Monocomplementive, tran-sit I vc The railings

still running the show? {run — monocomplementive, tran-sit i vc)
The railings felt cold, (feel — link-verb, predicative com-plementive). We felt fine after the swim, {feel — adverbial complementive, non-objective). You shouldn't feel your own pulse like that, (feel — monocomplementive, transitive).
The problem arises, how to interpret these different sub­class entries — as cases of grammatical or lexico-grammati-cal homonymy, or some kind of functional variation, or merely variation in usage. The problem is vexed, since each of the interpretations has its strong points.
To reach a convincing decision, one should take into con­sideration the actual differences between various cases of the "subclass migration" in question. Namely, one must carefully analyse the comparative characteristics of the corresponding subclasses as such, as well as the regularity factor for an individual lexeme subclass occurrence.
In the domain of notional subclasses proper, with regular inter-class occurrences of the analysed lexemes, probably the most plausible solution will be to interpret the "migration forms" as cases of specific syntactic variation, i.e. to consider the different subclass entries of migrating units as syntactic variants of the same lexemes [IToMenuoB, (2), 87 h cn.j. In the light of this interpretation, the very formula of "lexemic subclass migration" will be vindicated and substantiated.
On the other hand, for more cardinally differing lexemic sets, as, for instance, functional versus notional, the syntac­tic variation principle is hardly acceptable. This kind of differentiation should be analysed as lexico-grammatical homonymy, since it underlies the expression of categorially different grammatical functions.
CHAPTER XI
NON-FINITE VERBS (VERBIDS)
§ 1. Verbids are the forms of the verb intermediary in many of their lexico-grammatical features between the verb and the non-processual parts of speech. The mixed features of these forms are revealed in the principal spheres of the part-of-speech characterization, i.e. in their meaning, struc­tural marking, combinability, and syntactic functions.
The processual meaning is exposed by them in a substan-
102
tive or adjectival-adverbial interpretation: they render proc­esses as peculiar kinds of substances and properties. They are formed by special morphemic elements which do not express either grammatical time or mood (the most specific finite verb categories). They can be combined with verbs like _non-processual lexemes (performing non-verbal functions in the sentence), and they can be combined with non-processual lexemes like verbs (performing verbal functions in the sen­tence).
From these characteristics, one might call in question the very justification of including the verbids in the system of the verb. As a matter of fact, one can ask oneself whether it wouldn't stand to reason to consider the verbids as a spe­cial lexemic class, a separate part of speech, rather than an inherent component of the class of verbs.
On closer consideration, however, we can't but see that such an approach would be utterly ungrounded. The verbids do betray intermediary features. Still, their fundamental grammatical meaning is processual (though modified in ac­cord with the nature of the inter-class reference of each ver­bid). Their essential syntactic functions, directed by this relational semantics, unquestionably reveal the property which may be called, in a manner of explanation, "verbality", and the statement of which is corroborated by the peculiar combinability character of verbid collocations, namely, by the ability of verbids to take adjuncts expressing the immedi­ate recepients, attendants, and addressees of the process in­herently conveyed by each verbid denotation.
One might likewise ask oneself, granted the verbids are part of the system of the verb, whether they do not constitute within this system a special subsystem of purely lexemic na­ture, i.e. form some sort of a specific verbal subclass. This counter-approach, though, would evidently be devoid of any substantiality, since a subclass of a lexemic class, by defini­tion, should share the essential categorial structure, as well as primary syntactic functions with other subclasses, and in case of verbids the situation is altogether different. In fact, it is every verb stem (except a few defective verbs) that by means of morphemic change takes both finite and non-finite forms, the functions of the two sets being strictly differ­entiated: while the finite forms serve in the sentence only one syntactic function, namely, that of the finite predicate, the non-finite forms serve various syntactic functions other than that of the finite predicate.
103

The strict unintersecting division of functions (the func­tions themselves being of a fundamental nature in terms of the grammatical structure of language as a whole) clearly shows that the opposition between the finite and non-finite forms of the verb creates a special grammatical category. The differential feature of the opposition is constituted by the expression of verbal time and mood: while the time-mood grammatical signification characterizes the finite verb in a way that it underlies its finite predicative function, the ver­bid has no immediate means of expressing time-mood catego-rial semantics and therefore presents the weak member of the opposition. The category expressed by this opposition can be called the category of "finitude" [Strang, 143; Bapxy,aapoB, (2), 106]. The syntactic content of the category of finitude is the expression of predication (more precisely, the expression of verbal predication).
As is known, the verbids, unable to express the predicative meanings of time and mood, still do express the so-called "secondary" or "potential" predication, forming syntactic complexes directly related to certain types of subordinate clauses. Cf.:
Have you ever had anything caught in your head? Have you ever had anything that was caught in your head? — He said it half under his breath for the others not to hear it. — He said it half under his breath, so that the others couldn't hear it.
The verbid complexes anything caught in your head, or for the others not to hear it, or the like, while expressing secondary predication, are not self-dependent in a predicative sense. They normally exist only as part of sentences built up by genuine, primary predicative constructions that have a finite verb as their core. And it is through the reference to the fi­nite verb-predicate that these complexes set up the situations denoted by them in the corresponding time and mood per­spective.
In other words, we may say that the opposition of the finite verbs and the verbids is based on the expression of the functions of full predication and semi-predication. While the finite verbs express predication in its genuine and complete form, the function of the verbids is to express semi-predica­tion, building up semi-predicative complexes within differ­ent sentence constructions.
The English verbids include four forms distinctly differ-
104
j_ng from one another within the general verbid system: the infinitive, the gerund, the present participle, and the past participle. In compliance with this difference, the verbid semi-predicative complexes are distinguished by the corre­sponding differential properties both in form and in syntactic-contextual function.