http://www.scribd.

com/doc/31794603/A-Handbook-of-Practical-Grammar-Morphology

121 pagina

16. The category of mood.

The category of mood denotes modality or the relation of the contents of the utterance to reality as viewed by the speaker. Modality is a wide notion which characterises every sentence. Means of expressing modality: lexical (modal verbs), lexico-grammatical (modal words), morphological (mood), syntactic (structure of the sentence), phonetic (intonation). Linguists distinguish between objective modality (expressed by mood-forms) and subjective modality (expressed by lexical and lexico grammatical means). The category of mood is proper to finit forms of the verb. It is closely connected with the syntactic function of the predicate. The category is revealed both in the opposition of forms and syntactic structures. So the category of Mood has a strong syntactic significance. Linguists distinguish from 2 to 16 moods in Modem English. The reasons are as follows: 1. The category of mood is in the state of development. Some forms have a limited sphere of use (he, be), new forms are coming into the system (let). 2. There is no direct correspondence of meaning and form. There are no special forms for expressing unreal actions (with the exception of the forms he be, he were). The same forms are used to express facte and non-facts: should/would do, did. They are treated either as homonymous or as polysemantic. 3. It is difficult to distinguish between mood auxiliaries and modal verbs: may, let. All the scholars recognize the opposition of 2 moods: indicative and imperative. Indicalive is represented by a system of categories, (tense, order, aspect , voice, etc.). It is a fact-mood or a direct mood. Imperative is represented by one form, which is used in sentences with implied subject. G.N.Vorontsova recognizes the analytical form of the imperative, expressed by let+ Infinitive.

Problematic and unreal actions are expressed by 4 sets of forms. The form (he) be/come/take, expressing a problematic action, is the only form which differs from the forms of the indicative. There is one more form of the verb to be, different from the forms of the indicative: (he) were. But this difference disappears in all other verbs, and besides, the form (he) was is now being replaced by the form (he) was. The combinations (he) should be, (he) should have been do not differ from modal phrases. Forms expressing unreal actions are the same as the forms of the past indicative. These forms are often treated as polysemantic, i.e. forms of the indicative, which express unreal actions in certain syntactic structures (R.Quirk, L.S.Barkhudarov). Forms of the past indicative denote actions, not connected with the moment of speaking, not relevant for the speaker, not real now. That is why they may be used to denote unreality. In this case subjunctive will be represented by 2 forms of the verb to be: (he) be, (he) were and 1 form of other verbs: (he) do, come, go. A.I.Smimitsky: these forms are homonymic, denoting real and unreal actions: they were ... - real, past; if they were ... - unreal, non-past. Subjunctive is represented by 4 sets of forms. In this system of 4 sets of forms, denoting different degree of unreality, there is no direct correspondence of meaning and form: a) one meaning - different forms: I suggest you do (should do) it. b) one form - different meanings: I suggest you should do it. In your place I should do it. The number of oblique moods will depend on the basic principle for distinguishing between them: a) meaning; b) form; c) both meaning and form, a) B.A.llyish treats these 4 sets of forms as forms of one mood - subjunctive. The difference of form and pa rticular meanings is disregarded: only the common component of meaning (unreality) is taken into account. b) A.I.Smirnitsky takes into account the difference in form and recognizes 4 oblique moods: Subjunctive I (he be), Suppositional (he should be), Subju nctive II (he were), Conditional (should/would be). c) The system of forms, expressing different degrees of unreality, will be subdivided into 2 parts:

1. Forms, denoting problematic actions (he be, should be) may be treated as forms of one mood (Subjunctive I), the analytical form ousting the synthetic form in British English. 2. Forms, denoting unreal actions (were, should/would be) are treated as different moods, expressing independent and dependent unreality, or unreal condition and unreal consequence. But their modal meaning is the same and were should be are not opposed as moods. This opposition reveals the category, which also exists in the system of the indicative mood. So the wide divergence of views on the number of oblique moods can be accounted for: a) by different approaches to the problem of polysemy/homonymy; b) by the absence of mutual relation between meaning and form. In the system of the indicative mood time may be denoted absolutely (tense) and relatively (order, posteriority). In the system of the subjunctive mood time may be denoted relatively (order, prospect). Perfect forms denote priority, non -perfect forms - simultaneousness with regard to other actions. The category of order may acquire the meaning of the category of tense .

