Modern English Grammar

The difference will be observed in the sequence of the elements. We can say He ran a bill up, but we can hardly say He ran a hill up. If we substitute a hill and a bill by a pronoun, the sequence of the pronoun and the postpositional element is fixed and contrastive. We may say only:

He ran up it. (a hill)

He ran it up. (a bill)

The contrasting patterns that appear when it is substituted can be best illustrated as answers to questions:

Where did the bill come from? He ran it up.

How did he climb that hill? He ran up it.

Ambiguity may arise, at least in written language, when the position of up is final but this ambiguity is generally resolved by intonation. There is usually a difference of stress as, for instance, in a relative clause, where depending on the context we may contrast:

The hill he 'ran up.

The bill he ran 'up.

In the first there is nuclear stress on run, in the second on up. Similar contrasts will be seen in such examples as:

The passenger flew in the plane.

The pilot flew in the plane.

or: The pilot flew the plane in, but not: The passenger flew the plane in.

Cf. (a) The passenger flew in it. (b) The pilot flew it in.

Observations of the idiomatic character of separable verbs and their stylistic value give every reason to say that they possess, as A. G. К e n n e d y has it, "a certain amount of warmth and colour and fire which the colder, more impersonal, more highly specialised simple verb lacks". As such they are commoner in colloquial than in other varieties of English.

"The student may learn grammar and, with time, acquire an adequate vocabulary, but without a working knowledge of such idioms as to get up, to look up, to look through, to look over, to call on, to call for, to get on, to get along, to make up, to make for, etc., his speech remains awkward and stilted".

In English grammars of conventional type the adverbial formative element in such compound verbs is often called "a preposition-like adverb". But there seems no small justification for adopting the term "postposition" to supersede the former³. Among postpositions the following are most productive: about, away, down, forth, in, off, over, out and up.

There are important treatments of the question made by Y. Zhluktenko⁴ where these separable elements are referred to as postpositional morphemes:

verbs with postpositional morphemes retaining their primary local meaning: come in, go out, go down, fly off, sweep away, etc.;

verbs with postpositional morphemes having a figurative meaning: boil down (умовляти), take off (збавляти ціну), take up (заповнювати собою), get along (досягати успіху), speak away (заговоритись), etc.;

verbs with postpositional morphemes intensifying the verb or imparting the perfective sense to its meaning, e. g.: eat up, rise up, swallow up, etc.;

verbs whose meaning can hardly be derived from their separable component parts, e. g.: bear out (підтверджуватись), give in (уступати), give up (покидати), соте about (траплятись), turn up (траплятись).

It is interesting to note that English verbs with homonymic prefixes and postpositions will always differ in their meaning.

Compare the following: upset --перевернути, перекинути; set up -- організувати, встановити; uphold --підтримати; hold up --тримати догори, затримувати.

THE STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONS OF THE ENGLISH VERB

In the multiplicity of ways in which verbs can be combined in actual usage distinction must reasonably be made between notional or fully "lexical" verbs and function-verbs.

Notional verbs are used independently as "full" words of the vocabulary. Such are all English verbs besides modal verbs and a few others.

Used as function-words verbs are vital signals indicating the connection that is to be understood between "lexical" words. It is not that they have no meaning, but that they have a special kind of meaning, sometimes called "structural" meaning. They serve primarily to show grammatical functions rather than to bear lexical meanings and may be used as:

auxiliaries and half-auxiliaries;

copulas, or link-verbs;

substitute verbs;

representing verbs;

verb-intensifiers.

The verbs be, have, do, let, shall/should may function as auxiliary verbs making up analytical forms in the conjugation of the English verb.

Link-verbs are verbs of incomplete predication in so-called nominal predicates, denoting a certain state or quality of the subject. The link-verb has no independent meaning, its function is to connect the subject with the predicative and to express all the grammatical categories of the finite verb: person, number, mood, aspect, tense and voice.

