Charles Kuralt Early life and career Where was he born? Kuralt was born in Wilmington, North Carolina. Did he go to school? Later, at Charlotte's Central High School, Kuralt was voted "Most Likely to Succeed. Did he attend college? After graduation from Central High School in 1951, he attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Did he do well there?
Did Charles Kuralt do well at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill?
Kuralt was born in Wilmington, North Carolina. As a boy, he won a children's sports writing contest for a local newspaper by writing about a dog that got loose on the field during a baseball game. Charles' father, Wallace H. Kuralt. Sr., moved his family to Charlotte in 1945, when he became Director of Public Welfare in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. Their house off Sharon Road, then 10 miles south of the city, was the only structure in the area. During the years he lived in that house, Kuralt became one of the youngest radio announcers in the country. Later, at Charlotte's Central High School, Kuralt was voted "Most Likely to Succeed." In 1948, he was named one of four National Voice of Democracy winners at age 14, where he won a $500 scholarship.  After graduation from Central High School in 1951, he attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he became editor of The Daily Tar Heel and joined St. Anthony Hall. While there, he appeared in a starring role in a radio program called "American Adventure: A Study Of Man In The New World" in the episode titled "Hearth Fire", which aired on August 4, 1955. It is a telling of the advent of TVA's building lakes written by John Ehle and directed by John Clayton.  After graduating from UNC, Kuralt worked as a reporter for the Charlotte News in his home state, where he wrote "Charles Kuralt's People," a column that won him an Ernie Pyle Award. He moved to CBS in 1957 as a writer, where he became well known as the host of the Eyewitness to History series. He traveled around the world as a journalist for the network, including stints as CBS's Chief Latin American Correspondent and then as Chief West Coast Correspondent.  In 1967, Kuralt and a CBS camera crew accompanied Ralph Plaisted in his attempt to reach the North Pole by snowmobile, which resulted in the documentary To the Top of the World and his book of the same name. CANNOTANSWER
While there, he appeared in a starring role in a radio program called "American Adventure: A Study Of Man In The New World"
Charles Bishop Kuralt (September 10, 1934 – July 4, 1997) was an American journalist. He is most widely known for his long career with CBS, first for his "On the Road" segments on The CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite, and later as the first anchor of CBS News Sunday Morning, a position he held for fifteen years.

Kuralt's "On the Road" segments were recognized twice with personal Peabody Awards. The first, awarded in 1968, cited those segments as heartwarming and "nostalgic vignettes"; in 1975, the award was for his work as a U.S. "bicentennial historian"; his work "capture[d] the individuality of the people, the dynamic growth inherent in the area, and ... the rich heritage of this great nation." He shared in a third Peabody awarded to CBS News Sunday Morning.

Early life and career
Kuralt was born in Wilmington, North Carolina. As a boy, he won a children's sports writing contest for a local newspaper by writing about a dog that got loose on the field during a baseball game.  Charles' father, Wallace H. Kuralt. Sr., moved his family to Charlotte in 1945, when he became Director of Public Welfare in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.  Their house off Sharon Road, then 10 miles south of the city, was the only structure in the area.  During the years he lived in that house, Kuralt became one of the youngest radio announcers in the country. Later, at Charlotte's Central High School, Kuralt was voted "Most Likely to Succeed." in his graduating class of 1951.  In 1948, he was named one of four National Voice of Democracy winners at age 14, where he won a $500 scholarship.

After graduation he attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he became editor of The Daily Tar Heel and joined St. Anthony Hall. While there, he appeared in a starring role in a radio program called American Adventure: A Study of Man in The New World in the episode titled "Hearth Fire", which aired on August 4, 1955. It is a telling of the advent of TVA's building lakes written by John Ehle and directed by John Clayton.

After graduating from UNC, Kuralt worked as a reporter for the Charlotte News in his home state, where he wrote "Charles Kuralt's People," a column that won him an Ernie Pyle Award. He moved to CBS in 1957 as a writer, where he became well known as the host of the Eyewitness to History series.  He traveled around the world as a journalist for the network, including stints as CBS's Chief Latin American Correspondent and then as Chief West Coast Correspondent.

In 1967, Kuralt and a CBS camera crew accompanied Ralph Plaisted in his first attempt to reach the North Pole by snowmobile, which resulted in the documentary To the Top of the World and his book of the same name.

"On the Road"
Kuralt was said to have tired of what he considered the excessive rivalry between reporters on the hard news beats:

"I didn't like the competitiveness or the deadline pressure," he told the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, upon his induction into their Hall of Fame. "I was sure that Dick Valeriani of NBC was sneaking around behind my back — and of course, he was! — getting stories that would make me look bad the next day. Even though I covered news for a long time, I was always hoping I could get back to something like my little column on the Charlotte News."

