doubts on the meaning of the auxiliary verb “do”
In the "seventh Hymn on the Nativity", where St. Ephraim speaks about Tamar (Genesis 38), I read: "She was a widow for your sake. You did she long for, she hasted and was also a harlot for your sake. You did she vehemently desire.
Is thas some typo? what do those two sentences mean?
Thank you.
phrase-meaning
add a comment |
In the "seventh Hymn on the Nativity", where St. Ephraim speaks about Tamar (Genesis 38), I read: "She was a widow for your sake. You did she long for, she hasted and was also a harlot for your sake. You did she vehemently desire.
Is thas some typo? what do those two sentences mean?
Thank you.
phrase-meaning
This is not Modern English. This is deliberately archaized Early Modern English, and its syntax is not current. That's for starts. Don't expect 400-year-old writing to have typos -- the language and the writing were both different from the way they are now.
– John Lawler
3 hours ago
add a comment |
In the "seventh Hymn on the Nativity", where St. Ephraim speaks about Tamar (Genesis 38), I read: "She was a widow for your sake. You did she long for, she hasted and was also a harlot for your sake. You did she vehemently desire.
Is thas some typo? what do those two sentences mean?
Thank you.
phrase-meaning
In the "seventh Hymn on the Nativity", where St. Ephraim speaks about Tamar (Genesis 38), I read: "She was a widow for your sake. You did she long for, she hasted and was also a harlot for your sake. You did she vehemently desire.
Is thas some typo? what do those two sentences mean?
Thank you.
phrase-meaning
phrase-meaning
asked 7 hours ago
Massimo CianiMassimo Ciani
1112
1112
This is not Modern English. This is deliberately archaized Early Modern English, and its syntax is not current. That's for starts. Don't expect 400-year-old writing to have typos -- the language and the writing were both different from the way they are now.
– John Lawler
3 hours ago
add a comment |
This is not Modern English. This is deliberately archaized Early Modern English, and its syntax is not current. That's for starts. Don't expect 400-year-old writing to have typos -- the language and the writing were both different from the way they are now.
– John Lawler
3 hours ago
This is not Modern English. This is deliberately archaized Early Modern English, and its syntax is not current. That's for starts. Don't expect 400-year-old writing to have typos -- the language and the writing were both different from the way they are now.
– John Lawler
3 hours ago
This is not Modern English. This is deliberately archaized Early Modern English, and its syntax is not current. That's for starts. Don't expect 400-year-old writing to have typos -- the language and the writing were both different from the way they are now.
– John Lawler
3 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
There is a stylistic inversion or fronting at play where the direct object has been placed at the front of the sentence, breaking the expectation of Subject-Verb-Object order for emphasis.
She was a widow for your sake. You did she long for, she hasted and was also a harlot for your sake. You did she vehemently desire.
"You did she long for" -> "She did long for you."
"You did she vehemently desire" -> "She vehemently desired you."
The "you" acquires more precedence and weight. In this kind of fronting, the auxiliary verb directly follows the fronted object, just as would happen with a question where a wh-form was fronted:
"Who did she long for?" -> "She did long for you."
add a comment |
Auxiliary do is used for emphasis:
- Did you win?
- I did win!!!
So the use of did in the Hymn is perfectly natural. What is strange to the modern ear is the inversion of object and verb, as well as the use of common case "she" instead of the objective case "her".
- You did she long for = You did long for her
- You did she vehemently desire = You did desire her vehemently
Yes, that is unusual: three forms of emphasis. did 'she did desire' for 'she desired;' Inversion 'did she' for 'she did' ; and fronting placing 'You' as the first word.
– Hugh
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489379%2fdoubts-on-the-meaning-of-the-auxiliary-verb-do%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There is a stylistic inversion or fronting at play where the direct object has been placed at the front of the sentence, breaking the expectation of Subject-Verb-Object order for emphasis.
She was a widow for your sake. You did she long for, she hasted and was also a harlot for your sake. You did she vehemently desire.
"You did she long for" -> "She did long for you."
"You did she vehemently desire" -> "She vehemently desired you."
The "you" acquires more precedence and weight. In this kind of fronting, the auxiliary verb directly follows the fronted object, just as would happen with a question where a wh-form was fronted:
"Who did she long for?" -> "She did long for you."
add a comment |
There is a stylistic inversion or fronting at play where the direct object has been placed at the front of the sentence, breaking the expectation of Subject-Verb-Object order for emphasis.
