0

Some examples of use of emphatic "do":

"Now, I don't speak Chinese, but I do speak a little Polish, a little Korean, and a few words in half a dozen other languages. This comes from my living in New York City where I encountered people from every nationality on a regular basis," (Vickers 2011).

"I know it doesn't look like it, but I really do work hard around here. It's just that I'm so disorganized that I never finish anything I start,"​ (Rubin 1992).

"'Do be quiet, Larry!' she said impatiently. 'Don't you hear me talking to Daddy?'" (O'Connor 2009).

My question:

Does it work with "have/has been"? Here are two versions of my text:

  • Source blocks without a language attribute should never be used unless a global language has been defined. If a global language has been defined, the source attribute can be omitted; however, it’s better to be explicit.
  • Source blocks without a language attribute should never be used unless a global language has been defined. If a global language has been do defined, the source attribute can be omitted; however, it’s better to be explicit.

The second version seems to have the required emphasis, but I'm not sure it's grammatical.

1
  • I don't see a question in the second part, nor example of what you are asking. I see two blocks of text that appear to be quotes but I can't access the source. Nor can I see how these quotes relate to your question. Can you clarify what it is you want to know? Sep 23 '20 at 1:57
1

Your second example is not grammatical. The word "do" doesn't belong at all. In speech, the emphasis you want should go on the auxiliary verb "has", not on an extra auxiliary you have inserted.

Say it like this:

If a global language has been defined, the source attribute can be omitted...

You could also underline it in writing.

On the other hand, you could stay in present tense:
If you do define a global language...

The same thing can be done with an auxiliary "have" in past tense examples like some of those you cited with "do" in present tense:
I have spoken a little Polish... (or I did speak a little Polish...)
I really have worked hard around here...

1

The example you give isn't just unidiomatic; if I encountered it in the real world I would seriously wonder what it was supposed to mean. Do can't be used as an auxiliary with the past participle. It can only function as an auxiliary with the bare infinitive.

  • I do like that.
  • He does know how to drive.
  • They did look into the question.

Do doesn't combine with other auxiliary verbs, just as you can't say *they may can deliver tomorrow, but instead must say they may be able to deliver tomorrow.

(As I'm writing this, I suddenly remember a friend who used to use do to negate other auxiliary verbs, as in *you don't can board without a ticket. Well, you can't use do like that. I knew her for several months before I realized that *don't can was supposed to mean can't.)

As the other answer notes, this emphasis is usually reflected in speech by stressing the auxiliary verb. In writing, if you do not want to resort to typographical means, you can add an adverb to reflect the emphasis:

  • if a global language has indeed been defined... (or: if indeed a global language has been defined...)
  • they certainly have been entertaining this evening

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.