"The question is, why is it the bare infinitive? Why not the past simple, or gerund?
After all, we say:
She's interested in nothing but skiing; not
*She's interested in nothing but ski."
I think I've worked this out
- The expressions "Do nth but" and "do nth except" have similar meanings to other verbs that are followed by the object and bare infinitive:
There seems to be an idea of passivity, but it is subtly different to the passivity expressed by gerunds. Specifically:
1. verbs followed by the object and bare infinitive imply that we don't do sth.
2. Verbs followed by gerunds imply that we lack a sense of purpose.
Actually, there is no purpose involved in 1., either. However, this is not to imply any sense of purposeless rather purpose doesn't come into it. It is the same difference in negation as "amoral" and "immoral". I don't think the word "apurposeful" exists, however, but that is the idea I'm trying to get across. I think this same "purpose doesn't come into it" idea holds for modals too.
For evidence of 1. we can:
a) let sb do sth - no intervention;
b) have sb do sth - I don't do it sb else does;
c) see/hear/over-hear/sense/witness sb do sth - attention is not directed.
d) watch sb do sth - no intervention, either because one willfully stands by or is powerless to do anything.
e) do nth but/except - we don't do anything else.
At first the odd verbs here appeared to be "make" and "help", which seem to imply that we do do sth.
However, if we "help" we don't do all of the action, and if we make sb do sth we don't do any of it. However, "make" seems to be more similar in meaning to the verbs followed by the object "to" and infinitive, perhaps purpose is lacking here?
The only thing that troubles me about this analysis is that "but" and "except" appear to be genuine conjunctions rather than part of the verb. Can they be both?