She was a widow for your sake. You did she long for, she hasted and was also a harlot for your sake. You did she vehemently desire.
"You did she long for" -> "She did long for you."
"You did she vehemently desire" -> "She vehemently desired you."
The "you" acquires more precedence and weight. In this kind of fronting, the auxiliary verb directly follows the fronted object, just as would happen with a question where a wh-form was fronted:
"Who did she long for?" -> "She did long for you."
add a comment |
There is a stylistic inversion or fronting at play where the direct object has been placed at the front of the sentence, breaking the expectation of Subject-Verb-Object order for emphasis.
She was a widow for your sake. You did she long for, she hasted and was also a harlot for your sake. You did she vehemently desire.
"You did she long for" -> "She did long for you."
"You did she vehemently desire" -> "She vehemently desired you."
The "you" acquires more precedence and weight. In this kind of fronting, the auxiliary verb directly follows the fronted object, just as would happen with a question where a wh-form was fronted:
"Who did she long for?" -> "She did long for you."
There is a stylistic inversion or fronting at play where the direct object has been placed at the front of the sentence, breaking the expectation of Subject-Verb-Object order for emphasis.
She was a widow for your sake. You did she long for, she hasted and was also a harlot for your sake. You did she vehemently desire.
"You did she long for" -> "She did long for you."
"You did she vehemently desire" -> "She vehemently desired you."
The "you" acquires more precedence and weight. In this kind of fronting, the auxiliary verb directly follows the fronted object, just as would happen with a question where a wh-form was fronted:
"Who did she long for?" -> "She did long for you."
answered 6 hours ago
TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin
5,3171127
5,3171127
add a comment |
add a comment |
Auxiliary do is used for emphasis:
- Did you win?
- I did win!!!
So the use of did in the Hymn is perfectly natural. What is strange to the modern ear is the inversion of object and verb, as well as the use of common case "she" instead of the objective case "her".
- You did she long for = You did long for her
- You did she vehemently desire = You did desire her vehemently
Yes, that is unusual: three forms of emphasis. did 'she did desire' for 'she desired;' Inversion 'did she' for 'she did' ; and fronting placing 'You' as the first word.
– Hugh
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Auxiliary do is used for emphasis:
- Did you win?
- I did win!!!
So the use of did in the Hymn is perfectly natural. What is strange to the modern ear is the inversion of object and verb, as well as the use of common case "she" instead of the objective case "her".
- You did she long for = You did long for her
- You did she vehemently desire = You did desire her vehemently
Yes, that is unusual: three forms of emphasis. did 'she did desire' for 'she desired;' Inversion 'did she' for 'she did' ; and fronting placing 'You' as the first word.
– Hugh
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Auxiliary do is used for emphasis:
- Did you win?
- I did win!!!
So the use of did in the Hymn is perfectly natural. What is strange to the modern ear is the inversion of object and verb, as well as the use of common case "she" instead of the objective case "her".
- You did she long for = You did long for her
- You did she vehemently desire = You did desire her vehemently
Auxiliary do is used for emphasis:
- Did you win?
- I did win!!!
So the use of did in the Hymn is perfectly natural. What is strange to the modern ear is the inversion of object and verb, as well as the use of common case "she" instead of the objective case "her".
- You did she long for = You did long for her
- You did she vehemently desire = You did desire her vehemently
answered 7 hours ago
Armen ԾիրունյանArmen Ծիրունյան
13k1776131
13k1776131
Yes, that is unusual: three forms of emphasis. did 'she did desire' for 'she desired;' Inversion 'did she' for 'she did' ; and fronting placing 'You' as the first word.
– Hugh
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Yes, that is unusual: three forms of emphasis. did 'she did desire' for 'she desired;' Inversion 'did she' for 'she did' ; and fronting placing 'You' as the first word.
– Hugh
7 hours ago
Yes, that is unusual: three forms of emphasis. did 'she did desire' for 'she desired;' Inversion 'did she' for 'she did' ; and fronting placing 'You' as the first word.
– Hugh
7 hours ago
Yes, that is unusual: three forms of emphasis. did 'she did desire' for 'she desired;' Inversion 'did she' for 'she did' ; and fronting placing 'You' as the first word.
– Hugh
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f489379%2fdoubts-on-the-meaning-of-the-auxiliary-verb-do%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
This is not Modern English. This is deliberately archaized Early Modern English, and its syntax is not current. That's for starts. Don't expect 400-year-old writing to have typos -- the language and the writing were both different from the way they are now.
– John Lawler
3 hours ago