tive verbs (taking one object-complement) and bicomplementive verbs (taking two complements). p align="justify"> The monocomplementive objective verbs fall into five main subclasses. The first subclass is the possession objective verb have forming different semantic varieties of constructions. This verb is normally not passivised. The second subclass includes direct objective verbs, e. g. take, grasp, forget, enjoy, like. The third subclass is formed by the prepositional objective verbs eg look at, point to, send for, approve of, think about. The fourth subclass includes non-passivised direct objective verbs, eg cost, weigh, fail, become, suit. The fifth subclass includes non-passivised prepositional objective verbs, e. g. belong to, relate to, merge with, confer with, abound in.
The bicomplementive objective verbs fall into five main subclasses. The first subclass is formed by addressee-direct objective verbs, ie verbs taking a direct object and an addressee object, eg a) give, bring, pay, hand, show (the addressee object with these verbs may be both non-prepositional and prepositional); b) explain, introduce, mention, say, devote (the addressee object with these verbs is only prepositional) . The second subclass includes double direct objective verbs, ie verbs taking two direct objects, e.g. teach, ask, excuse, forgive, envy, fine. The third subclass includes double prepositional objective verbs, ie verbs taking two prepositional objects, e.g. argue, consult, cooperate, agree. The fourth subclass is formed by addressee prepositional objective verbs, ie verbs taking a prepositional object and an addressee object, eg remind of, tell about, apologise for, write of, pay for. The fifth subclass includes adverbial objective verbs, ie verbs taking an object and an adverbial modifier (of place or of time), eg put, place, lay, bring, send, keep.
Adverbial complementive verbs include two main subclasses. The first is formed by verbs taking an adverbial complement of place or of time, eg be, live, stay, go, ride, arrive. The second is formed by verbs taking an adverbial complement of manner, eg act, do, keep, behave, get on.
Observing the syntagmatic subclasses of verbs, we see that the same verb lexeme, or lexic-phonemic unit (phonetical word), can enter more than one of the outlined classification sets. This phenomenon of the "subclass migration" of verbs is not confined to cognate lexemic subsets of the larger subclasses, but, as is widely known, affects the principal distinctions between the English complementive and uncomplementive verbs, between the English objective and non-objective verbs. Suffice it to give a couple of examples taken at random:
Who runs faster, John or Nick? - (run - uncomplementive). The man ran after the bus. (Run - adverbial complementive, non-objective). I ran my eyes over the uneven lines. (Run - adverbial objective, transitive). And is the fellow still running the show? (Run - monocomplementive, transitive). p align="justify"> The railings felt cold. (Feel - link-verb, predicative complementive). We felt fine after the swim. (Feel - adverbial complementive, non-objective). You shouldn't feel your own pulse like that. (Feel - monocomplementive, transitive). p align="justify"> The problem arises, how to interpret these different subclass entries - as cases of grammatical or lexico-grammatical homonymy, or some kind of functional variation, or merely variation in usage. The problem is vexed, since each of the interpretations has its strong points. p align="justify"> To reach a convincing decision, one should take into consideration the actual differences between various cases of the "subclass migration" in question. Namely, one must carefully analyse the comparative characteristics of the corresponding subclasses as such, as well as the regularity factor for an individual lexeme subclass occurrence. p align="justify"> In the domain of notional subclasses proper, with regular inter-class occurrences of the analysed lexemes, probably the most plausible solution will be to interpret the "migration forms" as cases of specific syntactic variation, ie to consider the different subclass entries of migrating units as syntactic variants of the same lexemes [Почепцов, (2), 87 і сл.]. In the light of this interpretation, the very formula of "lexemic subclass migration" will be vindicated and substantiated. p align="justify"> On the other hand, for more cardinally differing lexemic sets, as, for instance, functional versus notional, the syntactic variation principle is hardly acceptable. This kind of differentiation should be analysed as lexico-grammatical homonymy, since it underlies the expression of categorially different grammatical functions. p align="justify"> XI. NON-FINITE VERBS (VERBIDS)
Verbids are the for...
