many grammarians, and 16 moods, as proposed by M. Deutschbein. 1 Between these extremes there are intermediate views, such as that of Prof. A. Smirnitsky, who proposed a system of 6 moods (indicative, imperative, subjunctive I, subjunctive II, suppositional, and conditional),2 and who was followed in this respect by M. Ganshina and N. Vasilevskaya. 3 The problem of English moods was also investigated by Prof. G. Vorontsova 4 and by a number of other scholars. In view of this extreme variety of opinions and of the fact that each one of them has something to be said in its favour (the only one, perhaps, which appears to be quite arbitrary and indefensible is that of M. Deutschbein) it would be quite futile for us here either to assert that any one of those systems is the right one, or to propose yet another, and try to defend it against all possible objections which might be raised. We will therefore content ourselves with pointing out the main possible approaches and trying to assess their relative force and their weak points. If we start from the meanings of the mood forms (leaving aside the meaning of reality, denoted by the indicative), we obtain (with some possible variations of detail) the following headings:
came, had come (same as past or past perfect indicative), used in subordinate clauses
Consequence of unreal condition
should come (1st person) would come (2nd and 3rd person)
We would thus get either four moods (if possibility, unreal condition, and consequence of unreal condition are each taken
1 M. Deutschbein, System der neuenglischen Syntax, S. 112 ff. 2 See Русско-английский словарь, под общим руководством проф. А. И. Смирницкого, 1948, стр. 979; А. И. Смирницкий, Морфология английского языка, 1959, стр. 341—352. 3 M. Ganshina and N. Vasilevskaya, English Grammar, 7th ed., 1951, P. 161 ff. 4 Г. Н. Воронцова, Очерки по грамматике английского языка, 1960, стр. 240 сл.
106 The Verb: Mood
separately), or three moods (if any two of these are taken together), or two moods (if they are all three taken together under the heading of "non-real action"). The choice between these variants will remain arbitrary and is unlikely ever to be determined by means of any objective data. If, on the other hand, we start from the means of expressing moods (both synthetical and analytical) we are likely to get something like this system:
Means of Expression
come (!) (no ending, no auxiliary, and usually without subject) (he) come (no ending in any person, no auxiliary) came, had come should come (for all persons)
should come (1st person)
would come (2nd and 3rd person ) may come (?)
Meaning
Inducement
Possibility
Unreal condition Unlikely condition Matter for assessment 1 Consequence of unreal condition Wish or purpose
In this way we should obtain a different system, comprising six moods, with the following meanings: (1) Inducement (2) Possibility (3) Unreal condition (4) Unlikely condition (5) Consequence of unreal condition (6) Wish or purpose Much additional light could probably be thrown on the whole vexed question by strict application of modern exact methods of language analysis. However, this task remains yet to be done.
1The group "should + infinitive" may, among other things, be used to denote a real fact which, however, is not stated as such but mentioned as something to be assessed. This use is restricted to subordinate clauses. Here are two typical examples: That he should think it worth his while to fancy himself in love with her was a matter of lively astonishment. (J. AUSTEN) Here the predicate group of the main clause includes a word expressing assessment (astonishment), and the group "should + infinitive" denotes the fact which is being thus assessed. It was wonderful that her friends should seem so little elated by the possession of such a home; that the consciousness of it should be so meekly borne. (J. AUSTEN) We find here the same typical features of this kind of sentences: a word expressing assessment (wonderful) as a predicative of the main clause, and the group "should + infinitive" denoting the fact which is being assessed.
The Other Moods107
We will now turn our attention to those problems of polysemy or homonymy which have been stated above.
It would seem that some basic principle should be chosen here before we proceed to consider the facts. Either we shall be ready to accept homonymy easily, rather than admit that a category having a definite meaning can, under certain circumstances, come to be used in a different meaning; or we shall avoid homonymy as far as possible, and only accept it if all other attempts to explain the meaning and use of a category have failed. The choice between these two procedures will probably always remain somewhat arbitrary, and the solution of a problem of this kind is bound to have asubjective element about it.
Let us now assume that we shall avoid homonymy as far as possible and try to keep the unity of a form in its various uses.
The first question to be considered here is that about forms of the type lived and knew. The question is whether these forms, when used in subordinate clauses of unreal condition, are the same forms that are otherwise known as the past indefinite indicative, or whether they are different forms, homonymous with the past indefinite.
If we take the view stated above, the lived and knew forms will be described in the following terms:
They are basically forms of the past tense indicative. This is their own meaning and they actually have this meaning unless some specified context shows that the meaning is different. These possible contexts have to be described in precise terms so that no room remains for doubts and ambiguities. They should be represented as grammatical patterns (which may also include some lexical items).
Appearing in this context a form of the lived or knew type denotes an unreal action in the present or future. Pattern No. 2 (for the same meaning):
Appearing in this context, too, a form of the lived or knew type denotes an unreal action in the present. Pattern No. 3 (for the same meaning):
