2.2. New forms of the subjunctive mood

In OE the forms of the subjunctive mood, like other forms of the verb, were synthetic. In the course of ME and Early NE there sprang up several new analytical forms of the subjunctive mood.

In ME the formal distinctions between the subjunctive and indicative moods were to a large extent neutralized. The increased homonymy of the forms stimulated the more extensive use of modal phrases, indicating imaginary and probable actions.

As stated above in OE modal phrases consisting of sculan, willan, maan + infinitive were commonly used to indicate future actions; if the modal verb had the form of the subjunctive – present or past – the meanings of the phrase approached that of the subjunctive mood of the notional verb, with some additional shades of modality, belonging to the modal verbs, e.g. swā þæt hē mehte æþerne eræ can, if hīe ænigne feld sēcan wolden ‘so that he might reach either (army), if they (those armies) wanted to get to the battlefield’.

In ME many more modal phrases of similar meaning came into use, with biden ‘bid’, deignen ‘deign’, granten ‘grant’, leten ‘let’, neden ‘need’ as their first components; but sholde and wolde outnumbered the other verbs. In ME modal phrases expressing problematic and imaginary actions occur along with the old synthetic forms. At that time sholde and wolde could weaken and even lose their lexical meanings and turn into auxiliaries. By the age of Shakespeare the change was complete and the forms should/would – originally past subjunctive of shall and will – had become formal markers of the new, analytical forms of the subjunctive mood. The following quotation shows that they did not differ in meaning:

If all were minded so, the times should cease

And three score year would make the world away. (Shakespeare)

The use of should and would as mood auxiliaries was supported by the parallel development of shall and will as the auxiliaries of the future tense. The rules prescribing the distribution of shall and will according to person applied also to should and would. Consequently, in the course of the 18^th and 19^th c. should became the dominant auxiliary for the 1^st person, would – for the 2^nd and 3^rd; those were the rules of correct usage in Standard British English. At the same time, similarly with will and shall, would and ‘d tended to replace should. The replacement has been copmpleted in the American English and is still going on in the British English, perhaps, under American influence.

2.3. Interrogative and negative forms with do

The Early NE period witnessed the development of a new set of analytical forms in the present and past tense of the indicative mood: interrogative and negative forms with the auxiliary verb do known in English grammars as the “periphrasis with do” or “do-periphrasis”.

In ME the verb don was commonly used together with an infinitive to express a causative meaning, e.g. And dide him grete oþes swere ‘And made him swear great oaths’.

In Early NE the causative meaning passed to a similar verb phrase with make, while the periphrasis with do began to be employed instead of simple, synthetic forms. Its meaning did not differ from that of simple forms.

At first the do-periphrasis was more frequent in poetry, which may be attributed to the requirements of the rhythm: the use of do enabled the author to have an extra syllable in the line, if needed. Then it spread to all kinds of texts. In the 16^th and 17^th c. the periphrasis with do was used in all types of sentences – negative, affirmative and interrogative; it freely interchanged with the simple forms, without do. Cf. the following instances from Shakespeare: ‘We do not know how he may soften at the sight o’the child…’ ‘Who told me that the pour soul did forsake the mighty Warwick, and did fight for me?’ ‘Heard you all this?’ ‘I know not why, nor wherefor to say live, boy…’.

Towards the end of the 17^th c. the use of simple forms and the do-periphrasis became more differentiated: do was found mainly in negative statements and questions, while the simple forms were preferred in affirmative statements. Thus the do-periphrasis turned into analytical negative and interrogative forms of simple forms: present and past.