The Do in Don't

From the start I was just wondering if this was a thread to say, "Google's motto is do be evil".

 

Nope nothing to do with that really Ryan that was just a passing example...

It's to do with language and use of English language and things I had noticed and tested with my little un.

If it was to do with Google it would be in the Google forum otherwise.

 

It's not one I've experienced a problem with either personally or when I have taught English (to non-native speakers from quite a few different countries). Maybe it's a regional problem due to accent?

 

Not even sure it would work on those with English as a second language though Ryan tbh. They would, one would assume, in most cases not be, in the first instance (that moment of initial compulsion) be associating the "do" in the same way.

Take German "tun" = do and "nicht" = do not - it doesn't quite work the same. So when a German hears "Don't" or even more "Do not" they are not having the auto association with the first part, if you get my drift, as they would be wired to associate tun as their Do word unlike a child who learnt English as their first language.

Don't click is a long time classic online joke you may remember from back in the 90's that people used to play that was quite funny and that one could say is in some ways associated...

 

One can then say, that when the ten commandments were uttered, all those "you shall nots" was God's way of saying "Do it, do it!".... I don't think that's what he had in mind.

 

Yes and all liars and thieves includes every human that ever lived (but that's all a bit heavy and well debatable obviously). We are all wired to be thieves though to survive as it is a natural thing to take to eat. Do you know one child who taking is not natural to?

 

I have a 17 month old daughter. You know how it goes for babies: "If I saw it - it's mine, if I touched it - it's mine, if I held it - it's mine, if it's yours - it's mine."

That's my baby. So, yeah, the human nature is all about taking.

 

This whole thread is such BS.

We are speaking about the "do" part of the words that Revelations-Decoder says kids respond as soon as they hear the "do" in the word "don't". Common sense makes it clear that it simply does not happen that way.

When one says the word "do" it is pronounced as in "dude". /do͞o/
When one says the word "don't" it is pronounced as in "donuts" /dnt/

When actually speaking, you don't say the same word at all. You never say the word "do" when you are saying "don't". So the whole notion that a kid hears "do" when you say "don't" is utter nonsense.

 

Yes you have to wonder how it is that it is a natural survival mechanism for all of us yte obviously there are degrees and yet deep down if someone put a tree in fornt of you and a fence and said if you pass that fence you are a thief but if you stauy htta side of the fence you will strave.

Now where is the right and wrong? Me I think anyone with the strenght to make it to the tree even if they are then to be a thief would, in most cases (and this will apply to all infants), choose to take from the tree even if the tree belongs to the man who put up the fence and said do not cross the line.

How many Australians came from the workhouse due to stealing bread / apples / food of some sort? (For example.)

 

Yet I have seen evidence in front of my eyes, so for your it is BS for me it is what I have seen...

 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Perhaps you just witnessed the reason reverse psychology works. You tell a kid to do one thing and they do the opposite. That sounds far more reasonable to me.

 

That is so interesting. The example of fire like you said is so commonly seen in young children.

 

Nail on the head. (On both points - reverse psychology and correlation does not imply causation.)

I asked my wife about it and she looked at me like I am crazy.

 

If I had not seeen it repeatedly in slow motion that would be likely what I would assume to as it is something one would argue repeatedly as that is indeed how it seems on the surface.

 

It works to as taking the focus out allows the focus to be reassigned on an altogether different subject to the one which remains as the subject when it is still included in the sentence, if you get my drift.

 

The next time she looks at you like *you're* crazy, just remind her that *she* married a two foot high penguin that breaks windows for food.