In OE there were no analytical forms. They appeared later: - ME Future Tense, Perfect, Passive and Subjunctive forms; - NE Continuous and Do-forms; Had the following characteristics: They consisted of 2 elements: 1. a verb of broad semantics and high frequency (an auxiliary); 2.a non-finite form (Infinitive, Participle 1, 2).
Future-Tense Forms: In OE there 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. 1) Formation 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 NE 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). Perfect Forms: 1) Formation: habban/bēon ( with transitive verbs) + Participle 2 (with transitive verbs) (this distinction is still left in German). 2)In ME and NE only 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. Passive Forms: 1) Formation: 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).
Subjunctive-Mood Forms: 1) These forms were not always analytical in OE but were widely used in: 1. independent clauses to express wish, command, hypothetical condition, concession, purpose; 2. dependent clauses temporal clauses (related to future); 3. impersonal sentences went out of use in NE. 2) In ME and NE analytical forms of the Subjunctive Mood appeared. Formation: 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: 1. in the Past present or future imaginary or unreal actions; 2. in the Present future probable or problematic actions 4) Peculiarities: 1. should/would + Infinitive à simultaneous actions; 2) should/would + Perfect Infinitive à past or preceding actions. Continuous Forms: Sometimes they were found in OE: 1) Formation: bēon + Participle 1. 2)In OE it 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 3) In ME Continuous 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), 5) 18th c. Continuous forms became well-established. 6) 19th c. Continuous forms in the Passivewere accepted as a norm. Do-Forms 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), 3) 17th c. do was left only in negative and interrogative sentences to keep the word-order S + P + O. In affirmative sentences do acquired an emphatic meaning
|
|
|
