ng elliptical constructions with the indefinite form of the verb. p align="justify"> L. S. Barkhudarov was the first scholar who paid attention to the lack of accuracy, and probably linguistic adequacy, in these definitions. Indeed, the misinterpretation of the defined phenomena consists here in the fact that the do-forms are presented immediately as parts of the corresponding syntactic constructions, whereas actually they are parts of the corresponding verb-forms of the indefinite aspect. Let us compare the following sentences in pairs:
Fred pulled her hand to his heart. Did Fred pull her
hand to his heart? You want me to hold a smile. You
don't want me to hold a smile. In dreams people change
into somebody else. - In dreams people do change into
somebody else. Ask him into the drawing-room. Do
ask him into the drawing-room. Mike liked the show immensely, and Kitty liked it too. Mike liked the show immensely, and so did Kitty.
On the face of the comparison, we see only the construction-forming function of the analysed auxiliary, the cited formulations being seemingly vindicated both by the structural and the functional difference between the sentences: the right-hand constituent utterances in each of the given pairs has its respective do-addition. However, let us relate these right-hand utterances to another kind of categorial counterparts:
Did Fred pull her hand to his heart? Will Fred pull
her hand to his heart? You don't want me to hold a smile. p align="justify"> You won't want me to hold a smile. In dreams people do
change into somebody else. In dreams people will change
into somebody else. Mike liked the show immensely, and
so did Kitty. Mike will like the show immensely, and
so will Kitty.
Observing the structure of the latter series of constructional pairs, we see at once that their constituent sentences are built up on one and the same syntactic principle of a special treatment of the morphological auxiliary element. And here lies the necessary correction of the interpretation of Jo-forms. As a matter of fact, do-forms should be first of all described as the variant analytical indefinite forms of the verb that are effected to share the various constructional functions with the other analytical forms of the verb placing their respective auxiliaries in accented and otherwise individualised positions. This presentation, while meeting the demands of adequate description, at the same time is very convenient for explaining the formation of the syntactic constructional categories on the unified basis of the role of analytical forms of the verb. Namely, the formation of interrogative constructions will be explained simply as a universal word-order procedure of partial inversion (placing the auxiliary before the subject for all the categorial forms of the verb); the formation of the corresponding negative will be described as the use of the negative particle with the analytical auxiliary for all the categorial forms of the verb; the formation of the corresponding emphatic constructions will be described as the accent of the analytical auxiliaries, including the indefinite auxiliary; the formation of the corresponding reduced constructions will be explained on the lines of the representative use of the auxiliaries in general (which won't mar the substitute role of do).
For the sake of terminological consistency the analytical form in question might be called the "marked indefinite", on the analogy of the term "marked infinitive". Thus, the indefinite forms of the non-perfect order will be divided into the pure, or unmarked present and past indefinite, and the marked present and past indefinite. As we have pointed out above, the existence of the specifically marked present and past indefinite serves as one of the grounds for identifying the verbal primary time and the verbal prospect as different grammatical categories. p align="justify"> The category of retrospective coordination (retrospect) is constituted by the opposition of the perfect forms of the verb to the non-perfect, or imperfect forms. The marked member of the opposition is the perfect, which is built up by the auxiliary have in combination with the past participle of the conjugated verb. In symbolic notation it is expressed by the formula have ... en.
The function...
