Английского

§ 6. In connection with the problem of the aspective category of 
development, we must consider the forms of the verb built up with 
the help of the auxiliary do. These forms, entering the verbal sys-
tem of the indefinite, have been described under different headings. 
Namely, the auxiliary do, first, is presented in grammars as a 
means of building up interrogative constructions when the verb is 
used in the indefinite aspect. Second, the auxiliary do is described 
as a means of building up negative constructions with the indefinite 
form of the verb. Third, it is shown as a means of forming em-
phatic constructions of both affirmative declarative and affirmative 
imperative communicative types, with the indefinite form of the 
verb. Fourth, it is interpreted as a means of forming elliptical con-
structions with the indefinite form of the verb. 
L. S. Barkhudarov was the first scholar who paid attention to the 
lack of accuracy, and probably linguistic adequacy, in these defini-
tions. Indeed, the misinterpretation of the defined phenomena con-
sists here in the fact that the do-forms are presented immediately as 
parts of the corresponding syntactic constructions, whereas actually 
they are parts of the corresponding verb-forms of the indefinite as-
pect. Let us compare the following sentences in pairs: 
Fred pulled her hand to his heart.------ Did Fred pull her 
hand to his heart? You want me to hold a smile. ------ You 
don't want me to hold a smile. In dreams people change 

---

165
into somebody else. - 
In dreams people do change into 
somebody else. Ask him into the drawing-room. ------ Do 
ask him into the drawing-room. Mike liked the show immensely, 
and Kitty liked it too. -----------Mike liked the show immensely, 
and so did Kitty. 
On the face of the comparison, we see only the construction-
forming function of the analysed auxiliary, the cited formulations 
being seemingly vindicated both by the structural and the func-
tional difference between the sentences: the right-hand constituent 
utterances in each of the given pairs has its respective do-addition. 
However, let us relate these right-hand utterances to another kind 
of categorial counterparts: 
Did Fred pull her hand to his heart? ----- Will Fred pull 
her hand to his heart? You don't want me to hold a smile. 
You won't want me to hold a smile. In dreams people do 
change into somebody else.
In dreams people will change 
into somebody else. Mike liked the show immensely, and 
so did Kitty.
Mike will like the show immensely, and 
so will Kitty. 
Observing the structure of the latter series of constructional pairs, 
we see at once that their constituent sentences are built up on one 
and the same syntactic principle of a special treatment of the mor-
phological auxiliary element. And here lies the necessary correc-
tion of the interpretation of Jo-forms. As a matter of fact, do-forms 
should be first of all described as the variant analytical indefinite 
forms of the verb that are effected to share the various construc-
tional functions with the other analytical forms of the verb placing 
their respective auxiliaries in accented and otherwise individual-
ised positions. This presentation, while meeting the demands of 
adequate description, at the same time is very convenient for ex-
plaining the formation of the syntactic constructional categories on 
the unified basis of the role of analytical forms of the verb. 
Namely, the formation of interrogative constructions will be ex-
plained simply as a universal word-order procedure of partial in-
version (placing the auxiliary before the subject for all the cate-
gorial forms of the verb); the formation of the corresponding nega-
tive will be described as the use of the negative particle with the 
analytical auxiliary for all the categorial forms of the verb; the 
formation of the corresponding emphatic constructions will be de-
scribed as the accent of the analytical auxiliaries, 

---

166
including the indefinite auxiliary; the formation of the correspond-
ing reduced constructions will be explained on the lines of the rep-
resentative use of the auxiliaries in general (which won't mar the 
substitute role of do). 
For the sake of terminological consistency the analytical form in 
question might be called the "marked indefinite", on the analogy of 
the term "marked infinitive". Thus, the indefinite forms of the non-
perfect order will be divided into the pure, or unmarked present 
and past indefinite, and the marked present and past indefinite. As 
we have pointed out above, the existence of the specifically 
marked present and past indefinite serves as one of the grounds for 
identifying the verbal primary time and the verbal prospect as dif-
ferent grammatical categories.