trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Do-support applies in English wh-questions when the subject is not the questioned element

the verdict
COMMON KNOWLEDGE
Legacy classification; evidence review pending
Recorded sources
no sources on either side

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Do-support applies in English wh-questions when the subject is not the questioned element?

The claim that do-support applies in English wh-questions when the subject is not the questioned element describes a standard, descriptive rule of English grammar (e.g., 'What did John see?' versus 'Who saw Mary?'), so no citation is needed.

Verdict: COMMON KNOWLEDGE · 0 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The analysis

The claim states a basic descriptive rule of English syntax regarding subject/non-subject asymmetries in wh-questions and do-support. This is a foundational grammatical fact taught in introductory linguistics and grammar, representing common knowledge in the field that does not require empirical paper receipts.

What does the evidence say?

The claim states a basic descriptive rule of English syntax regarding subject/non-subject asymmetries in wh-questions and do-support. This is a foundational grammatical fact taught in introductory linguistics and grammar, representing common knowledge in the field that does not require empirical paper receipts.

Receipt History
first checked04 Aug 2026
judged → COMMON KNOWLEDGE · 9504 Aug 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work