Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!
ТОП 10 на сайтеПриготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации
Техника нижней прямой подачи мяча.
Франко-прусская война (причины и последствия)
Организация работы процедурного кабинета
Смысловое и механическое запоминание, их место и роль в усвоении знаний
Коммуникативные барьеры и пути их преодоления
Обработка изделий медицинского назначения многократного применения
Образцы текста публицистического стиля
Четыре типа изменения баланса
Задачи с ответами для Всероссийской олимпиады по праву
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!
ЗНАЕТЕ ЛИ ВЫ?
Влияние общества на человека
Приготовление дезинфицирующих растворов различной концентрации
Практические работы по географии для 6 класса
Организация работы процедурного кабинета
Изменения в неживой природе осенью
Уборка процедурного кабинета
Сольфеджио. Все правила по сольфеджио
Балочные системы. Определение реакций опор и моментов защемления
Strong and Weak Verbs in Comparison
⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 4 из 4
Strong Verbs and their Development
1.As far as the strong verbs were a non-productive class, some strong verbs turned into weak with time, i.e. started to employ -t/-d suffix in their form-building (e.g. to climb, to help, to swallow, to wash, etc.). Thus in NEonly 70 strong verbs out of 300 in OE remained.
2.The strong verbs were subdivided into 7 classes according to the type of vowel gradation/ablaut.
The classes that survived best through different periods of the history were classes 1, 3, 6:
Analysing the tables above, we can see that the following changes occurred:
· In MEthe inflections -an, -on, -en were all reduced to just one inflection à -en.
· In NEthe ending -nwas lost in the Infinitiveand preserved in the Participle 2 in order to distinguish these two forms.
· In NEPast Singular and Past Plural forms were unified, usually with the Singular form preferred as a unified form because Past Plural and Participle 2 often had similar forms and it was hard to distinguish them (e.g. ME writen (Past Pl) – writen (Part. 2))à the category of Number disappeared in the Verb.
In ModE the subdivision into classes was lost though we still can trace some peculiarities of this or that class in the forms of the irregular verbs.
Weak Verbs and their Development
1.The division of weak verbs into classes was based on the original stem-building suffix of a verb that was already hard to distinguish even in OE:
2.Weak verbs were not as complex as strong ones and had a greater regularity and simplicity. That’s why they were productive, i.e. all borrowed verbs used weak model of form-building (suffix -t/-d) (e.g. Scand. to skate, Fr. to charm, Lat. to decorate, etc.) and, as it has already been mentioned above, many originally strong verbs turned into weak (e.g. to bake, to laugh, to help, to lie, etc.). The opposite process of turning of weak verbs into strong was very rare and was mainly based on phonetic similarity between some strong and weak verbs, i.e. was a result of mere confusion that later was accepted as a norm due to its persistent and regular character (e.g. to wear was originally weak and became strong because of the mistaken analogy with to swear, to ring (mistaken analogy with to sing), to hide (mistaken analogy with to ride)).
The formation of the Participle 1 was as follows:
In OEParticiple 1 was considered Present Participle, had only the form of the Active Voice, possessed the categories of Number, Gender, Case. It was used predicatively and attributively (agreed with the noun in Number, Gender, Case).
In MEit lost its nominal and adjectival features together with the categories of Number, Gender, Case and became unchangeable.
As it has been mentioned in the table above, in OE Participle 2 was formed:
· in strong verbs – with the help of the suffix –en(+ sometimes root-vowel interchange) + often marked by prefix ζe-:
e.g. OE bindan (Infinitive) – ζebunden(Participle 2) (to bind)
In MEprefix ζe-was weakened toprefixi-/y-(e.g. ME y-runne (run, Part.2 from “to run”) and in NEit disappeared at all.
· in weak verbs – with the help of the suffix -t/-d:
e.g. OE cēpan (Infinitive) – cēped (Participle 2) (to keep)
Participle 2, unlike Participle 1, had two meanings of the category of Voice:
Thus in OEParticiple 2 was considered Past Participle, had the forms of the Active and Passive Voice, possessed the categories of Number, Gender, Case. It was used predicatively and attributively (agreed with the noun in Number, Gender, Case).
In MEit lost the category of Voice and the categories of Number, Gender, Case and became unchangeable.
In OEthe Infinitive resembled the Noun and had the category of Case (only two Cases – Nominative (Nom) and Dative (Dat)):
e.g. OE Nom writan (uninflected) – Dat to wrītanne (inflected, indicated direction or purpose).
In ME the Infinitive lost the Dative Case (the inflected form) and only one form was left:
e.g. ME (to) writen.
Particletoremained in NEas a formal sign of the infinitive with no meaning of direction or purpose:
e.g. NE (to) write.
Though sometimes the traces of these meanings are still visible:
e.g. He came to feed the horses (purpose).
The Gerund appeared only in the 12th c. Actually it presented a mixture of the OE Verbal Noun (with suffix -unζ/-inζ) and Participle 1 and its characteristics were:
· It took direct object (verbal feature) (e.g. buying a book);
· It could be preceded by an article or a possessive pronoun (noun feature) (e.g. the cleaning of my room, your coming late).
The preterite-present verbs had the following characteristics:
· Their Present-Tense forms resembledPast-Tense forms (Germ. “Präteritum” = past tense, that’s why they were called so);
· Some of these verbs did not have a full paradigm and were called “defective”;
· These verbs expressed attitude and were followed by the Infinitive without “to” (NB! Most of these verbs are present-day modal verbs);
· Out of 12preterite-present verbs only 6survived in ModE:
āζ (ought), cunnan (can), dear (dare), sculan (shall), maζan (may), mōt (must).
