Английского

have succeeded (failure in the present priority). I wished
her plans might have succeeded (failure in the past priority). Whatever the outcome of the conference should be, stalemate cannot be tolerated (the present simultaneity — posteriority). The commentator emphasised that, whatever the
outcome of the conference should be, stalemate could not be tolerated (the past simultaneity — posteriority). Whatever the outcome of the conference should have been, stalemate cannot be tolerated (the present priority, the outcome of
192
the conference is unknown). The commentator emphasised
that, whatever the outcome of the conference should have been, stalemate could not be tolerated (the past priority, the outcome of the conference was unknown).
The perfect of the modal spective makes up for the deficiency of the pure spective which lacks the perfect forms. Cf.:
Be it so or otherwise, I see no purpose in our argument (simultaneity in the present). - Should it have been otherwise, there might have been some purpose in our argument (priority in the present).
§ 5. As the next step of the investigation, we are to consider the forms of the subjunctive referring to the past order of the verb. The approach based on the purely morphemic principles leads us here also to the identification of the specific form of the conjugated be as the only native manifestation of the categorial expression of unreal process. E.g.:
Oh, that he were together with us now! If I were in your place, I'd only be happy. If it were in my power, I wouldn't hesitate to interfere.
As is the case with be in the present subjunctive (spective), the sphere of its past subjunctive use is not confined to its notional and linking functions, but is automatically extended to the broad imperfect system of the passive voice, as well as the imperfect system of the present continuous. Cf.:
If he were given the same advice by an outsider, he would no doubt profit by it; with the relatives it might be the other way about, I'm afraid. I'd repeat that you were right from the start, even though Jim himself were putting down each word I say against him.
Unfortunately, the cited case types practically exhaust the native past subjunctive distinctions of be, since with the past subjunctive, unlike the present, it is only the first and third persons singular that have the suppletive marking feature were. The rest of the forms coincide with the past indicative. Moreover, the discriminate personal finite was more and more penetrates into the subjunctive, thus liquidating the scarce remnants of differences between the
13-1499 193
subjunctive and the indicative of the past order as a whole. Cf.: If he was as open-hearted as you are, it would make all the difference.
Thus, from here on we have to go beyond the morphemic principle of analysis and look for other discriminative marks of the subjunctive elsewhere. Luckily, we don't have to wander very far in search of them, but discover them in the explicitly distinctive, strikingly significant correlation of the aspective forms of retrospective coordination. These are clearly taken to signify the time of the imaginary process, namely, imperfect for the absolute and relative present, perfect for the absolute and relative past. Thereby, in union with the past verbal forms as such, the perfect-imperfect retrospective coordination system is made to mark the past subjunctive in universal contradistinction to the past and present indicative. This feature is all the more important, since it is employed not only in the structures patterned by the subjunctive were and those used in similar environmental conditions, but also in the further would — should-structures, in which the feature of the past is complicated by the feature of the posteriority, also reformed semantically. Cf.:
I'm sure if she tried, she would manage to master riding not later than by the autumn, for all her unsporting habits
(simultaneity — posteriority in the present). I was sure
if she tried, she would manage it by the next autumn (simultaneity — posteriority in the past). How much embarrassment should I have been spared if only I had known the truth
before! (priority of the two events in the present). I