A simple yes-no question

[Matthew Wai]

Do you agree that "do" followed by an object can be used also as a pro-verb instead of only as an action verb?

Perhaps majority opinions can invalidate those of qualified teachers who disagree.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Do you agree that "do" followed by an object can be used also as a pro-verb instead of only as an action verb?

Perhaps majority opinions can invalidate those of qualified teachers who disagree.

Can you provide examples? It has been my experience that many grammar arguments are based on differences in terminology rather than on substance.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Can you provide examples?

Click here to see the opinion (as an example) of an administrator here, please scroll up to read the original sentence.
In order to avert the improper analogy (which is beside the point), I would change the sentence to
"Peter advises, supports and subsidizes John at present as Mary did to Jane in the past."
Can "to" be deleted grammatically?

 

[bhaisahab]

Click here to see the opinion (as an example) of an administrator here, please scroll up to read the original sentence.
In order to avert the improper analogy (which is beside the point), I would change the sentence to
"Peter advises, supports and subsidizes John at present as Mary did to Jane in the past."
Can "to" be deleted grammatically?

I wouldn't use "to" there. I would probably use "for", but I'd say it's possible with "as Mary did Jane in the past".

 

[MikeNewYork]

Click here to see the opinion (as an example) of an administrator here, please scroll up to read the original sentence.
In order to avert the improper analogy (which is beside the point), I would change the sentence to
"Peter advises, supports and subsidizes John at present as Mary did to Jane in the past."
Can "to" be deleted grammatically?

To be honest, I find the sentence terribly awkward no matter what is done with it.

I would not use "to" and I would not use it without a preposition. If I had to choose one it would be "for".

However, I would rewrite the sentence. ""Peter currently advises, supports and subsidizes John, as Mary once did for Jane."

 

[Matthew Wai]

"Peter antagonized, opposed and obstructed John as Mary did against Jane."

Is it proper to use "against"? I hope you are not fed up with my repetitive questions.

 

[Rover_KE]

It is not proper to use 'against' unless the first part of the sentence did, too.

'Chelsea battled hard against Arsenal as did Sunderland against Newcastle.'

 

[Tdol]

Click here to see the opinion (as an example) of an administrator here, please scroll up to read the original sentence.
In order to avert the improper analogy (which is beside the point), I would change the sentence to
"Peter advises, supports and subsidizes John at present as Mary did to Jane in the past."
Can "to" be deleted grammatically?

I am not sure what you think my opinion is meant to be, but 'as what butchers do to poultry' is wrong, so I don't see how you can synthesise my unexpressed view from it.

 

[Matthew Wai]

...However, I would rewrite the sentence. ""Peter currently advises, supports and subsidizes John, as Mary once did for Jane."

Does Rover_KE also deem it improper to use "for" in MikeNewYork's above revised sentence because the first part of it contains no "for"?

 

[Matthew Wai]

I am not sure what you think my opinion is meant to be...

Tdol told me that "If you use just as butchers do poultry, it would make better sense". Since "do" is followed by "poultry", so I guess his opinion is that "do" followed by an object can be used as a pro-verb, which is relevant to my original question in this thread.

 

[Rover_KE]

Does Rover_KE also deem it improper to use "for" in MikeNewYork's above revised sentence because the first part of it contains no "for"?

No, 'for' sounds OK to me in that sentence.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Can Rover_KE explain why "do against" is improper but "do for" sounds OK?

 

[bhaisahab]

Can Rover_KE explain why "do against" is improper but "do for" sounds OK?

Please do not direct your questions at one individual contributor. In my opinion "do against" is not natural English.

 

[Barb_D]

The Republican do daily battle against the Democrats and vice versa, just as the Whigs did against the Tories centuries ago.
The Whigs battled against the Tories in the past just as the Republicans do against the Democrats today.

NOTE: Not intended to be historically or politically accurate - it was just the first "against" usage I could come up with.

When the first part uses "against" you can use it in the latter part, just as Rover said in Post #7. For some reason (I can't explain why) the past version sounds more natural than the present version.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Please do not direct your questions at one individual contributor.

When I direct a follow-up question at someone who just replied to me, there is no implication that others' opinions are not welcome.
Is there a forum rule requiring that askers cannot put their questions in public to someone by name ?

 

[Matthew Wai]

When the first part doesn't use "for", the second part can still use it, as MikeNewYork said in Post #5.
When the first part doesn't use "against", the second part cannot use it, as Rover_KE said in Post #7.

Can anyone explain why?

 

[Barb_D]

While "for" carries the meaning "for the benefit of" and the verbs used in the first part all had an idea of creating a benefit for someone.

There are fewer verbs that carry this idea of working against someone without actually using the word "against." Perhaps there are some, but none were coming to any of our minds.

So the "for" can be implied fairly easily, but "against" cannot be easily implied.

If you can find such a verb, it's possible it will work.

Why don't you ask Amy what her expert opinion is? She may have another point of view.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Why don't you ask Amy what her expert opinion is? She may have another point of view.

The sentences in question make sense to us (leaving aside grammar) but perhaps make no sense to Amy Baker again (as Barb_D knows her previous opinions about sentences using a similar construction), so what is the point of asking her?

 

[Tdol]

Tdol told me that "If you use just as butchers do poultry, it would make better sense". Since "do" is followed by "poultry", so I guess his opinion is that "do" followed by an object can be used as a pro-verb, which is relevant to my original question in this thread.

If you're guessing what someone's opinion is, you are not giving their opinion. I commented on one badly written sentence.

 

[Tdol]

"Peter antagonized, opposed and obstructed John as Mary did against Jane."

Is it proper to use "against"? I hope you are not fed up with my repetitive questions.

Why are you introducing against here? None of the verbs in the sentence requires it. An example that does not require a preposition is not the best way to test whether a preposition can be introduced.