To be sure, we don't use the dummy
element in some constructions that commonly required it in Shakespeare's
language. For example, in Elizabethan times "do" was extremely frequent in plain
simple-tense sentences like "He doth know". You're right that English was just
as analytic then as it is now, but some changes have been going on. On the
whole, if there's a choice between doing things morphologically and
analytically, the latter way tends to oust the former in English as time goes
by. Think of comparatives, for example: commoner/profounder/pleasanter >
more common/profound/pleasant.
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Do.
Do we have to be a little careful about the connection
here? English
requires the dummy element more now than it did in
Shakespeare's time, but it was just as analytic then as it is today...