Indeed, the first person plural does not indicate the plurality of the "ego", it cannot mean several I’s. What it denotes in fact, is the speaker plus some other person or persons belonging, from the point of view of the utterance content, to the same background. The second person plural is essentially different from the first person plural in so far as it does not necessarily express, but is only capable of expressing similar semantics. Thus, it denotes either more than one listener (and this is the ordinary, general meaning of the plural as such, not represented in the first person); or, similar to the first person, one actual listener plus some other person or persons belonging to the same background in the speaker's situational estimation; or, again specifically different from the first person, more than one actual listener plus some other person or persons of the corresponding interpretation. Turning to the third person plural, one might feel inclined to think that it would wholly coincide with the plural of an ordinary substantive name. On closer observation, however, we note a fundamental difference here also. Indeed, the plural of the third person is not the substantive plural proper, but the deictic, indicative, pronominal plural; it is expressed through the intermediary reference to the direct name of the denoted entity, and so may either be related to the singular he-pronoun, or the she-pronom, or the it - pronoun, or to any possible combination of them according to the nature of the plural object of denotation.
The only inference that can be made from the given description is that in the personal pronouns the expression of the plural is very much blended with the expression of the person, and what is taken to be three persons in the singular and plural, essentially presents a set of six different forms of blended person-number nature, each distinguished by its own individuality. Therefore, in the strictly cate-gorial light, we have here a system not of three, but of six persons.
Returning now to the analysed personal and numerical forms of the finite verb, the first conclusion to be drawn on the ground of the undertaken analysis is that their intermixed character, determined on the formal basis, answers in general the mixed character of the expression of person and number by the pronominal subject name of the predicative construction. The second conclusion to be drawn, however, is that the described formal person-number system of the finite verb is extremely and very singularly deficient. In fact, what in this connection the regular verb-form does express morphemically, is only the oppositionsal identification of the third person singular (to leave alone the particular British English mode of expressing the person in the future).
A question naturally arises: What is the actual relevance of this deficient system in terms of the English language? Can one point out any functional, rational significance of it, if taken by itself?
The answer to this question can evidently be only in the negative: in no wise. There cannot be any functional relevance in such a system, if taken by itself. But in language it does not exist by itself.
§ 5. As soon as we take into consideration the functional side of the analysed forms, we discover at once that these forms exist in unity with the personal-numerical forms of the subject. This unity is of such a nature that the universal and true indicator of person and number of the subject of the verb will be the subject itself, however trivial this statement may sound. Essentially, though, there is not a trace of triviality in the formula, bearing in mind, on the one hand, the substantive character of the expressed categorial meanings, and on the other, the analytical basis of the English grammatical structure. The combination pf the English finite verb with the subject is obligatory not only in the general syntactic sense, but also in the categorial sense of expressing the subject-person of the process.
An objection to this thesis can be made on the ground that in the text the actual occurrence of the subject with the finite verb is not always observed. Moreover, the absence of the subject in constructions of living colloquial English is, in general, not an unusual feature. Observing textual materials, we may come across cases of subject-wanting predicative units used not only singly, as part of curt question-response exchange, but also in a continual chain of speech. Here is an example of a chain of this type taken from E. Hemingway:
"No one shot from cars," said Wilson coldly.
"I mean chase them from cars."
"Wouldn't ordinarily," Wilson said. "Seemed sporting enough to me though while we were doing it. Taking more chance driving that way across the plain full of holes and one thing and another than hunting on foot. Buffalo could have charged us each time we shot if he liked. Gave him every chance. Wouldn't mention it to any one though. It's illegal if that's what you mean."
However, examples like this cannot be taken for a disproof of the obligatory connection between the verb and its subject, because the corresponding subject-nouns, possibly together with some other accompanying words, are zeroed on certain syntactico-stylistical principles (brevity of expression in familiar style, concentration on the main informative parts of the communication, individual speech habits, etc.). Thus, the distinct zero-representation of the subject does give expression to the verbal person-number category even in conditions of an outwardly gaping void in place of the subject in this or that concrete syntactic construction used in the text. Due to the said zero-representation, we can easily reconstruct the implied person indications in the cited passage: "I wouldn't ordinarily"; "It seemed sporting enough"; "It was taking more chance driving that way"; "We gave him every chance"; "I wouldn't mention it to any one".
