Hi, Anton!  Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

AH> IMHO  what  he's suggesting is that if you don't want to
AH> overuse the verb "speak" you  could  correctly  say  "he
AH> should not (do so)" or "he ought not to (do so)".  :-)

AS> No, I proposed only the following amendment:

AS>   When  a  person is in a company of friends he never speaks
AS> formally.  And he should not, [or] And he ought not to.



          Uh-huh.  But you also gave another example... "I love you better than
 I do myself"... in which the verb "do" replaces the verb "love".  Prior to
that you & Alexander had been discussing which words could be left out under
certain circumstances.  I was trying to cover both at once by using parentheses
 to show that the use of "do so" or possibly "do that" is optional in my
rendition.  :-)




version.
get were discussing since we had






AS> and commented on the impropriety of using `to' in place of a verb
AS> from  the viewpoint of common sense and general logic. By the way,
AS> repetition is not always cacophonic[1].   It  is even recognised as
AS> a figure of speech!

AS> Now  that  have read it again, I think that "the company" is much
AS> better than "a company" (of friends).
AS> ____________________
AS> 1. as an antonym of `epiphonic'.

AS> ___
AS>  - Origin: nntps://fidonews.mine.nu - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/6.0)
AS> @EEN-BY: 1/120 18/0 116/116 123/0 25 50 150 755 135/300 138/146 153/250 757
AS> @EEN-BY: 153/7715 154/10 203/0 221/1 6 360 261/38 280/5003 320/219 460/58
AS> @EEN-BY: 640/1321 1384 712/848 3634/0 12 12 15 24 27 50
AS> @ATH: 221/6 1 640/1384 3634/12 153/7715

--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
 * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)