Bob,

I said what I did about "do" because some syntacticians have use the
facts of its synchronic behavior to argue that it is a modal.  You have
the good sense not to be one of them.

Herb 



Herb,

You know much more about the history of the language than I do.

However, I have no idea why you say the following:

>>> "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> 11/03/07 10:41 PM >>>
For one thing, it means calling "do" a modal, which makes no semantic or
morphological
sense, since "do" can take both tense suffixes and does not participate
in the deontic/epistemic contrast true of all other modals.   

******
Unlike German, main verbs in modern English don't move for questions and
then there is obligatory-do support for negation when there is no other
helping verb.  

Why must one posit do as a modal to account for these facts?  You know
there is another account available.

Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/