Английского

§ 3. Passing on to the expression of grammatical number by the 
English finite verb, we are faced with the interesting fact that, from 
the formally morphemic point of view, it is hardly featured at all. 
As a matter of fact, the more or less distinct morphemic featuring 
of the category of number can be seen only with the archaic forms 
of the unique be, both in the present tense and in the past tense. But 
even with this verb the featuring cannot be called quite explicit, 
since the opposition of the category consists in the unmarked plural 
form for all the persons being contrasted against the marked singu-
lar form for each separate person, each singular person thereby be-
ing distinguished by its own, specific form. It means that the ex-
pressions of person and number by the archaic conjugation of be in 
terms of the lexeme as a whole are formally not strictly 

---

129
separated from each other, each singular mark conveying at once a 
double grammatical sense, both of person and number. Cf.: am — 
are; art — are; was (the first and the third persons, i.e. non-second 
person) — were; wast (second person) — were. 
In the common conjugation of be, the blending of the person and 
number forms is more profound, since the suppletive are, the same 
as its past tense counterpart were, not being confined to the plural 
sphere, penetrate the singular sphere, namely, the expression of the 
second person (which actually becomes non-expression because of 
the formal coincidence). 
As for the rest of the verbs, the blending of the morphemic expres-
sion of the two categories is complete, for the only explicit mor-
phemic opposition in the integral categorial sphere of person and 
number is reduced with these verbs to the third person singular 
(present tense, indicative mood) being contrasted against the un-
marked finite form of the verb.