The following changes happened to the preterite-present verbs:
· They lost their Verbals (non-finite forms) (e.g. OE cunnen – Part 2 of cunnan);
· They lost the Number and Mood distinctions (e.g. OE cann (Indicative) – cunne (Subjunctive); OE cann (Sg) – cunnon (Pl)).
The paradigm of the preterite-present verbs (that had already become modal verbs) was reduced to one or two forms (e.g. must (just one form), can, could (just two forms), etc.).
They were irregular verbs that combined the features of the weak and strong verbs. There were 4 of them – willan (will), bēon (to be), ζān (to go), dōn (to do).
· had the meaning of volition;
· resembled the preterite-present verbs in meaning (attitude) and in function (was followed by the Infinitive without “to”);
· eventually became a modal verb and also together with sculan developed into an auxiliary for the formation of the Future-Tense forms.
This verb combined the features of the weak and strong verbs:
This verb was suppletive and also combined the features of the weak and strong verbs:
This verb was highly suppletive and in OE employed two separate words/roots(Infinitives):
In OEthere were no analytical forms. They appeared later:
· ME – Future Tense, Perfect, Passive and Subjunctive forms;
· NE – Continuous and Do-forms;
and had the following characteristics:
· They consisted of 2 elements:
- a verb of broad semantics and high frequency (an auxiliary);
- a non-finite form (Infinitive, Participle 1, 2).
In OEthere was no Future Tense. Future actions were expressed by Present-Tense forms and modal phrases with sculan (shall), willan (will), maζan (may), cunnan (can), etc.
sculan/willan + Infinitive
Willan had more strong modal meaning (volition) that was later weakened and almost lost.
2. 13th – 14th c.– these forms were very common and sculan (shall) and willan (will) were completely interchangeable.
3. 17th c. – John Wallis introduced the rule “shall – 1st person, will – 2nd and 3rd person”.
4.In ModE there is a tendency to use will + 1st, 2nd and 3rd person without any distinction (earlier will + 1st person had the modal meaning of volition).
habban/bēon + Participle 2
with transitive with intransitive (this distinction is still left in German)
2.In MEand NEonly the auxiliary habban was left while bēon ceased to be used in the Perfect forms not to confuse them with the Passive forms (though some of these forms are still left, e.g. He is gone).
bēon/werthen + Participle 2
2.Werthen died out in late ME.
3.Passive constructions were often marked with prepositions “by/with” (to show the doer of the action or the instrument of the action).
1.These forms were not always analytical in OE but were widely used in:
· independent clauses – to express wish, command, hypothetical condition, concession, purpose (e.g. Sīēn hira ēāζan āþistrode. – Be their eyes darkened!);
· dependent clauses – temporal clauses (related to future) (e.g. Bring me þæt ic ēte. – Bring me that, I would eat), etc.;
· impersonal sentences (e.g. Methinks – I think (мне думается), me lycige – I like (мне нравится)) – went out of use in NE.
2.In MEand NEanalytical forms of the Subjunctive Mood appeared.
biden (bid)/leten (let)/neden (need)/sholde (should)/wolde (would) + Infinitive
These were the modal phrases that were used to express problematic or imaginary actions. The forms with sholde/wolde outnumbered all other forms, soon they weakened their modal meaning and became auxiliaries: should – 1st person, would – 2nd, 3rd person.
3. Meaning of the Subjunctive forms:
· in the Past – present or future imaginary or unreal actions (e.g. He thought he would cope with the task);
· in the Present – future probable or problematic actions (e.g. She thinks he would still come).
· should/would + Infinitive à simultaneous actions (e.g. If I was young I would be the happiest person in the world);
· should/would + Perfect Infinitive à past or preceding actions (e.g. If I had known all this I would have left that house immediately).
Sometimes they were found in OE:
bēon + Participle 1
2.In OEit denoted a “quality” or a “lasting state” and was characterising a person or a thing indicated by the Subject of the sentence. The continuance was not limited in time (as it is in the ModE Continuous forms) and resembled more present-day Indefinite Tense forms, e.g.:
Sēō eorðe is berende missenlīcra fuζela – This land bears many birds.
3.In MEContinuous forms fell into disuse.
4.In NE these forms reappeared together with a synonymous form:
be + Participle 1 = be + on/in + Gerund (indicated a process of limited duration)
He was on huntinge – He was hunting (literally, He was on hunting).
5. 18th c.– Continuous forms became well-established.
6. 19th c. –Continuous forms in the Passivewere accepted as a norm (e.g. The house is being built – previously such forms were considered clumsy and non-grammatical).
1.In NE“do-periphrasis” was used in the Past and Present of the Indicative Mood.
2. 16th c. –“Do” was used in negative, affirmative and interrogative sentences and was freely interchangeable with the simple forms (without “do”), e.g.:
Heard you all this? = Did you hear all this?
I know not why he cries. = I don’t know why he cries.
He knew it. = He did know it (without any meaning of emphasis).
3. 17th c.– “do” was left only in negative and interrogative sentences to keep the word-order S + P + O (e.g. I (S) pity (P) him (O). Do you (S) pity (P) him (O)?). In affirmative sentences “do” acquired an emphatic meaning (e.g. Did you really see him? – I didsee him, I swear!).
infopedia.su Все материалы представленные на сайте исключительно с целью ознакомления читателями и не преследуют коммерческих целей или нарушение авторских прав. Обратная связь - 188.8.131.52 (0.011 с.)