http://www.suite101.com/content/verb-mood-indicative-subjunctive-and-imperative-in-englisha225752 http://iit.iit.tuiasi.ro/philippide/asociatia/asociatia_admin/upload/II_1_Albu.pdf

In defining moods, the morphological criterion often prevails in the sense that, within the same mood structure, one can distinguish central modal values from peripheral modal values. Introducing different labels for different modal values of the same form in unrealistic. In Romanian, for instance, splitting thecondi ionaloptativ mood into two or even three (cond i ional, optativ and poten ial) in order to reach a finer degree of granularity is an unnecessary complication since the formal structure is the same (in this respect see Dimitriu 1999: 557.) On the other hand, although both the Romanian conjunctiv and c ondi ional-optativexpress

hypothetical or non-factual acts in opposition to the indicative mood, this semantic aspect is insufficient for treating them as a single mood since both their forms and their sets of values are generally distinct. By limiting our interest to the moods traditionally called personal or predicative in Romanian (and finite in English), on the basis of the criteria formulated above, we opt for the identification in Romanian of five such moods, namely, indicativ, conjunctiv, condi ional-optativ, imperativ and prezumtiv.

The Romanian Condi ional-optativ This is the reason why we theoretically accept the fact that the functions of the Romanian condi ional-optativ are expressed in English by the two subjunctive sets, 1) the synthetic set (the be -subjunctive and the were-subjunctive), hardly

distinguishable from the indicative in form; 2) the analytical subjunctive equivalents, inco rporating modal auxiliaries in their structure. At the same time, we acknowledge the practical value for Romanians of the label conditional mood for such structures as would / could / might +VInf. There is yet another argument, of a structural order: the semant ic relatedness between the Romanian auxiliary verb a vrea in the paradigm of the Romanian

conditional (cf. Dimitriu 1999: 440-441) and the typical English auxiliary would. As for the English equivalents of the Romanian conditional in subordinate clauses, they are formally distinct from the verb structures in superordinate cla uses. Against all predictions regarding the death of the English subjun ctive, we find it desirable to identify such formulae as the be, were and even had been subjunctive as expressions of a verbal mood par excellence, with values that are distinct from those of the corresponding indicative forms. Such a distinction will als o facilitate the understanding of such structures as I wish I were young or I wish I had been with him last night. Another aspect which accounts for the blunder s of Romanian users of English with respect to the structures of conditional sentences is the absence in Romanian of formally rigid ways of expressing conditional values. T hese are central values of the mood called cond ional-optativ, but are also present among the modal values of conjunctiv, as well as of the indicative form called imperfect. That is why in the following examples several Romanian structures correspond to a single English equivalent (provided we ignore the structures involving the omission of the conditional connector accompanied by Subject -Verb inversion): 1. S -l v d venind, a fi fericit. Dac l-a vedea venind, (English translation: If I saw him coming, I would be happy.)

2. Dac plecam la timp, ajungeam la timp. Dac a fi plecat la timp, a fi ajuns la timp.

S fi plecat la timp (English translation: If I had left in/on time I would have arrived in / on time.)

Notice the synonymy of the present conjunctiv and present condi ional in the fi rst example) and the synonymy of imperfect, the perfe ct form of the condi ional and the perfect form of the conjunctiv in the second. These correspond to the English past tense (= were subjunctive) and past perfect (= had been s ubjunctive), respectively. The Romanian imperfect can equally replace the perfect conditi onal in the main clause, as in the second example above.