When he finally persuaded CBS to let him try out just such an idea for three months, it turned into a quarter-century project. "On the Road" became a regular feature on The CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite in 1967. Kuralt hit the road in a motor home (he wore out six before he was through) with a small crew and avoided the interstates in favor of the nation's back roads in search of America's people and their doings. He said, "Interstate highways allow you to drive coast to coast, without seeing anything".

According to Thomas Steinbeck, the older son of John Steinbeck, the inspiration for "On the Road" was Steinbeck's Travels with Charley (whose title was initially considered as the name of Kuralt's feature). During his career, he won three Peabody Awards and ten Emmy Awards for journalism. He also won a George Polk Awards in 1980 for National Television Reporting.

Since 2011, Kuralt's format was revived by CBS News, with Steve Hartman taking Kuralt's space.

CBS Sunday Morning anchor
On January 28, 1979, CBS launched CBS News Sunday Morning with Kuralt as host.  On October 27, 1980, he was added as host of the weekday broadcasts of CBS' Morning show as well, joined with Diane Sawyer as weekday co-host on September 28, 1981.  Kuralt left the weekday broadcasts in March 1982, but continued to anchor the Sunday morning program until April 3, 1994, when he retired after 15 years as host and was succeeded by Charles Osgood.

Retirement and death

At age 60, Kuralt surprised many by retiring from CBS News. At the time, he was the longest tenured on-air personality in the News Division. However, he hinted that his retirement might not be complete. In 1995, he narrated the TLC documentary The Revolutionary War, and in early 1997, he signed on to host a syndicated, thrice-weekly, ninety-second broadcast, "An American Moment", presenting what CNN called "slices of Americana". Then, Kuralt also agreed to host a CBS cable broadcast show, I Remember, designed as a weekly, hour-long review of significant news from the three previous decades.

He was hospitalized and died of complications from systemic lupus erythematosus at the age of 62 at New York–Presbyterian Hospital.

One of Kuralt's books was titled North Carolina Is My Home. Kuralt's younger brother Wallace, who died in December 2003, was also well-known in his home state, having been the owner of The Intimate Bookshop on Franklin Street in Chapel Hill for many years. In addition, a portion of land along the Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, Cape Fear Ecosystem, so named for the rivers that flow into the Albemarle, Currituck, and Pamlico Sounds, has been named for Kuralt, honoring his having given as much time to nature and wildlife as to people in his "On the Road" and Sunday Morning stories.

By request in his will, Kuralt was buried on the UNC grounds in Old Chapel Hill Cemetery. The university uses a Kuralt speech in its television commercials, and it displays many of his awards and a re-creation of his office in its Journalism School. Petie Baird Kuralt, who died in 1999, was buried right next to him.

Accolades
 1993: Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement
 1994: Paul White Award, Radio Television Digital News Association
 1996: Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism

Posthumous controversy
Two years after his death, Kuralt's decades-long companionship with a Montana woman named Patricia Shannon was made public. Kuralt apparently had a second, "shadow" family with Shannon while his wife lived in Manhattan and his daughters from a previous marriage lived on the eastern seaboard. Shannon asserted that the house in Montana had been willed to her, a position upheld by the Montana Supreme Court.  According to court testimony, Kuralt had met Shannon while doing a story on Pat Baker Park in Reno, Nevada, which Shannon had promoted and volunteered to build in 1968. The park was in a low-income area of Reno that had no parks until Shannon promoted her plan. Kuralt mentions Pat Shannon and the building of the park—but not the nature of their relationship together—in his autobiography.

References

External links
 
 Charles Kuralt Collection, 1935–1997 in the Southern Historical Collection at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 Ralph Grizzle, Remembering Charles Kuralt. Asheville, North Carolina: Kenilworth Media, 2000. ()
 Charles Kuralt's People. Asheville, North Carolina: Kenilworth Media, 2005. A collection of his award-winning Charlotte News columns.
 
 , a CNN obituary
 In re Estate of Kuralt, 15 P.3d 931 (2000)

1934 births
1997 deaths
20th-century American journalists
American male journalists
21st-century American journalists
60 Minutes correspondents
American television news anchors
American television reporters and correspondents
American war correspondents of the Vietnam War
American war correspondents
Burials at Old Chapel Hill Cemetery
CBS News people
Deaths from lupus
Grammy Award winners
Journalists from North Carolina
National Humanities Medal recipients
Peabody Award winners
People with lupus
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill alumni
Writers from New York City
Writers from Wilmington, North Carolina
Do-support (or do-insertion), in English grammar, is the use of the auxiliary verb do, including its inflected forms does and did, to form negated clauses and questions as well as other constructions in which subject–auxiliary inversion is required.