Besides the verb to do functioning as an emphatic auxiliary, there are grammatical idioms with the verb-intensifier to go followed" by the finite verb-forms, e. g.:

Present Tense
Non-emphatic	Emphatic
Why do you say such things?	Why do you go and say such things?
Past Indefinite
He did it.	He went and did it.
Present Perfect
He has caught it.	He has gone and caught it.
Past Perfect
He had caught it.	He had gone and caught it.

In various contexts of their use such grammatical idioms can imply irrelevance or unexpectedness of the action associated with surprise, perplexity, displeasure or indignation, depending on the consituation.

His grey eyes would brood over the grey water under the grey sky; and in his mind the mark would fall. It fell with a bump on the eleventh of January when the French went and occupied the Ruhr. (Galsworthy) (went and occupied = occupied...)

"If you're Master Murdstone", said the lady, "why do you go and give another name, first?" (Dickens)

(why do you go and give... =why do you give...)

He mustn't catch cold -- the doctor had declared, and he had gone and caught it. (Galsworthy)

(she had gone and caught it = he had caught it)

Compare the grammatical idioms with the verbs «смотреть» and «взять» in Russian, «дивитись» and «взяти» in Ukrainian:

Russian: Смотри, не проговорись!

Смотри, не разбей!

А он возьмет и расскажет.

Возьми и расскажи.

Ukrainian: Взяв і зробив; взяв і розказав.

A special kind of affective grammatical idiom will be found in patterns with the ing-form following the verb to go when the latter does not signify motion either but is used idiomatically to intensify the meaning of the notional verb, e. g.:

He goes frightening people with his stories.

"I shall see you again before long, my boy!" he said. Don't you go paying any attention to what I've been saying about young Bosinney -- I don't believe a word of it!" (Galsworthy)

James was alarmed. "Oh' ', he said, don't go saying I said it was to come down! I know nothing about it. (Galsworthy)

You'll go burning your fingers --investing your money in lime, and things you know nothing about. (Galsworthy)

Don't go putting on any airs with me. (Mitchell)

There is a natural tendency in any language to develop its emotional and affective means of expression.

There are not only points of coincidence here but specific features characteristic of any given language with its own patterns of formations and its own type of structural units.

MOOD

It is a well-known fact that the problem of the category of mood, i. e. the distinction between the real and the unreal expressed by the corresponding forms of the verb, is one of the most controversial problems of English theoretical grammar. The main theoretical difficulty is due (1) to the coexistence in Modern English of both synthetical and analytical forms of the verb with the same grammatical meaning of irreality and (2) to the fact that there are verbal forms homonymous with the Past Indefinite and Past Perfect of the Indicative Mood which are employed to express irreality. Another difficulty consists in distinguishing the analytical forms of the Subjunctive with the auxiliaries should, would, may (might), which are devoid of any lexical meaning, from the homonymous verb groups in which these verbs have preserved their lexical meaning.

The number of moods in English is also one of the still unsettled problems. Older prescriptive grammar, besides the three commonly known moods, recognised a fourth --the Infinitive Mood. Many authors of English scientific grammars divide the Subjunctive Mood into several moods, such as the Subjunctive proper (expressed by the synthetic forms), the Conditional Mood (expressed by the combinations of should and would plus infinitive in the principal clause), the Permissive and Compulsive Moods (expressed by the combinations of the infinitive with other modal verbs: see the selections from Sweet's grammar). The notion of the Conditional Mood has become quite popular with some Soviet grammarians who sometimes add two more "Oblique" Moods, the Suppositional and Subjunctive II, the principle of division being based on the tendency to ascribe to each of the forms of the subjunctive a specific grammatical meaning.

Mood, closely related to the problem of modality, is generally defined as a grammatical category expressing the relation of the action to reality as stated by the speaker. The distinction between the real and the unreal, expressed by the corresponding forms of the verb, is one of the disputable problems of English grammar.

The analysis of the category made by some grammarians is based largely on the historical and comparative considerations and often worked out along notional lines.

