On 9/6/07, Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > On 9/6/07, caeruleancentaur <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> I don't see "doth" as emphatic, but rather as an archaic present
> >> tense:
> >> I do, thou dost, he doth, etc.
> >
> > It's not the fact that it's "doth" instead of "does" that makes it
> > emphatic, but the fact that it's there at all.  Why "doth magnify"
> > instead of just "magnifieth"?  In modern English, at least, the use of
> >  "do" as an auxiliary in a positive statement is an emphatic device.
> _Do_ before another verb was not always emphatic in English. Sorry, I
> don't have any references for that, but I've read it.

Here is a quote and a reference:

"in eModE [Early Modern English, DE], by contrast, negative and
interrogative sentences can be formed either with or without _do_.
Moreover, _do_ can be inserted in affirmative declarative sentences
without necessarily giving sentence emphasis."

Barber, Charles. 1997. Early Modern English. Edinburgh University
Press. ISBN: 0-7486-0835-4.