Английского

CHAPTER XIII
VERB: PERSON AND NUMBER 
§ 1. The categories of person and number are closely connected 
with each other. Their immediate connection is conditioned by the 
two factors: first, by their situational semantics, referring the proc-
ess denoted by the verb to the 

---

126
subject of the situation, i.e. to its central substance (which exists in 
inseparable unity of "quality" reflected in the personal denotation, 
and "quantity" reflected in the numerical denotation); second, by 
their direct and immediate relation to the syntactic unit expressing 
the subject as the functional part of the sentence. 
Both categories are different in principle from the other categories 
of the finite verb, in so far as they do not convey any inherently 
"verbal" semantics, any constituents of meaning realised and con-
fined strictly within the boundaries of the verbal lexeme. The na-
ture of both of them is purely "reflective" (see Ch. III, §5). 
Indeed, the process itself, by its inner quality and logical status, 
cannot be "person-setting" in any consistent sense, the same as it 
cannot be either "singular" or "plural"; and this stands in contrast 
with the other properties of the process, such as its development in 
time, its being momentary or repeated, its being completed or in-
completed, etc. Thus, both the personal and numerical semantics, 
though categorially expressed by the verb, cannot be characterised 
as process-relational, similar to the other aspects of the verbal 
categorial semantics. These aspects of semantics are to be under-
stood only as substance-relational, reflected in the verb from the 
interpretation and grammatical featuring of the subject. 
§ 2. Approached from the strictly morphemic angle, the analysis of 
the verbal person and number leads the grammarian to the state-
ment of the following converging and diverging features of their 
forms. 
The expression of the category of person is essentially confined to 
the singular form of the verb in the present tense of the indicative 
mood and, besides, is very singularly presented in the future tense. 
As for the past tense, the person is alien to it, except for a trace of 
personal distinction in the archaic conjugation. 
In the present tense the expression of the category of person is di-
vided into three peculiar subsystems. 
The first subsystem includes the modal verbs that have no personal 
inflexions: can, may, must, shall, will, ought, need, dare. So, in the 
formal sense, the category of person is wholly neutralised with 
these verbs, or, in plainer words, it is left unexpressed. 
The second subsystem is made up by the unique verbal 

---

127
lexeme be. The expression of person by this lexeme is the direct 
opposite to its expression by modal verbs: if the latter do not con-
vey the indication of person in any morphemic sense at all, the 
verb be has three different suppletive personal forms, namely: am 
for the first person singular, is for the third person singular, and are 
as a feature marking the finite form negatively: neither the first, nor 
the third person singular. It can't be taken for the specific positive 
mark of the second person for the simple reason that it coincides 
with the plural all-person (equal to none-person) marking. 
The third subsystem presents just the regular, normal expression of 
person with the remaining multitude of the English verbs, with 
each morphemic variety of them. From the formal point of view, 
this subsystem occupies the medial position between the first two: 
if the verb be is at least two-personal, the normal personal type of 
the verb conjugation is one-personal. Indeed, the personal mark is 
confined here to the third person singular -(e)s [-z, -s, -iz], the 
other two persons (the first and the second) remaining unmarked, 
e.g. comes — come, blows — blow, slops — stop, chooses — 
choose. 
As is known, alongside of this universal system of three sets of 
personal verb forms, modern English possesses another system of 
person-conjugation characterising elevated modes of speech (sol-
emn addresses, sermons, poetry, etc.) and stamped with a flavour 
of archaism. The archaic person-conjugation has one extra feature 
in comparison with the common conjugation, namely, a special in-
flexion for the second person singular. The three described subsys-
tems of the personal verb forms receive the following featuring: 
The modal person-conjugation is distinguished by one morphemic 
mark, namely, the second person: canst, may(e)st, wilt, shalt, 
shouldst, wouldst, ought(e)st, need(e)st, durst. 
The personal be-conjugation is complete in three explicitly marked 
forms, having a separate suppletive presentation for each separate 
person: am, art, is. 
The archaic person-conjugation of the rest of the verbs, though 
richer than the common system of person forms, still occupies the 
medial position between the modal and be-conjugation. Two of the 
three of its forms, the third and second persons, are positively 
marked, while the first person remains unmarked, e.g. comes — 
comest—come, blows — blowest — blow, stops — stoppest —
stop, chooses — choosest — choose. 
As regards the future tense, the person finds here quite 

---

128
another mode of expression. The features distinguishing it from the 
present-tense person conjugation are, first, that it marks not the 
third, but the first person in distinction to the remaining two; and 
second, that it includes in its sphere also the plural. The very prin-
ciple of the person featuring is again very peculiar in the future 
tense as compared with the present tense, consisting not in mor-
phemic inflexion, nor even in the simple choice of person-
identifying auxiliaries, but in the oppositional use of shall — will 
specifically marking the first person (expressing, respectively, vol-
untary and non-voluntary future), which is contrasted against the 
oppositional use of will — shall specifically marking the second 
and third persons together (expressing, respectively, mere future 
and modal future). These distinctions, which will be described at 
more length further on, are characteristic only of British English. 
A trace of person distinction is presented in the past tense with the 
archaic form of the second person singular. The form is used but 
very occasionally, still it goes with the pronoun thou, being obliga-
tory with it. Here is an example of its individualising occurrence 
taken from E. Hemingway: Thyself and thy horses. Until thou hadst 
horses thou wert with us. Now thou art another capitalist more. 
Thus, the peculiarity of the archaic past tense person-conjugation is 
that its only marked form is not the third person as in the present 
tense, nor the first person as in the British future tense, but the sec-
ond person. This is what might be called "little whims of gram-
mar"!