Quite naturally, the non-use of the subject in an actual utterance may occasionally lead to a referential misunderstanding or lack of understanding, and such situations are reflected in literary works by writers - observers of human speech as well as of human nature. A vivid illustration of this type of speech informative deficiency can be seen in one of K. Mansfield's stories:
"Fried or boiled?" asked the bold voice.
Fried or boiled? Josephine and Constantia were quite bewildered for the moment. They could hardly take it in.
"Fried or boiled what, Kate?" asked Josephine, trying to begin to concentrate.
Kate gave a loud sniff. "Fish."
"Well, why didn't you say so immediately?" Josephine reproached her gently. "How could you expect us to understand, Kate? There are a great many things in this world, you know, which are fried or boiled."
The referential gap in Kate's utterance gave cause to her bewildered listener for a just reproach. But such lack of positive information in an utterance is not to be confused with the non-expression of a grammatical category. In this connection, the textual zeroing of the subject-pronoun may be likened to the textual zeroing of different constituents of classical analytical verb-forms, such as the continuous, the perfect, and others: no zeroing can deprive these formsoftheir grammatical, categorial status.
Now, it would be too strong to state that the combination of the subject-pronoun with the finite verb in English has become an analytical person-number form in the full sense of this notion. The English subject-pronoun, unlike the French conjoint subject-pronoun (e.g.Je vous remercie - "I thank you"; but: mon mari et moi - "my husband and I"), still retains its self-positional syntactic character, and the personal pronominal words, without a change of their nominative form, are used in various notional functions in sentences, building up different positional sentence-parts both in the role of head-word and in the role of adjunct-word. What we do see in this combination is, probably, a very specific semi-analytical expression of a reflective grammatical category through an obligatory syntagmatic relation of the two lexemes: the lexeme-reflector of the category and the lexeme-originator of the category. This mode of grammatical expression can be called "junctional". Its opposite, i.e. the expression of the categorial content by means of a normal morphemic or word-morphemic procedure, can be, by way of contrast, tentatively called "native". Thus, from the point of view of the expression of a category either through the actual morphemic composition of a word, or through its being obligatorily referred to another word in a syntagmatic string, the corresponding grammatical forms will be classed into native and junctional. About the person-numerical forms of the finite verb in question we shall say that in the ordinary case of the third person singular present indicative, the person and number of the verb are expressed natively, while in most of the other paradigmatic locations they are expressed junctionally, through the obligatory reference of the verb-form to its subject.
This truth, not incapable of inviting an objection on the part of the learned, noteworthily has been exposed from time immemorial in practical grammar books, where the actual conjugation of the verb is commonly given in the form of pronoun-verb combinations: I read, you read, he reads, we read, you read, they read.
In point of fact, the English finite verb presented without its person-subject is grammatically almost meaningless. The presence of the two you's in practical tables of examples like the one above, in our opinion, is also justified by the inner structure of language. Indeed, since you is part of the person-number system, and not only of the person system, it should be but natural to take it in the two different, though mutually complementing interpretations - one for each of the two series of pronouns in question, i.e. the singular series and the plural series. In the light of this approach, the archaic form thou plus the verb should be understood as a specific variant of the second person singular with its respective stylistic connotations.
§ 6. The exposition of the verbal categories of person and number presented here helps conveniently explain some special cases of the subject-verb categorial relations. The bulk of these cases have been treated by traditional grammar in terms of "agreement in sense", or "notional concord". We refer to the grammatical agreement of the verb not with the categorial form of the subject expressed morphemically, but with the actual personal-numerical interpretation of the denoted referent.
