Курсовая работа: The category of Mood
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.