The Finite Verb. The Categories of Person and Number.

These categories are closely connected with each other since they refer the process denoted by the verb to the subject of the situation and relate to the syntactic unit expressing the subject.

Both categories are different in principle from the other categories of the finite verb as they do not convey any inherently verbal semantics.

The expression of the category of person is confined to the singular form of the verb in the present tense of the indicative mood and is very singularly presented in the future tense. This category is alien to the past tense (except for a trace of personal distinction in the archaic conjugation).

The expression of the category of person in the present tense is divided into the following subsystems (three sets of personal verb forms):

1) the modal verbs that have no personal inflexions: can, may, must, shall, will, ought, need, dare (category of person is neutralised/left unexpressed).

2) the unique verbal lexeme be (has three different suppletive personal forms: am for the first person singular, is for the third person singular, and are marking the finite form negatively: neither the first, nor the third person singular).

3) the regular, normal expression of person with the remaining multitude of the English verbs. It can be called one-personal as opposed to the verb be is at least two-personal. The personal mark is confined to the third person singular -(e)s [-z, -s, -iz], the other two persons (the first and the second) remain unmarked: comes – come, blows – blow.

Modern English possesses another system of person-conjugation characterising elevated modes of speech (solemn addresses, sermons, poetry, etc.). In comparison with modern English the archaicperson-conjugation has a special inflexion for the second person singular:

1) the modal person-conjugation is distinguished by the second person morphemic mark: canst, may(e)st, wilt, shalt, shouldst, wouldst, ought(e)st, need(e)st, durst.

2) the personal be-conjugation is complete in three explicitly marked forms: am, art, is.

3) the person-conjugation of the rest of the verbs occupies the medial position between the modal and be-conjugation. Two of the three of its forms (the third and second persons), are positively marked, the first person remains unmarked: comes – comest – come, blows – blowest – blow.

In the future tense the person finds quite another mode of expression: 1) it marks not the third, but the first person in distinction to the remaining two; 2) it includes in its sphere also the plural. The person featuring consists in the oppositional use of shall – will specifically marking the first person (expressing, respectively, voluntary and non-voluntary future), which is contrasted against the oppositional use of will – shall specifically marking the second and third persons together (expressing, respectively, mere future and modal future). These distinctions are characteristic of British English.

A trace of person distinction is presented in the past tense with the archaic form of the second person singular. The form is occasionally used (it is obligatory with the pronoun thou):

Until thou hadst horses thou wert with us.

Now thou art another capitalist more.

The peculiarity of the archaic past tense person-conjugation is that its only marked form is not the third person (as in the present tense), nor the first person (as in the British future tense), but the second person.

The grammatical number of the English finite verb is hardly featured at from the formally morphemic point of view.

The more or less distinct morphemic featuring of the category of number can be seen only with the archaic forms of the unique be (in the present tense and in the past tense). In this case the opposition of the category consists in the unmarked plural form for all the persons against the marked singular form for each separate person (each singular person is distinguished by its own, specific form):

each singular mark conveys at once a double grammatical sense (person+number).

For the rest of the verbs, the blending of the morphemic expression of the two categories is complete. The only explicit morphemic opposition in the categorial sphere of person and number is reduced to the third person singular (present tense, indicative mood) contrasted against the unmarked finite form of the verb.

The formal person-number system of the finite verb is extremely and very singularly deficient. It can be said to be of no functional value when taken by itself however in the language it doesn’t exist by itself but in unity with the personal-numerical forms of the subject and the combination of 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.

The exposition of the verbal categories of person and number helps explain some special cases of the subject-verb categorial relations (agreement in sense/ notional concord – 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 subject). Here belong:

1) combinations of the finite verb with collective nouns.

The government were definitely against the bill (the verb in the plural reflects the plural composition of the subject)

The appointed government has gathered for its first session (the verb in the singular reflects the integral, single-unit quality of the subject).

2) predicative constructions whose subject is made imperatively plural by a numeral attribute.

Three years have elapsed since we saw him last.

Three years is a long time to wait.

3) constructions whose subject is expressed by a coordinative group of nouns.

My heart and soul belongs to this small nation.

My emotional self and rational self have been at variance about the attitude adopted by Jane.

4) relative clauses, where the finite verb directly reflects the categories of the nounal antecedent of the clause-introductory relative pronoun-subject.

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.