, the same referential process, situation, event. Cf.: p align="justify"> For them to have arrived so early! Such a surprise! - Their having arrived so early was indeed a great surprise. Their early arrival was a great surprise, really.
The triple correlation, being of an indisputably systemic nature and covering a vast proportion of the lexicon, enables us to interpret it in terms of a special lexico-grammatical category of processual representation. The three stages of this category represent the referential processual entity of the lexemic series, respectively, as dynamic (the infinitive and its phrase), semi-dynamic (the gerund and its phrase), and static (the verbal noun and its phrase). The category of processual representation underlies the predicative differences between various situation-naming constructions in the sphere of syntactic nominalisation (see further, Ch. XXV). p align="justify"> Another category specifically identified within the framework of substantival verbids and relevant for syntactic analysis is the category of modal representation. This category, pointed out by L. S. Barkhudarov [Бархударов, (2), 151-152], marks the infinitive in contrast to the gerund, and it is revealed in the infinitive having a modal force, in particular, in its attributive uses, but also elsewhere. Cf.: p align="justify"> This is a kind of peace to be desired by all. (A kind of peace that should be desired) Is there any hope for us to meet this great violinist in our town? (A hope that we may meet this violinist) It was arranged for the mountaineers to have a rest in tents before climbing the peak. (It was arranged so that they could have a rest in tents)
When speaking about the functional difference between lingual forms, we must bear in mind that this difference might become subject to neutralisation in various systemic or contextual conditions. But however vast the corresponding field of neutralisation might be, the rational basis of correlations of the forms in question still lies in their difference, not in neutralising equivalence. Indeed, the difference is linguistically so valuable that one well-established occurrence of a differential correlation of meaningful forms outweighs by its significance dozens of their textual neutralisations. Why so? For the simple reason that language is a means of forming and exchanging ideas - that is, ideas differing from one another, not coinciding with one another. And this simple truth should thoroughly be taken into consideration when tackling certain cases of infinitive-gerund equivalence in syntactic constructions - as, for instance, the freely alternating gerunds and infinitives with some phasal predicators (begin, start, continue, cease, etc.) . The functional equivalence of the infinitive and the gerund in the composition of the phasal predicate by no means can be held as testifying to their functional equivalence in other spheres of expression. p align="justify"> As for the preferable or exclusive use of the gerund with a set of transitive verbs (eg avoid, delay, deny, forgive, mind, postpone) and especially prepositional-complementive verbs and word-groups (eg accuse of, agree to, depend on, prevent from, think of, succeed in, thank for; be aware of, be busy in, be indignant at, be sure of), we clearly see here the tendency of mutual differentiation and complementation of the substantive verbid forms based on the demonstrated category of processual representation. In fact, it is the gerund, not the infinitive, that denotes the processual referent of the lexeme not in a dynamic, but in a half-dynamic representation, which is more appropriate to be associated with a substantive-related part of the sentence.
Within the gerund-participle correlation, the central point of our analysis will be the very lexico-grammatical identification of the two verbid forms in-ing in their reference to each other. Do they constitute two different verbids, or do they present one and the same form with a somewhat broader range of functions than either of the two taken separately? p align="justify"> The ground for raising this problem is quite substantial, since the outer structure of the two elements of the verbal system is absolutely identical: they are outwardly the same when viewed in isolation. It is not by chance that in the American linguistic tradition which can be traced back to the school of Descriptive Linguistics the two forms are recognised as one integral V-ing. p align="justify"> In treating the ing-forms as constituting one integral verbid entity, opposed, on the one hand, to the infinitive (V-to), on the other hand, to the past participle (V-en ), appeal is naturally made to the alternating use of the possessive and the common-objective nounal element in the role of the subject of the ing-form (mostly observed in various object positi...
