Is the sentence grammatically correct:
I do recall ever seeing my mother in the light of day.
Is the sentence grammatically correct:
I do recall ever seeing my mother in the light of day.
No, it's not grammatical. It violates the rule of English grammar that forbids use of a Negative Polarity Item outside a negative context.
From the article on "Negatives and Negative Polarity" in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences:
[English has] a large, complex, and diverse system of Negative Polarity Items (‘NPIs’ – like ever in He didn’t ever see it), which felicitously occur only in the scope of some negative element (*He ever saw it). The details of what ‘scope’ actually is, and of how and which and why NPIs can occur within it, vary among specific negative and NPI elements.
Negative polarity is a variety of ‘negative concord’ (e.g French Je ne regrette rien, lit.‘I don’t regret nothing’; Yiddish Ix hob nit kin gelt, lit. ‘I don’t have no money’), but instead of negative concord, which uses negative elements in the focus of another negative, negative polarity uses other, non-negative elements, which can sometimes pick up ‘negativity by association’ and occur without overt negative (could care less < couldn’t care less).
‘NPI’ is a term applied to lexical items, fixed phrases, or syntactic construction types that demonstrate unusual behavior around negation. NPIs might be words or phrases that occur only in negative-polarity contexts (fathom, in weeks) or have an idiomatic sense in such contexts (not too bright, drink a drop); or they might have a lexical affordance that only functions in such contexts (need/dare (not) reply); or a specific syntactic rule might be sensitive to negation, like Subject-Verb Inversion with Adverb Fronting in
- Never have I seen such a thing
- *Ever have I seen such a thing.
- *Frequently have I seen such a thing.
Ever is the suppletive word that English uses instead of the nonexistent *anywhen. Like any and all its other compounds, it's an NPI. Using an NPI without negation in a sentence produces an ungrammatical sentence [an asterisk before a sentence indicates that it is ungrammatical], e.g:
I do recall ever seeing my mother in the light of day.
A legal reading of that sentence is one in which ever here means always, as ever and anon it is wont to do. Wherefore given that this sentence is clearly grammatical:
I do recall always seeing my mother in the light of day.
Then so too must needs the original also be grammatical.
Here for your delectation are a handful of illustrative quotes from an obvious source:
It's not ungrammatical; just a little unusual, maybe a little poetic even. If English is your second language, I would recommend avoiding this construction.
I would interpret "ever" as meaning the same as "always" in this context; that is, I always saw my mother in the light of day. It could indicate, for example, that whenever it was daytime, she was there checking up on me.
This can only be said in sarcastically echoing a question, "Do you recall ever seeing ...", in a positive assertion.
This may be a literary technique, but is not grammatical as far I can say off hand.
"I do recall ever seeing my mother in the light of day" would seem like a tautology to me.
"I do not recall ever seeing X" is a way of saying "I do not recall seeing X at any time in the past"
Saying "I do recall ever" means something like "I do recall at any time" which is self-evident from the fact of remembrance. If you do remember it, it must have been at a time in the past, therefore to say "ever" in this context is to repeat oneself in a rather confusing fashion.
Is it strictly grammatical? I don't think so, at least in so far as by using a word that adds nothing to the sentence but simply repeats a meaning already expressed is always better avoided.