do, v.i.

[Ronald Butters]

Actually, I think what Christ said was "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

It is transitive if you count the deleted "something" as the direct object--but we find a deleted something in all of JL's examples as well.

"Do [something] unto others which is identical to something that you would like them to do to you."

Even Yoda on Dagobah had some kind of implied [something}, and so did Bill Clinton.

If Yoda, Bill Clinton, the Teabaggers, and Jesus all are doing it, does that make it extraordinary?

On Jan 17, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Victor Steinbok wrote:

> On 1/17/2011 10:17 AM, Ronald Butters wrote:
>> Do unto others before they do unto you.
>> ...
>
> I thought this template only applied to teabagging, as in "Teabag Obama
> before he teabags you!"--which is the original phrase behind the
> reference to Teabaggers as Teabaggers.
>
> Seriously, however, there is also the variant
>
> "Do unto others as they would do unto you."
>
> If this were a straight " Do unto others _what_ they would do unto you,"
> this would be a case of transitive "do", would it not? So should we
> treat the entire complement "as they would do unto to you" as an object?
> [I suppose, that's a rhetorical question]

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org