The second member of the opposemes

1. The second member of the opposemes

speak – speakest – speaks

am – art – is

is not used colloquially. It occurs in Modern English only in poetry, in solemn or pathetic prose with a distinct archaic flavour, e.g.:

Kind nature, thou art

to all a bountiful mother. (Carlyle).

The category of person is practically represented by two-member opposemes: speak – speaks, am – is.

2. Person opposemes are neutralized when associated with the 'plural' meaning.

A.I. Smirnitsky thinks that owing to the presence of the plural personal pronouns (we, you, they) person distinctions are felt in the plural of the verb as well.

E. g. we know – you know – they know.

This idea is open to criticism. If the verb itself (in the plural) does not show any person distinctions we are bound to admit that in Modern English the verb in the plural has no person.

Thus if we overlook the archaic writest or speakest, we should say that in all verbs (but the defective verbs having no person distinctions at all: he can, she may) the person opposerne is found only in the singular, and it consists of two members (speak – speaks), the third person with a positive morpheme being opposed to the first person with a zero morpheme.

3. Person distinctions do not go with the meaning of the 'past tense' in the English verb, e. g. I (he) asked… (cf. the Russian Я (он/ты) спросил).

4. As regards all those groups of grammemes where the word-morphemes shall and should are opposed to the word-morphemes will, would, one has to speak of the first person expressed by forms with shall (should) as opposed to the non-first person expressed by the forms with will (would): The person distinctions in such opposemes (shall come – will come) are not connected-with number meanings.

These distinctions, however, are being gradually obliterated through the spreading of -'ll and the extensive use of will and would for shall and should.

The category of number shows whether the action is associated with one doer or with more than one. Accordingly it denotes something fundamentally different from what is indicated by the number of nouns. We see here not the 'oneness' or 'more-than-oneness' of actions, but the connection with the singular or plural doer. As M. Bryant puts it, «He eats three times a day» does not indicate a single eating but a single eater.

The category is represented in its purity in the opposeme was – were and accordingly in all analytical forms containing was – were (was writing – were writing', was written – were written).

In am – are, is – are or am, is – are it is blended with person. Likewise in speaks – speak we actually have the 'third person singular' opposed to the non-'third-person-singular'.

Accordingly the category of number is but scantily represented in Modern English.

Some verbs do not distinguish number at all because of their peculiar historical development: / (we) can…, he (they) must…, others are but rarely used in the singular because the meaning of 'oneness' is hardly compatible with their lexical meanings, e. g. to crowd, to conspire, etc.

It is natural, therefore, that in Modern English the verb is most closely connected with its subject, which may be left out only when the. doer of the action is quite clear from the context.

 

3. The Subjunctive Mood

Probably the only thing linguists are unanimous about with regard to the subjunctive mood is that It represents an action as a 'non-fact', as something imaginary, desirable, problematic, contrary to reality. In all other respects opinions differ.

To account for this difference of opinion it is necessary to take into consideration at least two circumstances:

1) The system of the subjunctive mood in Modern English has been and still is in a state of development. There are many elements in it which are rapidly falling into disuse and there are new elements coming into use.

2) The authors describing the subjunctive mood often make no distinction between language and speech, system and usage. The opposition of the three moods as systems is mixed up with detailed descriptions of the various shades of meaning certain forms express in different environments.

The development of the modal verbs and that of the subjunctive mood – the lexical and morphological ways of expressing modality – have much in common.

The original 'present tense' forms of the modal verbs were ousted by the 'past tense' forms (may, can). New 'past tense' forms were created (could, might, must, ought). The new 'past tense' forms must and ought have again superseded their 'present tense' opposites and are now the only forms of these verbs.

The forms be, have, write, go, etc., which were originally forms of the 'present tense', 'subjunctive mood' grammemes, have suffered a similar process and are now scarcely used in colloquial English. They have become archaic and are found as survivals in poetry, high prose, official documents and certain set expressions like Long live…, suffice it to say…, etc. The former 'past tense subjunctive' has lost its 'past' meaning, and its forms are mostly used to denote an action not preceding the moment of speech.

The new analytical forms with should have replaced the former present subjunctive in popular speech. Compare the archaic Take heed, lest thou fall (Maxwell) and the usual

Take heed, lest you should fall.

In American English where many archaic features are better preserved (Cf. gotten for got) the former present tense forms are more common.