Here belong, in the first place, combinations of the finite verb with collective nouns. According as they are meant by the speaker either to reflect the plural composition of the subject, or, on the contrary, to render its integral, single-unit quality, the verb is used either in the plural, or in the singular. E.g.:
The government were definitely against the bill introduced by the opposing liberal party. - - The newly appointed government has gathered for its first session.
In the second place, we see here predicative constructions whose subject is made imperatively plural by a numeral attribute. Still, the corresponding verb-form is used to treat it both ways: either as an ordinary plural which fulfils its function in immediate keeping with its factual plural referent, or as an integrating name, whose plural grammatical form and constituent composition give only a measure to the subject-matter of denotation. Cf.:
Three years have elapsed since we saw him last.- -Three years is a long time to wait.
In the third place, under the considered bearding come constructions whose subject is expressed by a coordinative group of nouns, the verb being given an option of treating it either as a plural or as a singular. E.g.:
My heart and soul belongs to this small nation in its desperate struggle for survival. - -My emotional self and rational self have been at variance about the attitude adopted by Jane.
The same rule of "agreement in sense" is operative in relative clauses, where the finite verb directly reflects the categories of the nounal antecedent of the clause-introductory relative pronoun-subject. Cf.:
I who am practically unacquainted with the formal theory of games can hardly suggest an alternative solution. - - Your words show the courage and the truth that I have always felt was in your heart
On the face of it, the cited examples might seem to testify to the analysed verbal categories being altogether self-sufficient, capable, as it were, even of "bossing" the subject as to its referential content. However, the inner regularities underlying the outer arrangement of grammatical connections are necessarily of a contrary nature: it is the subject that induces the verb, through its inflexion, however scanty it may be, to help express the substantival meaning not represented in the immediate substantival form. That this is so and not otherwise, can be seen on examples where the subject seeks the needed formal assistance from other quarters than the verbal, in particular, having recourse to determiners. Cf.:
A full thirty miles was covered in less than half an hour; the car could be safely relied on.
Thus, the role of the verb in such and like cases comes at most to that of a grammatical intermediary.
From the functional point of view, the direct opposite to the shown categorial connections is represented by instances of dialectal and colloquial person-number neutralization. Cf:.
"Ah! It's a pity you never was trained to use your reason, miss" (B. Shaw). "He's been in his room all day," the landlady said downstairs. "I guess he don't feel well" (E. Hemingway). "What are they going to do to me?" Johnny said. - "Nothing," I said. "They ain't going to do nothing to you" (W. Saroyan).
Such and similar oppositional neutralizations of the surviving verbal person-number indicators, on their part, clearly emphasize the significance of the junctional aspect of the two inter-connected categories reflected in the verbal lexeme from the substantival subject.
§ 1. The immediate expression of grammatical time, or "tense" (Lat. tempus), is one of the typical functions of the finite verb. It is typical because the meaning of process, inherently embedded in the verbal lexeme, finds its complete realization only if presented in certain time conditions. That is why the expression or non-expression of grammatical time, together with the expression or non-expression of grammatical mood in person-form presentation, constitutes the basis of the verbal category of finitude, i.e. the basis of the division of all the forms of the verb into finite and non-finite.
When speaking of the expression of time by the verb, it is necessary to strictly distinguish between the general notion of time, the lexical denotation of time, and the grammatical time proper, or grammatical temporality.
The philosophical notion of time exposes it as the universal form of the continual consecutive change of phenomena. Time, as well as space are the basic forms of the existence of matter, they both are inalienable properties of reality and as such are absolutely independent of human perception. On the other hand, like other objective factors of the universe, time is reflected by man through his perceptions and intellect, and finds its expression in his language.
It is but natural that time as the universal form of consecutive change of things should be appraised by the individual in reference to the moment of his immediate perception of the outward reality. This moment of immediate perception, or "present moment", which is continually shifting in time, and the linguistic content of which is the "moment of speech", serves as the demarcation line between the past and the future. All the lexical expressions of time, according as they refer or do not refer the denoted points or periods of time, directly or obliquely, to this moment, are divided into "present-oriented", or "absolutive" expressions of time, and "non-present-oriented", "non-absolutive" expressions of time.