doubts on the meaning of the auxiliary verb “do”












2















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







share|improve this question























  • 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
















2















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







share|improve this question























  • 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














2












2








2


1






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







share|improve this question














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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










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



















  • 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










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1














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."





share|improve this answer































    0














    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






    share|improve this answer
























    • 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











    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    1














    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."





    share|improve this answer




























      1














      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."





      share|improve this answer


























        1












        1








        1







        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."





        share|improve this answer













        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."






        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 6 hours ago









        TaliesinMerlinTaliesinMerlin

        5,3171127




        5,3171127

























            0














            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






            share|improve this answer
























            • 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
















            0














            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






            share|improve this answer
























            • 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














            0












            0








            0







            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






            share|improve this answer













            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







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            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



















            • 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


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

            Image
            5 This question already has an answer here: How do you calculate the likelihood of drawing certain cards in your opening hand? 3 answers There is a funny modern deck where you play Treasure Hunt, but you really need to have it on the starting hand. How many mulligans should I take, if my deck contains 60 cards and contains 4 copies of Treasure Hunt? magic-the-gathering probability share | improve this question asked Nov 23 '18 at 12:12 dan dan 152 4
            Read more

            Alcedinidae

            Image
            Alcedinidae Martin-pêcheur à dos bleu ( Alcedo azurea ) Classification (COI) Règne Animalia Embranchement Chordata Sous-embr. Vertebrata Classe Aves Ordre Coraciiformes Famille Alcedinidae Rafinesque, 1815 Les Alcédinidés ou Alcedinidae forment une famille d'oiseaux plus connus sous les noms de martins-pêcheurs et martins-chasseurs. Sommaire 1 Description 2 Répartition et habitat 3 Systématique 3.1 Liste alphabétique des genres 3.2 Liste des espèces 4 Chez les Anciens : l'alcyon 4.1 Étymologie (Littré) 4.2 Oiseau « fabuleux » ? 5 Notes 6 Articles connexes 7 Liens externes 7.1 Bibliographie Description | Ce sont des oiseaux compacts de taille petite à moyenne (10 à 46 cm), au bec droit et long, en forme de poignard. Leurs pattes sont courtes, et ils portent un plumage aux couleurs vives. Répartition et habitat | Cosmopolites, ils fréquentent surtout
            Read more

            Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]

            Image
            9 $begingroup$ This question already has an answer here: What happens if we put together a proton and an antineutron? 2 answers Is it theoretically possible to make a "deuterium" atom containing a proton and an antineutron in its nucleus? Would the strong nuclear force cause attraction between a proton and an antineutron? Would such a nucleus be stable, or would the proton somehow annihilate the antineutron when close enough? nuclear-physics antimatter share | cite | improve this question asked yesterday
            Read more