Just stick to the title in question, apparently unknown to us, to realize how complex the aspects that guide the linguistic facts are, isn't it true?
But the point is that, as we establish familiarity with these linguistic facts, we realize that many are extremely simple, even trivial, that is, facts that arise from our communication everyday. An example of this are the so-called vicarious verbs, derived from the Latin vicarius, whose meaning is “to take the place of”, “to replace”.
And when we talk about substitution, we can compare them to cohesive elements, which contribute in a way direct to the textual performance, in order to avoid possible deviations, which would make the speech boring and without sense. Thus, we say that vicarious verbs replace those that have already been mentioned, while maintaining the essence, the original idea discussed here. They function as a kind of synonym of the verb to which they refer, manifested, generally, by the verbs to be and to do.
In this sense, in order to verify them better, let us observe some representative cases:
My friends no longer visit me as they used to.
My friends no longer visit me as they used to. We noticed that the verb to do (made) replaces the verb to visit (visited).
We wanted to invite him to go to the movies with us, but we didn't.
We wanted to invite him to go to the movies with us, but we didn't. The same occurs in this statement, as the verb to do (we did) replaces the verb to invite (we invite).
If she doesn't accept to go with us, she doesn't accept because she doesn't want to.
If she doesn't agree to go with us, it's because she doesn't want to. In this case, we find that the verb to be (is) replaces the verb to accept (accept).
Through such assumptions, we perceive the recurrence of such a linguistic fact – a fact that makes it not so complex, do you agree?
By Vânia Duarte
Graduated in Letters
Source: Brazil School - https://brasilescola.uol.com.br/gramatica/verbo-vicario-ampliando-nocoes.htm