The Romanian Imperfect The best illustration for the translation intricacies related to a single Romanian form is the imperfect, commonly included among the tenses of the Romanian indicative mood, and its several aspectual and modal values, which lead to different verb forms in English. The Romanian imperfect covers several value s rendered by a wide range of semantically and formally unrelated English structur es. Here are a few examples in which the imperfect forms and their English equivalents are underlined: 1. Ningea cnd am ie it din cas (descriptive value within the realm of the factual) Past Continuous: It was snowing when I went out. 2. Mai bine nu-mi urmai sfatul. It would have been better if you hadnt taken my advice. 3. Dac veneai cu noi, n-ai fi regretat. (Conditional value, conditional clause) If you had come with us you wouldnt have regretted.

4. Poate c nu voia s -l vad . (Subjective value, refusal) Perhaps she wouldn / t see him. 5. Trebuia s napoia i c r ile pn la 1 aprilie (=ar fi trebuit) (Deontic value. Unfulfilled action, also resulting from the semantic content of the verb.) You ought to / should have returned the books by 1 April. Summing up, the Romanian imperfect may correspond to the Engl ish past progressive, to the expression of discontinued habit used to + V, to the expressions of preference or regret, and to non-factual conditional structures rendered by past perfect or past conditional (= would + VPerfect Infinitive).

English Expressions of the Romanian Prezumtiv The verb form designed by the term prezumtiv was identified by Al. Rosetti in his 1943 grammar, was called modul poten ial (v. Iordan and Robu 1978: 473) by A. Philippide and has occasioned debates regarding i ts status as a mood (starting with Elena Slave, 1957) Leaving these aside, we would like to articulate here the possibility .of associating the form of the Romanian prezumtiv built with the help of the auxiliary for the future tense voi / vei etc. with the English structures built with the help of the auxiliary for the future tense will. The two can be associated not only semantically but also formally, 1. Nu-l deranja. Va / O fi dormind. Dont disturb him. He will be sleeping. 2. E ora 9. Vor / Or fi sosit deja.

It is nine o/clock. They will have arrived by now. (Note: The o form is a colloquial variant. Or is the corresponding colloquial form for the third person plural. Colloquial o is homonymous with the future auxiliary. Compare. the prezumtiv form va / o fi dormind with the future forms va dormi /o dormi / o s doarm .) It is obvious that (1) the verbal structure will be sleeping is formally identical with the future continuous, but it expresses an action that is supposed to be t aking place right now, whereas the corresponding Romanian form is identified as the present tense of the mood called prezumtiv and is different from the future forms; (2) the structure will have arrived is formally identical with the future perfect just as the equivalent Romanian expression is identical with the prior future (v iitor anterior or viitor II) and, in the particular context, both express an action that is supposed to have taken place. We should note, however, that perfect formal equivalence in the former case, which involves the use of the Romanian gerund ( nd /-ind form) and of the English present participle (-ing form), respectively, does not hold true in the case of verbs that are not commonly used in the continuous aspect, e.g., O fi / Va fi tiind el ce face / He will know what he is doing. Along an epistemic scale, the central will form will be flanked by the may formand by the must form, respectively. Thus, th e examples above, (1) Nu-l deranja. Va / O fi dormind and (2) E ora 9. Vor / Or fi sosit deja.can be equated to the following corresponding English structure, respectively: (1) Dont disturb him. He may be sleeping. Dont disturb him. He will be sleeping Dont disturb him. He must be sleeping. (2) It is 9 oclock. They may have arrived by now. It is 9 oclock. They will have arrived by now.

It is 9 oclock. They must have arrived by now . Parenthetically speaking, Dumitru Irimia remarked long ag o (1976) upon the synonymy (or, rather, quasi synonymy) of the forms trebuie s + VGerunziu/Participiu trecut and va fi + VGerunziu/Participiu trecut, where trebuie is the Romanian equivalent of must in a prezumtiv equivalent construction: Trebuie s fi cntnd. Va fi cntnd (He must be sleeping. He will be sleeping). Trebuie s fi venit. Va fi venit (He must have arrived by now. He will have arrived by now). The parallel drawn between the Romanian mood called prezumtiv and the corresponding English expressions is not meant to suggest in the least the presence of a distinct presumptive mood in English. Moreover, among the modal values of the Romanian future (viitor I) the prezumtiv value is present anyway, e.g., M i b ie i... da oleac de fn nu s-o g si pe la voi? (C. Hoga , quoted in Irimia 1976: 94), this verb forms being interpretable as having either extende d present reference or future reference. This is not surprising: since future actions are not facts yet, they are closer to an interpretation in terms of modality than, say, actions that are going on at present or that have already taken place.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~uzdh0146/compgrammar_romanian.pdf

