Interpretation of verbal means expressing unreality

· (he) be/go; (he) were

Most grammarians recognize these forms as special forms of the Subjunctive mood. They are often called the Present Subjunctive (be/go) and Past Subjunctive (were). Professor Smirnitsky criticizes these terms, because he considers them to be two different forms having different meanings, so he calls them Subjunctive I and II respectively.

A different approach to the form go/be is suggested by Prof. Barchudarov. He regards them as forms of the Imperative mood (see above).

 

· knew/went; had known/had gone

These forms are often treated as the forms of the past tense of the Indicative mood (Sweet, Jespersen, Ильиш, Кayшанская; Гордон, Kpылова). Originally these forms belonged to the Subjunctive mood, but over time the distinction between the forms of the Subjunctive and the Indicative disappeared. Now the unreality of the action is expressed in this case not by a special mood form but by the past tense form with reference to the present. Theoretically it is possible to establish a connection between the two uses of the Past tense - what was true in the past is not true of the present.

Further support that no distinction exists between indicative and subjunctive forms of this type is the extensive use of was instead of were in sentences as I wish I were in London - I wish I was in London, though formally this distinction still survives in the singular of the verb to be (I were).

Professor Barchudarov as we have seen treats these forms as past tense forms, which are outside the category of mood. They do not belong to the Indicative in his interpretation. These are past tense forms which in different contexts may express different modal meanings.

In A.I.Smirnitsky's theory these forms represent Subjunctive II (present and past tense).

 

· should/would + non-perfect/perfect infinitive

These are often referred to as the analytical forms of the Conditional Mood. Among the proponents of this interpretation are H.Sweet, H.Poutsma, A.I.Smirnitsky, B.A.Ilyish, E.M.Gordon and LP.Rrylova. The combination with the non-perfect infinitive is usually called the present conditional, the one with the perfect infinitive - the past conditional. These combinations show that the action is unreal, i.e. it contradicts reality because it depends on an unreal condition. A.I.Smirnitsky called it "dependent unreality" (обусловленная нереальность). These means are mainly used in the principal clause of a complex sentence with a clause of unreal condition, but they also occur in independent sentences where the unreal condition is implied.

However, modern grammarians both abroad and in this country, including J.Lyons, F.Palmer, and L.S.Barchudarov, consider them as free combinations used to express unreality.

 

· should + infinitive

Let's analyze the following examples (Bepxoвская):

· I insist that you should go there.

· It is necessary that he should go there.

· It is natural that he should go there.

In the first two examples the combination should + infinitive is interchangeable with the form (you/he) go and expresses an unreal action. Some linguists, A.I. Smirnitsky among them, treat it as an analytical form of the Suppositional mood, as it is not clear whether the action will take place or not. Others, among them L.S.Barchudarov, are inclined to regard it as a free combination.

In the third example, which at first looks like the second one, the form of the perfect infinitive may be used, while in the second it is impossible. At the same time, the form go may be used in the second example, which is impossible in the third. Moreover, the meaning of both sentences is different: in the third sentence it expresses an emotional reaction to some event and the modal verb should is used for emotional coloring. That means that should here is not devoid of its lexical meaning and together with the infinitive forms a free combination.

 

· may/might + infinitive

This combination is sometimes treated as an analytical form of the Subjunctive mood on the assumption that may and might have developed into auxiliaries and lost their meaning.

Other linguists claim that though the meaning of the modal verbs may be weakened it is never lost completely. So these are free combinations.

 

· would + infinitive in conditional clauses

This combination is usually treated as a free combination because would in such cases always preserves its lexical meaning: If you would come I should be very happy.

Only V.N. Zhigadlo et al. treat would + infinitive as an analytical form used to express a succeeding action.

 

· can/could + infinitive

This combination is never treated as an analytical mood form as the modal verb here preserves its lexical meaning of ability or possibility.

 

Thus, we have seen a wide variety of the verbal means used to express unreality and the various treatments they receive in theoretical English grammars. Some of these means may be used to express reality as well (tense and phase forms); others are used to express unreality in specific contexts. So the question arises: what are the contexts that precondition the use of the above means?