The Classification of Words

Aspects of the
Russian Verb
perfecti ve	поп - p e\rf e cti ve
		1
Aspects of the		English Verb
поп — continuous		\cont i n и ous

¹ Some linguists speak of the passive voice in. Russian built up analytically with the help of быть and the short forms of the participle, e. g. Дом был построен. (See «Грамматика русского языка», АН СССР, v. I, М,—L., 1953, р. 415.) Seeing that there is grammatical combi-nability between был and построен, дом and построен (cf. Изба была построена, Дома были построены) \\е must regard them as combina­tions of words like Дом был красив, 1*зба была красива, Дома были красивы.
197
Unlike the English participle, the participle in Russian has aspect distinctions делавший — сделавший.

3. 
   Though English and Russian tenses have much in
   common, they differ in the distribution of absolute and rela­
   tive meanings. (Cf. Он сказал, что живет в Москве.
   Не said that he I i v e d in Moscow.) (In the subordinate clause
   the Russian verb has a relative tense meaning, the English
   verb an absolute one.) Когда буду в Москве, зайду. When
   I а т in Moscow, I shall drop in. (In the subordinate clause
   the tense meaning of the Russian verb is absolute, that of
   the English verb relative.)
   
4. 
   English and Russian moods, though fundamentally
   alike, have a number of distinctions: thus Russian impera­
   tive grammemes include number meanings not found in
   English (Cf. читай — читайте), Russian subjunctive gram­
   memes are uniform (Cf. читал бы, читали бы). In English
   their forms are markedly varied (invite, should invite, would
   invite, invited, had invited, etc.); in Russian speech one and
   the same mood grammeme serves to express different shades
   of non-fact. (Cf. Я настаиваю на том, чтобы он сде­
   лал это сам — problematic, если б ы он тогда сделал
   это сам ... —contrary to reality.) English grammemes are
   differentiated: some are used to present an act as problematic
   (I insist that heshoulddo it himself), others — as contra­
   dicting reality (7/ he h a d d о n e it himself, it would be
   different now), etc.
   
5. 
   The category of person in English differs from its
   three-member Russian counterpart in having two-member
   opposemes (am — is, write — writes, opposing the third per­
   son to the first, shall — will, opposing the first person to
   the non-first), in not having person meaning in the plural
   grammemes of the present tense (Cf. читаем — читаете,
   читают, we (you, they) read), in the limited extent of the
   category of person.
   
6. 
   Number is an all pervading category in Russian, em­
   bracing the finite verb and the verbids (the participle). With
   the exception of impersonal verbs no verb is thinkable outside
   this category, whereas in English it is but scantily represent­
   ed in the finite verb, the verbids being altogether bereft
   of number.
   
7. 
   Dissimilarity in the nature of the categories is coupled
   with considerable dissimilarity in the subclasses of verbs in
   English and Russian. Thus, in Russian the division of verbs
   

198
into transitive and intransitive is most essential with regard to the category of voice. In English more relevant is the di­vision into subjective and objective verbs. Likewise the subclasses of terminative and durative verbs distinguishable in English prove less relevant for the Russian verb.
IV. As to their combinability English and Russian verbs have a number of common properties (both in English and in Russian they are associated with nouns and pronouns denoting the subjects or objects ol the actions denoted by the verb, they attach adverbs, etc.), but in English, owing to the existence of the gerund the verb may be modified by a noun in the possessive case, a possessive pronoun attached to the verb as its attribute, or it may be introduced by a pre­position, all that is absolutely impossible in Russian. Pecul­iar is the combinability of English verbids in the so-called complexes.
E. g. Miss Sybil had no desire for me to stay. (Snaith).
Tell me about this horrible business of my father wanting to set me aside for another son. (Shaw).
Connected with the difference in combinability is the difference in function.

1. 
   In English the verb participates in different complexes
   with secondary predication (nexuses) which is not typical
   of Russian. (/ saw him come, I saw him coming, I am not
   against Tom coming, Tom was seen to come, etc.).
   
2. 
   Owing to the existence of the gerund the verb may be
   used as a prepositional object, an adverbial modifier of
   concession, condition, etc., that is in those functions which
   are not discharged by the verbs in Russian.