ancient languages greatly affected English vocabulary and spelling. Have I forgotten anyone? Certainly Scottish, Irish and Welsh had some impact.

So English has solid roots in germanic languages, romance languages, and native languages of the British Isles. It is not entirely "germanic".


----------



## berndf

dojibear said:


> Linguist John McWhorter traces our use of "do" to Celtic roots.


This idea isn't exactly new. It comes up from time to time but its proponents haven't so far managed to make a solid case. The main obstacle is time. Neither Old nor Early Middle English have used _do_ support in a way that is out of line with what can be found in other Germanic languages as well. The question how this feature should have stayed in hiding for about 600 hundred years of attested English out suddenly burst out in Late Middle English and Early Modern English in a way that is unique among Germanic languages remains unexplained. In the absence of any hard evidence going beyond a vague similarity with some Welsh constructs, the standard hypothesis of an internal development driven by a more rigid word order that went hand in hand with the Middle English loss of morphological markers remains the more plausible one.


----------



## Lugubert

I'm reminded of a similar discussion here in 2007, when I wrote
"In a reader for mentally slightly handicapped children I saw in Switzerland some 40 years ago, but unfortunately was too stingy to buy at the time, there were examples like "S papi tuet läse", "S mami tuet wasche" 'Father reads', 'Mother washes dishes'. No emphasis, just a way of expressing the (continuous) present by a "do" equivalent."


----------



## berndf

Lugubert said:


> I'm reminded of a similar discussion here in 2007, when I wrote
> "In a reader for mentally slightly handicapped children I saw in Switzerland some 40 years ago, but unfortunately was too stingy to buy at the time, there were examples like "S papi tuet läse", "S mami tuet wasche" 'Father reads', 'Mother washes dishes'. No emphasis, just a way of expressing the (continuous) present by a "do" equivalent."


Yes, that is the point. _Do_ support is much to regular a feature in Germanic languages in general and West Germanic in particular to make Old and Early Middle English particular in any way. Modern English _do_ support does stand out but that developed much too late to be due to Migration period influence from Brythonic or from the Norman invasion. The modern _do_ support took shape when English was already a mature language with all its particular influences incorporated.


----------



## Jay Bro

berndf said:


> This idea isn't exactly new. It comes up from time to time but its proponents haven't so far managed to make a solid case. The main obstacle is time. Neither Old nor Early Middle English have used _do_ support in a way that is out of line with what can be found in other Germanic languages as well. The question how this feature should have stayed in hiding for about 600 hundred years of attested English out suddenly burst out in Late Middle English and Early Modern English in a way that is unique among Germanic languages remains unexplained. In the absence of any hard evidence going beyond a vague similarity with some Welsh constructs, the standard hypothesis of an internal development driven by a more rigid word order that went hand in hand with the Middle English loss of morphological markers remains the more plausible one.



Early Modern - you mean 1600-1700s?
So it implies before 1600s people ask "saw you my friends?" and "Goes she to school"?


----------



## berndf

Early Modern English is 1450-1700. Late Middle is the language of Chaucer. So, I am talking about the 14th to 17th centuries.

Even in Shakespeare, who lived towards the end of that period, you find sentences like _Looks it not like the King?_ (Hamlet I.1) instead of _*Doesn't it look like the King?_ The full grammaticalisation (i.e. that it was more than an option had to be used in certain situations) of _do_ support is 18th century, maybe late 17th.


----------



## Kevin Beach

A lot of the changes in later Old English (perhaps 9th/10th centuries) occurred because of the mixing of the indigenous English with the Norse/Danish invaders/immigrants. The two language groups (west Germanic and North Germanic) had a lot of common or similar vocabulary, which made each partly intelligible to speakers of the other. It was easier if the different inflections were dropped and the roots were used on their own. Auxiliaries became necessary, to distinguish moods and tenses.


----------



## berndf

Kevin Beach said:


> A lot of the changes in later Old English (perhaps 9th/10th centuries) occurred because of the mixing of the indigenous English with the Norse/Danish invaders/immigrants. The two language groups (west Germanic and North Germanic) had a lot of common or similar vocabulary, which made each partly intelligible to speakers of the other. It was easier if the different inflections were dropped and the roots were used on their own. Auxiliaries became necessary, to distinguish moods and tenses.


Well, we have no robust evidence that the loss of endings started already that early. It is reflected in writing only in Middle English. Some have argued that it started much earlier but that literary Old English was artificially kept archaic. It is possible but there is no serious evidence for that.


----------

