The category of mood of the verb.

The category of mood is the most controversial. It shows the relation between the action expressed by the verb and reality as represented by the speaker. The universally recognized division of moods – those that represent the action as real and those that represent it as unreal (mood is only one of ways of expressing modality; other means: modal verbs, modal words, intonation and standardization). Different linguists distinguish a different number of moods. They distinguish from 2 to 16 moods: Deutschbein – 16, Blokh – 2. The cat-ry of mood is built on 2 forms – the forms of reality, i.e. the indicative mood, contrasted to forms of unreality – the subjunctive mood. It’s important to remember that the difference in form shows there’s the time retrospective shift in the subjunctive: I wish she were here (present action), I wish she had been there (past action, not priority). In traditional grammar 3 moods are distinguished: the indicative, the imperative, the subjunctive.

The indicative shows that the speaker represents the action as an actual fact. This mood is universally recognized. The imperative form of the verb is traditionally referred to what is called the imperative mood, it’s used to express the modal meaning of urge. In its formal characteristics it coincides with the infinitive stem. The emphatic (negative) forms are analytical: Do go there. The imperative has only 1 person, the 2^nd person, though Ilyish says we can’t speak of it as there is no opposition, the imperative has no number, tense or aspect distinctions. It is mostly used in 1-member sentences without a subject, occasionally – in 2-member sentences: You mark my words. The imperative has no category of tense, yet it has a general temporal meaning of future or immediate. In modern linguistics not all linguists recognize the existence of imperative mood. They deny it the status of a mood as it has no specific morphological characteristics of its own. Ильиш points out that in form it coincides with the infinitive. Blokh says that it coincides in meaning + in form with the spective mood (a variety of the subjunctive mood). The spective mood is the mood of attitudes which expresses suggestion, recommendation, and inducement. And they all are the meanings of the imperative. Blokh uses the method of equivalent transformations, e.g. “ Be off ” doesn’t differ from “ I demand that you be off ” (subjunctive mood) in meaning and structure. Even emphatic imperative forms – “Do be careful with the papers” / “My request is that you do be careful with the papers”. Blokh believes the imperative forms are a variety of the spective mood.

The problem of the system of obligue moods. The main principal is the existence of different heterogeneous and versatile forms of unreality. In Modern English there exist a great variety of forms expressing unreality that has given rise to various interpretations of these forms and different classifications.

The point of disagreement boils down to the following: the number of Oblique moods and what these moods should be called and the principles of classification.

In drawing up a classification of moods you can proceed from form or from meaning or from both.

The main problem concerning the classification of Oblique Moods is the existence of different means of expressing an unreal action.

Modern English has retained traces of the Old English subjunctive mood. They are synthetic forms:

1) The use of the form were for all the persons.

Ex.: I wish she were here. Oh, if it were time to go.

The form was can easily replace were in MEnglish.

2) The use of the plain stem of the verb for all persons.

Ex.: He insisted that the goods deliver on time. He insisted that the hearing of the case be postponed (Subj. I - Smirnitski)

This form is characteristic of AmE. Ex.: So be it. God forgive you!

Alongside synthetic forms other forms are also used, they are treated as analytical, forms homonymous with the Past Indefinite and Past Perfect or modal phrases.

- Combination of should/would + the infinitive (at present there is a tending to use only would or 'd)

In Smirnitski’s classification it is called the Conditional mood. In this case there are 2 pairs of forms:

a) should/would + the Indefinite infinitive - the action refers the action to the future

b) should/would + the Perfect infinitive -to the past

Some linguists say that the form should/would + the Indefinite infinitive expresses a potential action, while should/would + the Perfect infinitive – unreal action (an impossible action).

Ex.: She would be glad to see him. She would have been glad to see him.

That is the only form which is used in opposition to the Indicative mood.

Ex.: He wants to see the letter at once. (The Indic. Mood)

He would want to see the letter at once. (This form is recognised as an analytical form, but Barkhudarov wouldn’t recognise it as such, because there is no discontinuous morpheme. Except of adverbial clauses of unreal condition).

The use Past Indef. + Past Perf. in adverbial clauses of unreal action.

