8.3. The categories of person and number of the verb.

The categories of person and number must be considered in close connection with each other, since in languages of the IndoEuropean family they are expressed simultaneously, i. e. a morpheme expressing person also expresses number, e. g. in Latin the morpheme -nt in such forms as amant, habent, legunt, amabant, habebunt, legerunt, etc., expresses simultaneously the 3rd person and the plural number. We shall, however, start by considering the meaning of each of these categories, and then proceed to the analysis of their state in Modern English.

The category of person in verbs is represented by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person, and it expresses the relation between the speaker, the person or persons addressed, and other persons and things. The 1st person, of course, expresses the speaker or a group of which the speaker makes a part; the 2nd person, the person or persons spoken to, and the 3rd, that person or thing (or those persons or things) which are neither the speaker nor the person (s) spoken to.

The category of number expresses the quantity of the subjects (one or more than one). However, this system does not hold good for the Modern English verb, and this for two reasons. First, there is no distinction of persons in the plural number. Thus, the form live may, within the plural -number, be connected with a subject of any person (1st, 2nd, or 3rd). Second, there is no distinction of numbers in the 1st or 2nd person. Thus, the form live in these persons may refer both to one and to more than one subject.

So what we actually find in the Modern English verb is this:

3rd person singular — lives

All the rest — live

If we analyse this state of things in the Modern English verb in exact terms we shall reach the following conclusion. The opposition lives /live, or, in general terms, stem + s / stem + 0, expresses the relation: 3rd person singular/any person of both numbers except 3rd person singular.

It is quite clear that the first item of the opposition is marked both in meaning (3rd person sing.) and in form (-s), whereas the second item is unmarked both in meaning (everything except the 3rd person sing.) and in form (zero-inflection). We ought to add that the category of mood is implied in this opposition, the form lives belonging to the indicative mood only, whereas live may also be any person of both numbers in the subjunctive mood (as far as we recognize its existence at all). Another consequence of this analysis is, that the -s-inflection in verbs conveys 4 meanings: 1) 3rd person, 2) singular number, 3) present tense, 4) indicative mood. The present tense is of course characterized by other signs as well: by the absence of the -d (or -t) morpheme denoting the past tense in regular verbs, and by alternation of the root vowel (e. g. [i] in drinks as against [ae] in drank) in irregular verbs. But in verbs of the type put the -s is the only distinctive sign of the present.

The ending -s having four meanings to express simultaneously is of course a synthetic feature, standing rather by itself in the general structure of Modern English. Some verbs do not fit into the system of person and number described above and they must be mentioned separately both in a practical study of-the language and in theoretical analysis. We will limit ourselves to the verb can (the verbs may, shall, and some others sharing some of its features) and the verb be, which stands quite apart and, of course, is very widely used. The verb can, as is well known, takes no -s-inflection parallel to such forms as lives, writes, takes, etc. Hence it follows that this verb has no category of person or number at all.

The verb be has a system of its own both in the present indicative and in the past. Its system in the present indicative is as follows: 1st person singular — am; 3rd person singular — is; 2nd person (without distinction of number) –are. Plural (without distinction of person) - are

 In the past tense the system is: 1st and 3rd person singular — was; 2nd person (without distinction of number) –were. Plural (without distinction of person)- were.

In analysing the system of person and number we have so far bypassed the forms of the type livest, takest, livedst, tookest. These forms are associated with the personal pronoun thou .and are only used in religions and occasionally in poetical texts and among Quakers. As they stand outside the received grammatical system we can not go into details concerning them. Suffice it to say that with these forms the category of number appears within the category of the 2nd person and the whole system of person and number (including the past tense) must be presented in a different shape.

8.4. The category of voice.

There are various approaches to defining voice. Ильиш points out 2 main approaches to defining voice.

According to the 1^st the category of voice expresses the relation between the subject and the action, and according to the 2^nd one, the category of voice expresses the relation between the subject and the object of the action. Those definitions of voice are more widely accepted as which indicate the direction of an action in respect of the subject => 1^st approach (by Ильиш). If the subject of the sentence is the doer of the action, they say that the action comes from it. If the subject of the sentence is the recipient (or the object) of the action, they say the action comes to it. 1^st case – Active voice, 2^nd case – Passive voice. The category of voice can be analyzed according to the oppositional theory: It’s the opposition of active form of the verb and the passive form of the verb. The marked member (strong) is Passive voice –it has a marker, the discontinuous morpheme be + -en in symbolic denotation.

The number of voices is a controversial problem, since some linguists single out 3 more voices in addition to Active and Passive They are reflexive, reciprocal, and middle.

The reflexive voice is found in “I will shave (myself) in no time. I will wash in no time”. The direction of the action in the examples is different from that of the Active Voice since the action is performed on the subject himself. Some linguists say it comes from subject and back to it. This kind of grammatical meaning is called reflexive. It can be rendered explicitly, with the help of reflexive pronouns, or implicitly as in the 2^nd example. The trouble is that the reflexive meaning is not expressed by the form of the verb since the verb is in the active form. Ильиш says that in order to acknowledge the existence of the reflexive voice it’s not necessary to prove that the reflexive pronoun used in it is an auxiliary word, not a direct object. However, Ильиш doesn’t recognize the existence of the reflexive voice, he leaves the question open.

The reciprocal voice is found in sentences like “Nelly and Chris divorced 2 years ago”, “The friends will be meeting tomorrow morning”. You can also use these sentences with reciprocal pronouns “each other / one another”, the direction of the action is distinct from that of the active voice. It can be described: “the action goes on between the elements of the subject” => this kind is called “reciprocal”. Can also be rendered explicitly (each other) or implicitly (without). Those who recognize it treat the reciprocal pronouns as voice auxiliaries. Yet most grammarians don’t recognize the existence of this voice because the specific grammatical meaning isn’t expressed by the form of the verb. There are 4 possible directions of the action: (1) from the subject, (2) to the subject, (3) from the subject and back to it, (4) between the elements of the subject. Only the first 2 directions are indicated by the form of the verb. Therefore they are recognized as members of the opposition within the category of voice – active and passive voices. The other 2 directions are indicated by lexical means – either by the lexical meaning of the verb, or reflexive and reciprocal pronouns.

The middle voice is found in: “The book is selling well”, “The door opened”, “The rule applies to all instances”. The transitive verbs are used specifically – the action expressed by them is confined to the subject as if it is going on on its own accord. Here the action goes on within the subject without affecting any object. Such instances differ from the active voice both in meaning and in the syntactical construction. However, Blokh says that such instances are lacking both in regularity and the outer form of expression. He describes these instances as cases of the neutralization of the voice opposition, so the strong member coincides with the weak member of the opposition but as to like “book is selling” – Blokh says it isn’t a typical case. The weak member doesn’t coincide but is located between the 2 members.