дніжжя гори. p align="justify"> But if the same verb expresses a habitual, interminately repeated action, the imperfective Russian equivalent is to be chosen for its translation:
In those years trains seldom arrived on time. Russ.: У ті роки поїзда рідко приходили вчасно. p align="justify"> Cf. the two possible versions of the Russian translation of the following sentence:
The liner takes off tomorrow at ten. Russ.: Літак вилетить завтра в десять (the flight in question is looked upon as an individual occurrence). Літак вилітає завтра о десятій (the flight is considered as part of the traffic schedule, or some other kind of general plan). p align="justify"> Conversely, the English unlimitive verb gaze when expressing a continual action will be translated into Russian by its imperfective equivalent:
The children gazed at the animals holding their breaths. Russ.: Діти дивилися на тварин, затамувавши подих. p align="justify"> But when the same verb renders the idea of ​​an aspectually limited, e. g. started action, its perfective Russian equivalent should be used in the translation:
The boy turned his head and gazed at the horseman with wide-open eyes. Russ.: Хлопчик повернув голову і втупився на вершника широко відкритими очима. p align="justify"> Naturally, the unlimitive English verbs in strictly unlimtive contextual use correspond, by definition, only to the imperfective verbs in Russian.
The inner qualities of any signemic lingual unit are manifested not only in its immediate informative significance in an utterance, but also in its combinability with other units, in particular with units of the same segmental order. These syntagmatic properties are of especial importance for verbs, which is due to the unique role performed by the verb in the sentence. As a matter of fact, the finite verb, being the centre of predication, organises all the other sentence constituents. Thus, the organisational function of the verb, immediately exposed in its syntagmatic combinability, is inseparable from (and dependent on) its semantic value. The morphological relevance of the combining power of the verb is seen from the fact that directly dependent on this power are the categorial voice distinctions. p align="justify"> The combining power of words in relation to other words in syntactically subordinate positions (the positions of "adjuncts" - see Ch. XX) is called their syntactic "valency". The valency of a word is said to be "realised" when the word in question is actually combined in an utterance with its corresponding valency partner, i. e. its valency adjunct. If, on the other hand, the word is used without its valency adjunct, the valency conditioning the position of this adjunct (or "directed" to it) is said to be "not realised". p align="justify"> The syntactic valency falls into two cardinal types: obligatory and optional.
The obligatory valency is such as must necessarily be realised for the sake of the grammatical completion of the syntactic construction. For instance, the subject and the direct object are obligatory parts of the sentence, and, from the point of view of sentence structure, they are obligatory valency partners of the verb. Consequently, we say that the subjective and the direct objective valencies of the verb are obligatory. E.g.: We saw a house in the distance. p align="justify"> This sentence presents a case of a complete English syntactic construction. If we eliminate either its subject or object, the remaining part of the construction will be structurally incomplete, ie it will be structurally "gaping". Cf.: * We saw in the distance. * Saw a house in the distance. p align="justify"> The optional valency, as different from the obligatory valency, is such as is not necessarily realised in grammatically complete constructions: this type of valency may or may not be realised depending on the concrete information to be conveyed by the utterance. Most of the adverbial modifiers are optional parts of the sentence, so in terms of valency we say that the adverbial valency of the verb is mostly optional. For instance, the adverbial part in the above sentence may be freely eliminated without causing the remainder of the sentence to be structurally incomplete: We saw a house (in the distance). p align="justify"> Link-verbs, although their classical representatives are only half-notional, should also be included into the general valency characterisation of verbs. This is due to their syntactically essential position in the sentence. The predicative valency of the link-verbs proper is obligatory. Cf.: p align="justify"> The reporters seemed pleased with the results of the press conference. That young scapegrace made a good husband, after all. p align="justify"> The obligatory adjuncts of the verb, with the exception of the su...