The infinitive The infinitive is the non-personal verbal mood that names the action. The infinitive is also used to form some compound tenses. The most common form of infinitive, the so-called short infinitive, is preceded by the preposition a in the dictionary or in a context in which the infinitive functions independently: a cnta to sing, to play an instrument, a vedea to see, a merge to walk, to go, a fugi to run, a hot r to decide. There is also a form called long infinitive or verbal noun, that ends in -are, ere, -ire, -re, and is used as a noun in Romanian: cntare singing, vedere vision, pierdere loss, iubire love, hot rre decision. The infinitive has a past tense, formed with the present infinitive of the verb a fi plus the past participle of the actual verb: a cnta a fi cntat having sung. The past infintive is rarely used in contemporary Romanian. The negative form of the infinitive is formed with the negation nu inserted after the preposition a: a nu cnta not to sing, a nu vedea not to see, a nu merge not to walk, a nu fugi not to run; a nu fi cntat not having sung, etc. The stem of the infinitive (the short infinitive without final vowels -a, -ea, -e, -i/) is the basic form used to form simple tenses with suffixes and endings. The short infinitive (without the preposition a) is used to form compound tenses of various moods: future 1 indicative (voi cnta), present optative -conditional (a cnta), present presumptive (oi cnta).

The past participle The past participle is formed by replacing the suffix of the infinitive with the suffix of the participle. Phonetic mutations may occur at the end of the stem:
y the past participle of the verbs ending in -a, -ea, -i and - is formed with the

corresponding suffixes -at, -ut, -it and -t, replacing the suffix of the infinitive
y the past participle of the verbs ending in -e can take one of the suffixes: -ut,

-s, -t. There are no formal criteria to establish what suffix to use to form the past participle of these verbs: a crede believe crezut, but a rde laugh rs; a n elege understand n eles, but a sparge break spart
y

before the suffixes -s or -t, the final consonant of the stem is dropped: a spune tell spus, a sparge break spart. Exception: a rupe tear apart rupt.

Augerot, J. E. 2000. Romanian / Limba Romn . A Course in Modern Romanian. Ia i, Oxford, Portland: The Center for Romanian Studies. Close, R. A. A Reference Grammar for Students of English. Moscow.Prosveshchenie, 1979 Daniliuc, L., Daniliuc, R. 2000. Descriptive Romanian grammar. An Outline. Muenchen: LINCOM EUROPA. Ganshina, M. A. N.M.Vasilevskaya. English Grammar. Moscow. Higher School Publishing House,1964. Gordon, E. M., I. P. Krylova. A Grammar of Present-day English. Moscow. Visshaya Shkola, 1974. Kaushanskaya, W. L., R. L. Kovner, O.N Kozhevnikowa and others. A Grammar of the English language. Leningrad. Uchpedgis, 1963. Kobrina, N.A., E.A. Korneeva, M.I. Ossovskaya, K.A. Guzeeva. An English Grammar. Morphology. Syntax. St. Petersburg, Soyuz,1999. Michael Swan. Practical English Usage. Oxford University Press, 1995. Natanzon. E.A.,Oblique Moods. Modal verbs. Moscow. Meszdunarodnye Otnosheniya,1968.

Pop, L., Moldovan, V. (ed.). 1997. Grammaire du roumain / Romanian Grammar / Gramatica limbii romne. Cluj: Echinox. Thomson, A.J ,A. V.Martinet. A Practical English Grammar. Oxford University Press, 1986. *** 1966 Gramatica limbii romne. Bucure ti: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romnia.