Thus, for instance, M. Deutschbein in his System der neuenglischen Syntax distinguishes 4 main moods: der Rogitativus, der Оptatіvus, der Voluntativus, der Expectativus. As submoods he mentions: der Indikativus, der Irrealіs, der Pоtentіalіs, der Konzessivus, der Nezessarius, der Permissivus, der Dubitativus, etc.

We could probably tabulate even a more detailed, if not exhaustive, scheme of all the varieties of subjective modality in English. Such a scheme would be based on the attitudes of the speaker's mind, i. e. on the fact that the contents of the communication can be related modally to the subject as, for instance, asserted (Indicative Mood); as intensifying the assertion (Emphatic Mood); as compelled (Compulsive Mood); as permitted (Permissive Mood); as desired (Optative Mood), as ability (Potential Mood), etc., etc. But such a tabulated survey would, indeed, become too complicated.

Grammarians are not agreed as to the forms of the Subjunctive Mood. Some of them recognise only synthetic forms (O. Jespersen, for instance), others include here also verb-phrases of analytical structure with all modal verbs.

O. Jespersen criticises M. Deutschbein pointing out that it would be possible to subdivide the given scheme further into two groups: the first with 11 moods, containing an element of will, the second with 9 moods, containing no element of will. There are indeed many "moods" if one leaves the safe ground of verbal forms actually found in a language.

The most common view is that in Modern English there are three moods, Indicative, Subjunctive and Imperative which keep distinct in English in the same clear way as in many other languages.

The forms comprised in the Indicative Mood are used to present predication as reality, as a fact. The predication need not necessarily be true but the speaker presents it as being so. It is not relevant for the purpose of our grammatical analysis to account for the ultimate truth or untruth of a statement with its predicate expressed by a verb. This cannot affect the meaning of the grammatical form as such. In terms of grammar, it is important to identify the function of the category in the given utterance.

The Imperative, like the Indicative, has the same form as the base of the verb; the same is true of the Present Indicative (except the third person singular) and of the whole of the Present Subjunctive. These forms will exemplify paradigmatic homonymy in English morphology.

The Imperative Mood serves to express requests which in different contexts may range from categorical order or command to entreaties. The necessary meaning is generally signalled by the context and intonation. The Imperative Mood proper is used only in the second persons singular and plural. This form is used in address to one or more persons, ordering or instructing them to carry out the "action" of the verb.

The grammatical subject of the Imperative Mood is not formally indicated but, when occasion demands, this is generally done by using the pronoun before or after the verb. Verb-patterns with pronouns have special affective connotation with fine shades of emotional distinctions, such as: intensity or emphasis, anger, annoyance, impatience or scorn, etc.: (1) She has been quite a success, and don't you forget it! (2) You sit still over there! (3) Come along everybody. (4) Don't you go telling Mother about it! (5) And don't you be forgetting about it.

Patterns with the appended will you express a less categorical command, sometimes a request. A request or invitation may be formulated with won't you.

Emphasis may be produced by putting the intensifying do. It is a colourful emphatic form, encouraging if the intonation pattern is a drop between level tones, exasperated if there is tone movement on the last syllable. The forms with let differ in their functions according to person, between almost purely hortatory in the first person plural (Let's begin now) and various shades of the permissive and optative in other persons, as in: Let her help you! Let him study regularly! Let them repeat the experiment!

In patterning the verb let seems to be rather on the borders of grammar and lexis; marginal as an operator, it can be followed by the infinitive, but negates by the use of don't and is followed by an object placed between it and the lexical verb, e. g.:

Oh, don't let's have it again! (Galsworthy)

The use of the auxiliary do in negative forms with the auxiliary verb let in colloquial English is not infrequent.

Considered in function, "mood" may cover various semantic spheres. Form and function, however, are not always clearly distinct. As we shall further see, the Indicative Mood may be transposed into the sphere of the Imperative, as in: You will leave this house at once... You will wait here, and you'll be careful!

The Imperative Mood may take over the function of the Subjunctive Mood, e. g.:

Say what you will, I shall have my own way. Say what you would, I should have my own way. Cf. Кажи що хочеш, я тобі не повірю.