The verb "do" can be used as an auxiliary even in simple declarative sentences, and it usually serves to add emphasis, as in "I did shut the fridge." However, in the negated and inverted clauses referred to above, it is used because the conventions of Modern English syntax permit these constructions only when an auxiliary is present. It is not idiomatic in Modern English to add the negating word not to a lexical verb with finite form; not can be added only to an auxiliary or copular verb. For example, the sentence I am not with the copula be is fully idiomatic, but I know not with a finite lexical verb, while grammatical, is archaic. If there is no other auxiliary present when negation is required, the auxiliary do is used to produce a form like I do not (don't) know. The same applies in clauses requiring inversion, including most questions: inversion must involve the subject and an auxiliary verb so it is not idiomatic to say Know you him?; today's English usually substitutes Do you know him?

Do-support is not used when there is already an auxiliary or copular verb present or with non-finite verb forms (infinitives and participles). It is sometimes used with subjunctive forms. Furthermore, the use of do as an auxiliary should be distinguished from the use of do as a normal lexical verb, as in They do their homework.

Common uses
Do-support appears to accommodate a number of varying grammatical constructions:
question formation,
the appearance of the negation not, and
negative inversion.
These constructions often cannot occur without do-support or the presence of some other auxiliary verb.

In questions
The presence of an auxiliary (or copular) verb allows subject–auxiliary inversion to take place, as is required in most interrogative sentences in English. If there is already an auxiliary or copula present, do-support is not required when forming questions:

 He will laugh. → Will he laugh? (the auxiliary will inverts with the subject he)
 She is at home. → Is she at home? (the copula is inverts with the subject she)

This applies not only in yes–no questions but also in questions formed using interrogative words:

 When will he laugh?

However, if there is no auxiliary or copula present, inversion requires the introduction of an auxiliary in the form of do-support:

 I know. → Do I know? (Compare: *Know I?)
 He laughs. → Does he laugh? (Compare: *Laughs he?)
 She came home. → Did she come home? (Compare: *Came she home?)

The finite (inflected) verb is now the auxiliary do; the following verb is a bare infinitive which does not inflect: does he laugh? (not laughs); did she come? (not came).

In negated questions, the negating word not may appear either following the subject, or attached to the auxiliary in the contracted form n't. That applies both to do-support and to other auxiliaries:

 Why are you not playing? / Why aren't you playing?
 Do you not want to try? / Don't you want to try?

The above principles do not apply to wh-questions if the interrogative word is the subject or part of the subject. Then, there is no inversion and so there is no need for do-support: Who lives here?, Whose dog bit you?

The verb have, in the sense of possession, is sometimes used without do-support as if it were an auxiliary, but this is considered dated. The version with do-support is also correct:

 Have you any idea what is going on here?
 Do you have any idea what is going on here?
 (Have you got any idea what is going on here? – the order is similar to the first example, but have is an auxiliary verb here)

For elliptical questions and tag questions, see the elliptical sentences section below.

With not
In the same way that the presence of an auxiliary allows question formation, the appearance of the negating word not is allowed as well. Then too, if no other auxiliary or copular verb is present, do-support is required.

 He will laugh. → He will not laugh. (not attaches to the auxiliary will)
 She laughs. → She does not laugh. (not attaches to the added auxiliary does)

In the second sentence, do-support is required because idiomatic Modern English does not allow forms like *She laughs not. The verb have, in the sense of possession, is sometimes negated thus:

 I haven't the foggiest idea.

Most combinations of auxiliary/copula plus not have a contracted form ending in -n't, such as isn't, won't, etc. The relevant contractions for negations formed using do-support are don't, doesn't and didn't. Such forms are used very frequently in informal English.

Do-support is required for negated imperatives even when the verb is the copula be:

Do not do that.
Don't be silly.

However, there is no do-support with non-finite, as they are negated by a preceding not:

It would be a crime not to help him (the infinitive to help is negated)
Not knowing what else to do, I stood my ground (the present participle knowing is negated)
Not eating vegetables can harm your health (the gerund eating is negated)

With subjunctive verb forms, as a present subjunctive, do is infrequently used for negation, which is frequently considered ambiguous or incorrect because it resembles the indicative. The usual method to negate the present subjunctive is to precede the verb with a not, especially if the verb is be (as do-support with it, whether it be indicative or subjunctive, is ungrammatical):

I suggest that he not receive any more funding (the present subjunctive receive is negated)
It is important that he not be there (the present subjunctive be is negated)

As a past subjunctive, however, did is needed for negation (unless the verb is be, whose past subjunctive is were):

I wish that he did not know it
I wish that he were not here

The negation in the examples negates the non-finite predicate. Compare the following competing formulations:

I did not try to laugh. vs. I tried not to laugh.
They do not want to go. vs. They want  not to go.