E. g. She demanded furiously that the old man. be left alone. (Dreiser).

Some new elements have come and are still coming into the system of the subjunctive mood. In Old English the subjunctive mood system did not contain any 'person' opposemes. They were introduced later together with should and would, but these distinctions are observed only in a few types of sentences.

With the loss of the – en suffix of the plural the subjunctive mood system lost all number opposemes in Middle English. At present such opposemes are being introduced together with the word was as opposed to were.

E. g. You'd be glad if I w a s dead. (Bennett).

Barring the archaic 'present tense' forms, the' subjunctive mood system of Modern English makes use of those forms which express a 'past tense' meaning in the indicative mood system. Since they are not opposed to the 'present tense' and 'future tense' grammemes, they have no 'tense' meaning. What unites them is the meaning of 'irreality' as opposed to the meaning of 'reality' common to all the indicative mood grammemes.

Having no 'tense' opposemes the subjunctive mood system makes extensive use of 'order' opposemes. The 'perfect' forms are used to express an action imagined as prior to some other action or event.

E. g. The Married Woman's Property Act would so have interfered with him if he hadn't mercifully married before it was passed. (Galsworthy).

The 'perfect' forms, naturally, express actions imagined as prior to the event of speaking, i. e. actions imagined in the past.

E.g. If I had known that, I s ho u I d have acted differently. It is strange t/iat he s h o u I d have spoken so.

The non-perfect forms do not express priority. The action they denote may be thought of as simultaneous with some event or even following it. The order of the action in such cases is expressed not by the form of the verb but by the whole situation or lexically.

Cf. I wish he were here now. I wish he were here tomorrow. Even if he c a m e to-morrow that will be too Me. (Ruck).

The 'passive voice' and 'continuous aspect' meanings are expressed much in the same way as in the indicative mood system.

E. g. In a moment he would have been drowned. (Braddon).

She sat not reading, wondering if he were coming in… (Galsworthy).

The various shades of meaning subjunctive mood grammemes may acquire in certain environments, and the types of sentences and clauses they are used in, are not part of the morphological system of moods and need not be treated here. Still an, exception can be made.

Some linguists l think that would help in the sentence If he were here he would help us represents a separate mood called 'conditional'.

The arguments are as follows:

1. The form would help expresses 'dependent unreality': the realization of the action depends on the condition expressed in the subordinate clause (If-clause).

2. It is 'mainly used in the principal clause of a complex sentence with a subordinate clause of unreal condition'.

3. Should is used for the first person and would for the other persons.

Let us analyze these arguments.

1. If the meaning of 'dependent unreality' is to be treated as the meaning of a separate mood, then the meaning of 'dependent reality' in a similar sentence If he is here, he will help us must likewise be regarded as the meaning of a separate mood which is to be distinguished from the indicative mood. The meaning of tell in the sentence If you see her tell her to come can also be defined as 'dependent urging' and be regarded as the meaning of a separate mood distinct from the imperative mood.

2. The second argument deals with speech environment and is of little value since the same authors produce examples of the 'conditional mood' in different types of sentences.

Would you mind my opening the window?

I should like to speak to you, etc.

3. The third argument is justly rejected by G.N. Vorontsova who produces many literary examples to show that ' would-Forms' are used with the first person as often as 'should-forms'.

E. g. If I had held another pistol in my hand /would have shot him. I would love to think that you took an interest in teaching me… I wish I had a lot of money, I wouldn't live another day in London. (Galsworthy).

Besides, the popular use of forms with – ‘d instead of should and would shows the oblitaration of 'person' distinctions.

4. The name conditional hardly fits, seeing that the forms with should–would are as a rule not used in conditional clauses. They are mostly used in principal clauses or simple sentences, which distinguishes their distribution from that of forms without should – would used almost exclusively in subordinate clauses.

E. g. After all, if he lost it would not be he who paid. (Galsworthy).

Under normal conditions Winifred would merely have locked the door. (lb).

The difference between the two sets of opposemes

had written (order)

wrote were written (voice)

were writing (aspect)

should have written (order)

should write should be written (voice)

should be writing (aspect)

would write (person, irregular)

Is thus a matter of usage. That does not exclude, of course, «the possibility of a language category with speech significance (cf. the categories of case, voice). Hence the necessity of further investigation.

What unites all the grammemes above and distinguishes them from the homonymous grammemes of the indicative mood as a system is

1) the meaning of «non-fact», the presentation of the action as something imaginary,

2) the system of opposemes, as contrasted with that of the indicative mood.