The formal mark of the Subjunctive is the absence of inflection for the third person singular except in the verb to be, where it has full conjugation. In point of fact, in Modern English the Subjunctive is almost out of use. The only regular survival of the "non-past" Subjunctive will be found in elevated prose, in slogans, in a number of standardised phrases, mostly of a formula character which function as sense-units and practically do not serve as substitution frames in the ordinary way of grammatical forms, e. g.: So be it. Long live peace and friendship among nations! Come what may! Be what may! Suffice it to say. In other sentence-patterns the non-past Subjunctive is optional and can alternate with the Indicative. This alternation however is not indifferent to style, the Subjunctive being decidedly more referential and more formal than the Indicative verb.

In the non-past Subjunctive is very seldom used, the Past Subjunctive is so much more restricted that in present-day English belongs only to the verb to be. The only Past Subjunctive form is were and even this is distinctive only in the first and third persons singular. We generally find it in patterns with subordinate clauses denoting either rejected hypothesis or unfulfilled wishes, e. g.: I wish I were a child. If I were you... As if he were with us.

Were can alternate with the Indicative verb-form. There is a growing tendency in Modern English to replace it by was, especially in non-formal style and in conversation. Compare:

Formal style Non-formal style

My father suggested that My father suggested that

my cousin stay with us. my cousin might stay with us.

If I were healthier, I would travel more frequently.- If I was healthier, I would...

It is interesting to note that with the use of inversion for hypothesis the Subjunctive is obligatory. This is fairly common in formal referential English, e. g., Were he to come to-morrow we should invite him to the conference.

Mention should be made about a surprising reversion which has taken place during the last twenty years in the partial revival of specifically subjunctive forms of verbs. The Subjunctive Mood was used extensively in Old English, as in classical Latin and Modern German. As is known, since the Middle English period, however, it has been slowly dying out, its place being taken by compound verb-forms with auxiliaries (should, might, etc.). The only really firmly established subjunctive form surviving in English in the nineteen-thirties was were; it was (and still is normal for standard English to use were and not was in a "closed conditional clause", as in If he were here, we should certainly be able to see him (he is not here). There were other subjunctive survivals in sporadic use (as in if it be so), but these all sounded a trifle literary and affected. During and after the war, however, as Ch. Barber¹ points out, subjunctive forms increased in frequency, especially in the written language; this seems to have begun in the language of administration, and spread from there to the literary language. The forms used are third-person singular ones without inflexion, as in I insist that he do it; it was essential that he make a choice (where do is used instead of does or shall do, and make instead of should make). Sentences of this type (especially the first) are also sometimes heard in speech. It is extremely unlikely, however, that there is going to be any serious long-term revival of the subjunctive forms; the present development is probably only a passing tendency. If it has any long-term significance, this is likely to be not a revival of the subjunctive, but an eroding away of the third-singular inflexion; by accustoming people to forms like he do and he make these usages may prepare the way for the ultimate disappearance of he does and he makes. This, after all, would be the natural continuation of the historical process; in the present simple all inflexions, except the third singular -s, have been lost and it would be quite natural to expect the process to continue, to have only one form all through the tense (7 walk, you walk, he walk, we walk, they walk).

MODAL VERBS

There are nine modal verbs in Modern English: must, can/could, may/might, shall/should, will/would, dare, need, ought and let. A large variety of their use is one of the most striking aspects of the present-day English grammar.

The multiplicity of ways in which modal verbs may be combined in actual usage permits a very large number of patterns to be built in present-day English. From a historical point of view it is interesting to note that many of them are of quite recent development.

Modality and tense are so intervened that in English it is hardly possible to combine them as a single variable. Some verbs function both as tense-auxiliaries and as modals. It is therefore of primary importance to see them in contrast with each other as used in different grammatical frames.

On different linguistic occasions a modal verb may perform three different functions: a) it may be used in its original sense, b) it may do the duty of a purely auxiliary in analytical verbal forms correlated with the corresponding simple ones within the limits of the given grammatical category (the Future Tense and the Subjunctive Mood), c) it may weaken its lexical meaning when used in modal phrases expressing supposition, certainty or uncertainty as to the action expressed by the notional verb.