There are two predicates in each of the verb chains in the sentences. Do-support is needed when the higher of the two is negated; it is not needed to negate the lower nonfinite predicate.

For negated questions, see the questions section above. For negated elliptical sentences, see the elliptical sentences section below.

Negative inversion
The same principles as for question formation apply to other clauses in which subject–auxiliary inversion is required, particularly after negative expressions and expressions involving only (negative inversion):

 Never did he run that fast again. (wrong: *Never he did run that fast again. *Never ran he that fast again.)
 Only here do I feel at home. (wrong: *Only here feel I at home.)

Further uses
In addition to providing do-support in questions and negated clauses as described above, the auxiliary verb do can also be used in clauses that do not require do-support. In such cases, do-support may appear for pragmatic reasons.

For emphasis
The auxiliary generally appears for purposes of emphasis, for instance to establish a contrast or to express a correction:
 Did Bill eat his breakfast? Yes, he did eat his breakfast (did emphasizes the positive answer, which may be unexpected).
 Bill doesn't sing, then. No, he does sing (does emphasizes the correction of the previous statement).

As before, the main verb following the auxiliary becomes a bare infinitive, which is not inflected (one cannot say *did ate or *does sings in the above examples).

As with typical do-support, that usage of do does not occur with other auxiliaries or a copular verb. Then, emphasis can be obtained by adding stress to the auxiliary or copular:

 Would you take the risk? Yes, I would take the risk.
 Bill isn't singing, then. No, he is singing.

(Some auxiliaries, such as can, change their pronunciation when stressed; see Weak and strong forms in English.)

In negative sentences, emphasis can be obtained by adding stress either to the negating word (if used in full) or to the contracted form ending in n't. That applies whether or not do-support is used:

 I wouldn't (or would not) take the risk.
 They don't (or do not) appear on the list.

Emphatic do can also be used with imperatives, including with the copula be:

 Do take care! Do be careful!

In elliptical sentences
The auxiliary do is also used in various types of elliptical sentences, where the main verb is omitted (it can be said to be "understood", usually because it would be the same verb as was used in a preceding sentence or clause). That includes the following types:

Tag questions:
 He plays well, doesn't he?
 You don't like Sara, do you?
Elliptical questions:
 I like pasta. Do you?
 I went to the party. Why didn't you?
Elliptical statements:
 They swam, but I didn't.
 He looks smart, and so do you.
 You fell asleep, and I did, too.

Such uses include cases that do-support would have been used in a complete clause (questions, negatives, inversion) but also cases that (as in the last example) the complete clause would normally have been constructed without do (I fell asleep too). In such instances do may be said to be acting as a pro-verb since it effectively takes the place of a verb or verb phrase: did substitutes for fell asleep.

As in the principal cases of do-support, do does not normally occur when there is already an auxiliary or copula present; the auxiliary or copula is retained in the elliptical sentence:

He is playing well, isn't he?
I can cook pasta. Can you?
You should get some sleep, and I should too.

However, it is possible to use do as a pro-verb (see below section #Pro-verbs & Do-so Substitution even after auxiliaries in some dialects:

Have you put the shelf up yet? I haven't done (or I haven't), but I will do (or I will).
(However it is not normally used in this way as a to-infinitive: Have you put the shelf up? I plan to, rather than *I plan to do;  or as a passive participle: Was it built? Yes, it was, not *Yes, it was done.)

Pro-verbal uses of do are also found in the imperative: Please do. Don't!

Pro-verbs and do-so substitution
The phrases do so and do what for questions are pro-verb forms in English.  They can be used as substitutes for verbs in x-bar theory grammar to test verb phrase completeness. Bare infinitives forms often are used in place of the missing pro-verb forms.

Examples from Santorini and Kroch:

Tests for constituenthood of a verb-phrase in X'-grammar
The do so construction can be used to test if a verb-phrase is a constituent phrase in X'-grammar by substitution similarly to how other pro-forms can be used to test for noun-phrases, etc.

