Tell me more ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 16 down vote favorite
2

I refer to the usage of "don't" as an imperative to tell someone what not to do. As in,

Hey! Don't you dare touch that button!

When it is used in the interrogative or as part of a statement, "don't" can be expanded like most other contractions. It either just breaks up right in the sentence, or surrounds the subject.

Don't you love me, Juanromeo? -> Do you not love me, Juanromeo?

I don't love you, Marijuliet. -> I do not love you, Marijuliet.

However, I have no idea how one breaks up the imperative. "Do you not dare[...]" sounds like it's a lead up to a question, "You do not dare[...]" comes across as a statement moreso than a command, and "Do not you dare[...]" just sounds silly.

"Don't" is a bit unique among "not" contractions (at least that I know of) because it is the only one that can be used in an imperative sense. Couldn't, shouldn't, wouldn't, haven't, isn't, doesn't, aren't, can't... none of these can be used in an imperative sense because you cannot command someone to could, should, etc.

Is it possible to expand the don't contraction when it is used as part of a command? Or is its unique case such that it exists as its own linguistic construct?

share|improve this question
@PeterShor. Let's not start. – TRiG Nov 21 '11 at 2:48
Oddly, You don't you love me, Juanromeo? and You do not love me, Juanromeo? seems to work. Although in speech you would be reliant on intonation to make it understood as a question. – Brendon Nov 21 '11 at 5:51

2 Answers

up vote 23 down vote accepted

With an implied subject, the sentence could be written as:

Do not dare touch that button.

Is that what you're looking for?

share|improve this answer
1  
Y'know, I didn't think about just removing the subject. I wonder if that's the only way. – Grace Note♦ Nov 20 '11 at 19:21
8  
@GraceNote: Subjects are not normally expressed in imperative clauses. – Barrie England Nov 20 '11 at 19:28
4  
In practice I think one of the reasons the word "dare" appears in OP's original is simply so it can be emphasised. But if "don't" is expanded, "dare" becomes redundant; many speakers would simply shift the emphasis and say "Do not touch that button!" – FumbleFingers Nov 20 '11 at 23:36
1  
@FumbleFingers I agree, "do not dare" sounds odd, with clashing formal/informal tone. – poolie Nov 21 '11 at 0:29
1  
The comments expand on this very nicely, but I think the essence of "no subject necessary in imperative clause" captured in this answer is the key point. – Grace Note♦ Nov 21 '11 at 21:55
show 2 more comments
up vote 2 down vote

I think that it may exist as its own linguistic construct that has evolved due to the gain in usage of "Don't" in daily language. I think it would be difficult to come up with a deconstruction that expresses the same stress in English without significantly changing the words:

You dare not touch that button!

OR

You shall not dare touch that button.

These are very British expressions, rarely found in American speech. The verb to do switches to something else.

However there is an urgent "running after" feeling in

Don't you dare touch that button!

If i was to write a dialogue where a parent was running after a child I would use the last form. The other two do not sound urgent enough, although they do sound ominous.

Those are my thoughts.

I also see Jasper's answer, viz. "You do not dare touch that button!" I find that closer to "You shall not dare touch that button!" (i.e. ominous) vs. my first expression "You dare not touch that button!" which sounds closer to your original phrase in emotional context, (i.e. more urgent).

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.