The analysis of modal verbs is made rather difficult by other factors. The point is that their past tense-forms do not often refer to past time at all. Such are the verbs can and may, shall and will, for instance, which are not easily defined in formal terms of grammar learning. Morphologically they have the present and the past tense-forms, but in modal phrases they are not regularly used to mark time relations. Moreover, to indicate past time does not seem to be their main function. We naturally distinguish different time relations in: (1) He can speak English fluently (2) He could speak English fluently when he was a boy. But there is no time difference in many cases like the following:

He may go > He might go.

Dark as the night shall be... > Dark as the night should be...

It seems reasonable to characterise the dual nature of the modals used in complex verbal predicates as follows.

Modal verbs may function as a) "fully lexical" verbs expressing ability, possibility, permission, power, admonition, duty, obligation, need, will or readiness to do something associated with the activity of the subject, e. g.: One must do one's duty. Can she speak English? May I come in? b) modal auxiliaries of weakened predication: will/would, can/could, may/might, must and ought In this latter case they weaken their original meaning and come to express supposition, logical inference, certainty or uncertainty with regard to the action expressed by the notional verb.

Compare the following:

(a) 1) If I do the thing, I will do it thoroughly, but 1 must have a free hand. (Galsworthy)	(b) 1) They tell me Jolyon's bought another house... he must have a lot of money -- he must have more money than he knows what to do with! (Galsworthy)
2)"I can't tell", he would say: "It worries me out of my life". (Galsworthy)	2) It must be a mistake. She can't be there alone. 3) "Land ought to be very
3) I ought to go there.	dear about there", he said. (Galsworthy)
4) May I come in?	4) I shall be guarded. He may throw some light. (Galsworthy)

We cannot fail to see that patterns of (a)-type denote modal relations between the doer of the action and the action expressed by the infinitive; patterns of (b)-type express modal meanings as referred to the whole utterance.

The multifarious use of modal verbs in their secondary function has become an effective means to express subtle shades of suppositional modality. Constructional homonymy and synonymity in this part of English grammar deserve our particular attention.

must + Infinitive

In its primary function must is used to express duty or obligation in various degrees. In this meaning it may refer to the future. The idea of past time is known to be expressed periphrastically by had to or was to, and negation by needn't.

In its secondary function must is never used to express supposition with reference to an action in the future, it is not used in negative sentences either. When used to denote supposition must may be followed by both Infinitive I and Infinitive II. In patterns with the Infinitive I the given action and the supposition expressed about it coincide in time, e. g.: He must be somewhere here.

Must followed by the Infinitive II will denote:

a) supposition at present with regard to an action performed in the past, e g.:

A rough estimate of the rate of cooling and growth of the solid crust of our globe indicates that the cooling process must have be gun several billion years ago.

b) supposition in the past with reference to a prior past action, e. g.:

He best grasped, on that first reading, the pain his father must have had in writing such a letter. (Galsworthy)

One night he had been thinking of his mother, and her picture in the drawing-room downstairs, and thought she must have loved sweet Florence better than his father did, to have held her in her arms when she felt that she was dying -- for even he, her brother, who had such dear love for her, could have no greater wish than that. (Dickens)

It is to be observed that must used in its secondary function with Infinitive II often denotes such a strong certainty with regard to the action performed in the past that seems to approach the corresponding verbal form of the Indicative Mood as its stylistic synonym denoting a real action in the past with special emphasis laid upon its realisation. The context will always be explicit enough to make the meaning clear.

A corresponding negative meaning is generally expressed by can't + + Infinitive II. Cf.: (1) There must have been a hundred people in the hall. (2) There can't have been a hundred people in the hall.

may/might + Infinitive

In its primary function may is known to express permission or possibility with reference to both present and future time. When it refers to the present, it is often replaced by can. A special idiomatic use will be found in What may that mean? This is used to ask (often sarcastically) about the intended meaning of the previous speaker and is synonymous with What do you mean by that?