Smirnitski calls this use – Subjunctive II. Yesperson calls it non-temporal use of Past Ind. and Past Perf. He uses the term “non-temporal” because the temporal meaning of Past Indef. and Past Perfect is different from the other actions. The use of Past Indef. refers the action to the present or future, Past Perf. refers the action to the past, instead of expressing priority as it usually does.

It shall also be noted that the use of the Past Indefinite and Past Perfect is structurally limited. We find this kind of use in adverbial clauses of condition and in simple sentences that have the structure of conditional clauses: If only they hadn 't come!

I wish you didn 't smoke in here.

I wish you hadn't promised.

Blokh called the same phenomenon as time retrospect shift.

Ivanova considers these forms to be the forms of the Subjunctive mood, homonymous with the forms of the Indicative mood.

An unreal action can be expressed by can/could, may/might, should with the Infinitive or Perfect Inf.

Smirnitski called this the Suppositional mood (analytical forms).

Most grammarians don’t share this view: these combinations can’t be looked upon as analytical forms, because of the theory of splitting functions: the auxilliary element of analytical forms should be devoid of lexical meaning. But these verbs (modal) aren’t devoid of lexical meaning; they are not interchangeable.

Ex.: Stay aside that she should/could/can/might see me.

They are free word combinations. They can’t build a separate mood. They are called modal phrases.

Various classifications of oblique moods. 1 The 1^st classification is the classification suggested bу Smirnitski. То sum up, he proposed the system of 6 moods all in all. They are:

· the Indicative;

· the Imperative;

· Subjunctive I;

· Subjunctive II;

· Suppositional;

· Conditional.

In his classification he used the semantic approach, also took form into account.

Blokh’s classification

He consistently proceeds from form and meaning.

The category of Mood is based on a 2-member opposition: the Indicative Mood is opposed to the Subjunctive. The distinctive feature is the time-retrospect shift in the Subjunctive.

The Subjunctive Mood in Bлox's classification is described as an integral mood of unreality but it comprises 2 subsystems (or 2 sets of forms):

· The 1^st comprises the forms of the present plane of the verb. That set of forms is called The Spective mood or the Mood of Attitudes.

· The 2^stset of forms comprises the forms of the past plane of the verb and it is called the Conditional Mood or the mood of Appraising Casual-Conditional Relations of Process.

Each of these of 2 sets falls into 2 subsets, so that all in all we have 4 Subjunctive form types in Blokh's classification:

The Spective Mood falls into the Pure Spective and the Modal Spective.

(The Spective Mood expresses such attitudes as desire, supposition, speculation, suggestion, inducement and others.)

As to the Pure Spective. Ex.: So be it. Happen what may.

The imperative form also belongs to the Pure Spective.

As to the Modal Spective, here belong such forms as

may/might or should + Infinitive Ex.:.... Let us do smth.

The Spective is opposed to the Conditional which falls into 2 subsystems:

1) The Stipulative Conditional. It is described as past unposterior in structure by Блох. Here belong such constructions as:

Ex.: Oh, that he were here! should/would structures

It is contrasted to the

2) Consecutive Conditional as past posterior in structure.

We can find it in the principal clause of a complex sentence expressing a situation of unreal condition where the principal clause expresses the idea of its imagining consequence.

Ex.: If the peace-loving forces had not been on the alert, the civil war in that area would have resumed anew.

3. Henry Sweet's classification.

He uses the term 'Thought Mood" for Oblique Moods and broke this Thought Mood into subtypes depending on whether the forms synthetic or analytical.

The analytical form with the auxiliaries should/would is called the Conditional Mood. The combination of may/might with the Infinitive is called the Permissive Mood.

As for the forms of the Past Indefinite and Past Perfect he called them Tense Mood, because they are tense forms from the point of view of their structure and mood form from the point of view of their meaning.

Deutschbein proceeded from mostly meaning and has 16 moods.

Ilyish called this approach arbitrary and indefensible.

Barkhudarov does not recognize the existence of oblique Moods. In his reasoning he proceeds from form only. He rejects the idea that should/would + Infinitive is an analytical form because the second element, that is the Infinitive, can function independently. Besides there is no discontinuous morpheme.

As to the form of the Past Indefinite and the Past Perfect used to express unreality, he considers them forms of the indicative Mood used in specific syntactical environment.