This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Explanation: After "is changing", the subsequent verb should also be the verb "to be", in this case "are". After "changes", the verb "to change", not the verb "to be", is the relevant one, so the verb to do should be used: "so does.." But the form used here is quite common and many English-speaking people would not see anything wrong with it.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 41 mins (2017-04-03 09:55:07 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
The "do" structure here is not grammatically correct, but is used nevertheless.
I agree with both of you. I would change it, especially in an English textbook. It's poor writing and a poor example to put before careful language learners like our asker.
As a proofreader, I'd certainly want to correct it. But I can imagine hearing it and not even raising an eyebrow. As the tense has changed, the verb really needs to be restated rather than simply using the (apparently wrong) auxiliary. A native speaker can perform this type of mental edit without even being aware of it. But having the inconsistency staring out at you from the paper makes it more obvious. And having it in an English textbook is not at all good, unless it's making some point.
Thanks for the explanation. I can see where you're coming from now. However, I'm not convinced that the switch of tenses works as a linguistic device - it runds too much risk of simply sounding like the output of a writer with a poor command of grammar.
I think I did understand you. But I don't agree that "do" is being used here with the present continuous. If that were the case, they would simply have said "and so are words", meaning "and words are changing too". Of course that would have sounded better. But as I said before, I don't think they mean "and words are changing"; I think they mean "and words change", which is of course a different statement: "do" has been used because we're meant to understand a change of tense from continuous to simple present. I'm not sure you can do this; I'm not sure that the structure admits this particular change of tense. But I do think that's why "do" has been used rather than "are".
Certainly the fact that this structure appears in a blog doesn't make it correct; I was only illustrating the fact that native speakers do use it. As I say, I'm not happy with this construction and suggested "and words change too".
I think you misunderstnd me. I am only objecting to the use of "do" with the present continuous, which immediately strikes my ears as wrong. I have no objection to "My grandmother loved strawberries and so do I", which is absolutely fine. But I don't like "The world is changing and so do translators" at all (and the fact that it appears in a blog dosn't make it correct) - why can't they say "The world is changing and so are translators", which sounds far better?
I think that's slightly overstating it. Formally speaking I think you're right, but this structure is certainly used, even by our professional colleagues:
It is certainly possible to have a change of tense between the two parts: "My grandmother loved strawberries and so do I."
Well, if "are changing" is regarded as a tense of the verb "change", then you might argue that a change of tense from continuous present to simple present is not ungrammatical.
However, it does grate on me and I think it's poor style at best.
... it simply sounds wrong and I can't see any grammatical argument for saying that it could ever be considered correct. As Jack says, you can say "The world changes all the time, so do words", or "The world is changing all the time, so are words", but you can't mix the two.
Jack has answered your question, but I'd just like a add a further comment.
What the writer wants to say is that the world is changing and that, similarly, words change. In the first case we have a continuous present and in the second a simple present. If we say "so are words", it means "and words are changing too". But that is not what the writer means to say. "Words change" means that words inherently, necessarily, tend to change: it's a fact of life. "Words are changing" means that at the moment, as a matter of observable fact, they are changing, but it doesn't necessarily mean that words always change, which is what the simple present implies.
That is why the writer has used "do" rather than "are", which would be grammatically impeccable. We can't simply change "do" to "are", because by doing so we would be changing the statement.
Using "do" here is possible in informal speech. A native speaker would understand it correctly, but I think most would say that it is grammatically forced and stylistically poor.
So I think the solution would be to change it to "and words change too".
By the way, unless you add "and" the comma should strictly be a semicolon.
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
15 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +6
does the verb \"do\" make sense here (in grammatical point of view)?
Strictly speaking you are right
Explanation: After "is changing", the subsequent verb should also be the verb "to be", in this case "are". After "changes", the verb "to change", not the verb "to be", is the relevant one, so the verb to do should be used: "so does.." But the form used here is quite common and many English-speaking people would not see anything wrong with it.
-------------------------------------------------- Note added at 41 mins (2017-04-03 09:55:07 GMT) --------------------------------------------------
The "do" structure here is not grammatically correct, but is used nevertheless.
Jack Doughty United Kingdom Local time: 07:31 Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 197
Grading comment
Thank you so much indeed!
Notes to answerer
Asker: Thank you so much Jack for your prompt reply!
Actually, I guess the verb "Do" is all correct; however, there has been controversies over English teachers in a group. If possible, please provide me more details why this structures could be grammatically correct.