In X-bar theory, the verb-phrase projects three bar-levels such as this:

    VP
   / \
 ZP  X'
     / \
    X'  YP
    |
    X 
    |
   head

With a simple sentence:

         S
         |
         VP
        /  \
       /    \
      /      \
     /        \
    NP         \
   /  \         \   
 DP    N'        V'
 |     |        / \
The  children  /   \
              /     \
              V'     PP
             /  \   /_\
            /    \  with gusto
           V     NP
           |     /_\
          ate  the pizza

Here again exemplified by Santorini and Kroch, do so substitution for testing constituent verb phrases in the above sample sentence:

         S
         |
         VP
        /  \
       /    \
      /      \
     /        \
    NP         \
   /  \         \   
 DP    N'        V'
 |     |        / \
The  children  /   \
              /     \
              V'     PP
             /  \   /_\
            /    \  with gusto
           V     NP
           |     /_\
        did so   the pizza

Use of do as main verb
Apart from its uses as an auxiliary, the verb do (with its inflected forms does, did, done, doing) can be used as an ordinary lexical verb (main verb):

Do your homework!
What are you doing?

Like other non-auxiliary verbs, do cannot be directly negated with not and cannot participate in inversion so it may itself require do-support, with both auxiliary and lexical instances of do appearing together:

 They didn't do the laundry on Sunday. (did is the auxiliary, do is the main verb)
 Why do you do karate? (the first do is the auxiliary, the second is the main verb)
 How do you do? (a set phrase used as a polite greeting)

Meaning contribution
In the various cases seen above that require do-support, the auxiliary verb do makes no apparent contribution to the meaning of the sentence so it is sometimes called a dummy auxiliary. Historically, however, in Middle English, auxiliary do apparently had a meaning contribution, serving as a marker of aspect (probably perfective aspect, but in some cases, the meaning may have been imperfective). In Early Modern English, the semantic value was lost, and the usage of forms with do began to approximate that found today.

Origins

Some form of auxiliary "do" occurs in all West Germanic languages except Afrikaans. It is generally accepted that the past tense of Germanic weak verbs (in English, -ed) was formed from a combination of the infinitive with a past tense form of "do", as exemplified in Gothic. The origins of the construction in English are debated: some scholars argue it was already present in Old English, but not written due to stigmatization. Scholars disagree whether the construction arose from the use of "do" as a lexical verb in its own right, or whether periphrastic "do" arose from a causative meaning of the verb or vice versa. Examples of auxiliary "do" in Old English writing appear to be limited to its use in a causative sense, which is parallel to the earliest uses in other West Germanic languages. Others argue that the construction arose either via the influence of Celtic speakers or that the construction arose as a form of creolization when native speakers addressed foreigners and children.

See also

English verbs
English clause syntax
Intensifier

References

English grammar
Word order
Syntax
Generative syntax In linguistics, a pro-verb is a verb or partial phrase that substitutes for a contextually recognizable verb phrase (via a process known as grammatical gapping), obviating the need to repeat an antecedent verb phrase. A pro-verb is a type of anaphora that falls within the general group of word classes called pro-forms.

In English
English does not have dedicated pro-verbs; however, a bare infinitive can generally be implied rather than expressed, such that the verbs that take bare infinitives (including most of the auxiliary verbs) can be said to double as pro-verbs. Additionally, have and be can double as pro-verbs for perfect, progressive, and passive constructions (by eliding the participle). Finally, the dummy auxiliary verb do can be used when there is no other auxiliary verb, except if the main verb is be. The following are some examples of these kinds of pro-verb:

Who can tell? —No-one can .
Why can't he do it? —He can , he just won't .
I like pie, as does he .
Why did you break the jar? —He made me .
Can you go to the park? No, I cannot [go to the park].
Note that, when there are multiple auxiliary verbs, some of these may be elided as well. For example, in reply to "Who's been leaving the milk out of the refrigerator?", any of "You've been doing it", "You have been", or "You have" would have the same meaning.

Since a to-infinitive is just the particle to plus a bare infinitive, and a bare infinitive can be elided, the particle to doubles as a pro-verb for a to-infinitive:Clean your room! —I don't want to .He refused to clean his room when I told him to .Finally, even in dialects where bare infinitives and participles can be elided, there does exist the pro-verb do so: "He asked me to leave, so I did so". This pro-verb, unlike the above-described pro-verbs, can be used in any grammatical context; however, in contexts where another pro-verb could be used, it can be overly formal. For example, in "I want to get an 'A', but to do so, I need to get a perfect score on the next test," there is no other pro-verb that could be used; whereas in "I want to get an 'A', but I can't do so," the do so'' could simply be elided, and doing so would make the sentence sound less formal.

References

Parts of speech