In its secondary function may + Infinitive I will denote supposition at present with regard to a present or future action, e. g.: He may be quite at a loss now. You should help him.

Might + Infinitive I used according to the sequence of tenses may imply the same meaning, as, for instance, in patterns with free reported speech: And now that Cicely had married, she might be having children too. (Galsworthy)

May 4- Infinitive II implies supposition at present about the possibility of an action in the past, e. g.: Several very striking love poems may have been written by Dante in the early days of his exile.

Might + Infinitive II in its secondary function will generally denote a supposition which is contrary to a real state of things. Reference to the present will be made by patterns with Infinitive I, reference to the past -- by Infinitive II.

An interesting development of recent years is the occasional use of may have (as well as might have) as equivalent of could have when it is known that the envisaged outcome did not occur, e. g.: Had a claim been made when the accident occurred, you may well have recovered substantial damages ¹.

can/could + Infinitive

Can + Infinitive I is not so limited in its use as the verb may. Used in its primary function can may denote:

ability: He can speak French. Similarly with reference to the past: She could speak French. She could be very kind at times. In this sense futurity is generally indicated by will be able to.

characteristic sporadic features or behaviour, often in a disparaging or derogatory sense. In terms of synonymy, this use of can may be compared with will + Infinitive indicating regular characteristic behaviour.

Here also belong patterns with inanimate subjects, e. g.: Inattention can result in regrettable mistakes. Practice can do a lot of good.

c) permission to do something. In this sense it is replaceable by its stylistic synonym may which is more referential, more formal, e. g.:

You can do as you choose. You can leave now.

Cf. You may leave now.

Care should be taken to distinguish between such negative forms as can't (cannot) and can not. You can't come differs from You can not come. The first says that it is not possible for you to come, the second that it is possible for you not to come.

d) sensation, e. g.: Can you see anything in the dark? Grammar books often characterise the use of the verb can with verbs of perception as expressing the ability to have experience. This, however, must be taken with some reservation. When, for instance, we say I can see or I could see we are generally not referring to our ability to see but to the actual fact that we have at this moment the sensation. Examples like these will be found in numbers. Here is one of them: Her performance, she felt, was interesting to the judge, the jury, and all those people there, whom she could dimly see. (Galsworthy)

The use of the verb can in its secondary function is most frequent in interrogative and negative sentences denoting incredibility with regard to the action expressed by the infinitive.

Can + Infinitive I denotes incredibility with reference to the present or future, e. g.: There's something amiss here. They can't be waiting there.

Can + Infinitive II will imply incredibility at present with regard to some action performed in the past, e. g.: "Well, will you tell me then that's the state of mind in your circle; and you said, you know, that your circle is less free and easy than the plaintiffs -- how it is possible that such words as 'she hasn't a moral about her' can have done the plaintiff any harm?"' (Galsworthy)

The use of the verb could in its secondary function will present two homonymie patterns:

a) could + Infinitive I or II employed instead of can + Infinitive I or II because of the sequence of the tenses and b) could + Infinitive I expressing supposition with reference to a future action, e. g.: Oh, no, she could not betray him. That would be awful. Cf. syn.: Oh, no, she cannot betray him. That would be awful. (cannot + Infinitive intensifies supposition and is decidedly more emphatic).

Could + Infinitive II is a common device to express supposition or doubt with regard to some occurrence in the past, e. g.: She could not have been more than twenty at that time. (Навряд чи їй було більше двадцяти років). There was dust everywhere, the room could not have been cleaned for weeks. (Galsworthy) (Скрізь був пил, в кімнаті, можливо, не прибирали кілька тижнів). Compare the use of homonymic patterns with could + Infinitive II in its primary function.

In special contexts of their use such modal phrases may have special affective connotation. This is shown by intonation patterns in speech and graphic marks of punctuation in writing, e. g.:

What could she have seen in that fellow Bosinney to send her mad? (Що вона знайшла в цьому Босині, що він звів її з розуму?) (Galsworthy)