Development of analytical form of verbs

All the new forms which have been included in the ME verb paradigm are analytical forms.

A genuine analytical verb form must consist of several component parts: an auxiliary verb, sometimes two or three auxiliary verbs — which serve as a grammatical marker, and a non-finite form (theI nfinitive or the Participle) which expresses the lexical meaning of the form and serves as a grammatical marker. The analytical form should be idiomatic: its meaning is not equivalent to the sum of meanings of the component parts.

The development of these properties is known as the process of grammatization. Some verb phrases, as the Perfect forms have been completely grammatized, – the first components have completely lost their lexical meanings and became pure auxiliaries. Some of them have not been fully grammatized to this day and are not regarded as ideal analytical forms (for instance, the Future tenses).

The analytical way of form-building was a new device, which developed in Late OE and ME. Analytical forms developed from free word groups (phrases, syntactical constructions). The first component of these phrases turned into a grammatical marker, while the second component retained its lexical meaning and acquired a new grammatical value in the compound form.

In OE there were two non-finite forms of the verb: the Infinitive and the Participle. The Infinitive had no verbal grammatical categories. Being a verbal noun by origin, it had a sort of reduced case-system: two forms which roughly corresponded to the Nom. and the Dat. cases of nouns –

beran – uninflected Infinitive (“Nom.” case)

tō berenne or tō beranne – inflected Infinitive (“Dat.” case)

Like the Dat. case of nouns the inflected Infinitive with the preposition tō could be used to indicate the direction or purpose of an action. The uninflected Infinitive was used in verb phrases with modal verbs or other verbs of incomplete predication.

The Participle was a kind of verbal adjective which was characterized not only by nominal but also by certain verbal features. Participle I (Present Participle) was opposed to Participle II (Past Participle) through voice and tense distinctions: it was active and expressed present or simultaneous processes and qualities, while Participle II expressed states and qualities resulting from past action and was contrasted to Participle I as passive to active, if the verb was transitive. Participle II of intransitive verbs had an active meaning; it indicated a past action and was opposed to Participle I only through tense. Participles were employed predicatively and attributively like adjectives and shared their grammatical categories: they were declined as weak and strong and agreed with nouns in number, gender and case.

In OE there were two non-finite forms of the verb: the Infinitive and the Participle. In many respects they were closer to the nouns and adjectives than to the finite verb; their nominal features were far more obvious than their verbal features, especially at the morphological level. The verbal nature of the Infinitive and the Participle was revealed in some of their functions and in their syntactic " combinability": like finite forms they could take direct objects and be modified by adverbs.

The forms of the two participles were strictly differentiated. P I was formed from the Present tense stem (the Infinitive without the endings - an, - ian) with the help of the suffix - ende. P II had a stem of its own — in strong verbs it was marked by a certain grade of the root-vowel interchange and by the suffix - en; with weak verbs it ended in - d /- t. P II was commonly marked by the prefix ge -, though it could also occur without it, especially if the verb had other word-building prefixes.

Infinitive Participle I Participle II (NE bindan bindende gebunden bind)

In OE there were no analytical forms; they appeared in ME in all Germanic langs and consisted of two elements; 1) a verb of broad semantics (to be, to have) and high frequency; 2) non-finite forms (inf., PI/II). They are Perfect Passive. Future, Cont, Do-forms.

The rise of Perfect forms

1.habbant (transitive verb)/ beon (intransiuve verb) +PII

beon in ME ceased(прекращает) to be used not to confuse Perfect with Passive. 2. In ME also inf. and Participle acquired(преобритать) Perfect forms.

The rise of Passive forms

1. beon/ weorÞ (died out in ME) от переходных глаголов +PII. The Pass. Inf., consisting of beon plus Part. II, is found in OE texts. В с-а гл weorÞ an уходит из употребления. Остается 1 глагол д/выражения пассива - bē on. Форма глагола " быть" утратила свое лексич значение.

2.Passive constructions were often used with prepositions by/with to show the doer(исполнитель) of the action and the instrument. В с-а предлог " by" еще не употреблялся (только в конце р-н-а), а были of, from, mid, with, through.

The rise of the Future forms

1. Analytical Future Tense forms developed from OE verbs Sculan/willan" +inf. 2. 13-14 cent. — Future Tense forms became very common " willan/scullan were completely interchangeable.(взаимозамен-й)

3.17lb cent. John Wales established rule - 'shall" – first person, will" - 2/3 person

4.present day tendency “will” is used with ail(нездоровый) persons

The rise of the Continuous Forms OE " beon" +PI - denoted a quality of a lasting(продолж-й) state of the subject. ME in ME this form fell into disuse. NE in the NE there were two forms to show continuous aspect (be+PI/ be +preposition " on"). In the 18 cent. Cont. forms were well established(принята). 19th cent - Cont. forms appear in Passive*, before this time such forms were considered clumsy and a grammatical.

The rise of the do-forms 1. do-forms (do-periphrasis) appeared in Past and Present in Indicative Mood.2. do-forms were used in negative, affirmative(положит-й) and interrogative scents and freely interchanged with simple forms - without do (16-17 cent) (ex. Did you hear this/ Heard you this? don't know/ I know not; I do like ice ­cream/ I like ice-cream)

3. 17 cent, do-forms only in negative and interrogative sents.

В р-на период развивается употреб­ление глагола do как вспомогательного. В XVI — XVII вв. формы настоящего и прошедшего време­ни часто образуются из сочетания «do + инфинитив». 18в. Do как вспом.глагол сохранился лишь там, где он получал доп.грамм.значение: 1)для образования отриц.формы глагола 2) для образования вопросит.формы глагола 3) для образования эмфатической формы глагола.