I often wish people who make pronouncements on language would take the trouble to learn something about it.

One of the regular panellists on The Wright Stuff is Dominic Holland and Matthew Wright, the host, often suggests that Dominic's spelling and grammar could use some work.

He did so today showing this tweet that Dominic had made

quote:

I am doing The Wright Stuff all this week – with the inimitable host, Matthew Wright. It's a show I do do regularly and very much enjoy.

His complaint was the "do do" but with the greatest respect it's the complaint itself that is do-do.

If it's an error at all, then it's a momentary error of concentration entirely unrelated to either grammar or spelling. We all do do it from time to time and in a fast environment like Twitter the chances of such errors are magnified.

But it might not even be that. The sentence is a perfectly valid English construction. If we replace the second "do" with a synonym, say "appear on" then it's much easier to see:

"It's a show I do appear on regularly and very much enjoy."

We can, in English, use "do" as an auxiliary verb. It intensifies the main verb and contradicts a negative assertion.

"You don't read enough books!"
"I do read enough books."

"You don't want another beer, do you?"
"I do want another beer!"

"You don't do The Wright Stuff do you."
"I do do The Wright Stuff."

I've encountered similar misguided suggestions in the past that there is something wrong with "had had", which is equally nonsensical.

I'm not saying that Dominic's comment was intended this way, the hundred and forty character limit of Twitter makes it very difficult to establish a context but even if it was, as seems likely, a lapse of concentration, it DID NOT result in an ungrammatical result.

It may not be ungrammatical, but it seems inappropriate to the context - unless he was responding to a previous comment where someone had claimed that he didn't do the show regularly. It looks more like a simple typing error to me.

I'm pretty convinced that you're right, that it was a typo caused by a lapse of concentration. I still think that if, as the host did, you are going to criticise someone (however light-heartedly) for their grammar then you ought to choose an example where there is actually something wrong with it.

I missed this post.

It probably was a typo, and if it wasn't, in my opinion it should have been re-written for clarity. On the other hand, I think you are right, Bob, that it is grammatically correct.

I am one of those people who, as Bob says, often uses "do" to intensify the verb. It is just a habit of mine, though editors often change it when I do do that.

Not that one should ever use the lyrics of a song to justify a grammatical point of view, I can't help but think of:

Do what you do do well boy
Do what you do do well
Do what you do with all of your heart
And do what you do do well.