 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
90
denotes the relative present (simultaneity and posteriority), while the perfect denotes the relative past (priority
in the present and the past). This regularity, common for all the system of the subjunctive mood, is not always
clearly seen in the constructions of the spective taken by themselves (i.e. without a comparison with the
subjunctive of the past order, which is to be considered further) due to the functional destination of this mood.
The perfect is hardly ever used with the pure spective non-imperative. As far as the imperative is concerned,
the natural time-aspect plane is here the present-oriented imperfect strictly relative to the moment of speech,
since, by definition, the imperative is addressed to the listener. The occasional perfect with the imperative gives
accent to the idea of some time-limit being transgressed, or stresses an urge to fulfil the action in its entirety.
Cf.:
Try and have done, it's not so difficult as it seems. Lets have finished with the whole affair!
Still, when it is justified by the context, the regularity of expressing time through aspect is displayed by the
specialized modal spective with the proper distinctness. Cf.:
I wish her plans might succeed (the present simultaneity - posteriority). - -1 wished her plans might succeed
(the past simultaneity - posteriority). I wish her plans might have succeeded (failure in the present priority). - - I
wished her plans might have succeeded (failure in the past priority). Whatever the outcome of the conference
should be, stalemate cannot be tolerated (the present simultaneity - posteriority). -
- The commentator
emphasized that, whatever the outcome of the conference should be, stalemate could not be tolerated (the past
simultaneity - posteriority). Whatever the outcome of the conference should have been, stalemate cannot be
tolerated (the present priority, the outcome of the conference is unknown). -
- The commentator emphasized
that, whatever the outcome of the conference should have been, stalemate could not be tolerated (the past
priority, the outcome of the conference was unknown).
The perfect of the modal spective makes up for the deficiency of the pure spective which lacks the perfect
forms. Cf.:
Be it so or otherwise, I see no purpose in our argument (simultaneity in the present).- - Should it have been
otherwise, there might have been some purpose in our argument (priority in the present).
§ 5. As the next step of the investigation, we are to consider the forms of the subjunctive referring to the
past order of the verb. The approach based on the purely morphemic principles leads us here also to the
identification of the specific form of the conjugated be as the only native manifestation of the categorial
expression of unreal process. E.g.:
Oh, that he were together with us now! If I were in your place, I'd only be happy. If it were in my power, I
wouldn't hesitate to interfere.
As is the case with be in the present subjunctive (spective), the sphere of its past subjunctive use is not
confined to its notional and linking functions, but is automatically extended to the broad imperfect system of
the passive voice, as well as the imperfect system of the present continuous. Cf.:
If he were given the same advice by an outsider, he would no doubt profit by it; with the relatives it might be
the other way about, I'm afraid. I'd repeat that you were right from the start, even though Jim himself were
putting down each word I say against him.
Unfortunately, the cited case types practically exhaust the native past subjunctive distinctions of be, since
with the past subjunctive, unlike the present, it is only the first and third persons singular that have the
suppletive marking feature were. The rest of the forms coincide with the past indicative. Moreover, the
discriminate personal finite was more and more penetrates into the subjunctive, thus liquidating the scarce
remnants of differences between the subjunctive and the indicative of the past order as a whole. Cf.:
If he was as open-hearted as you are, it would make all the difference.
Thus, from here on we have to go beyond the morphemic principle of analysis and look for other
discriminative marks of the subjunctive elsewhere. Luckily, we don't have to wander very far in search of them,
but discover them in the explicitly distinctive, strikingly significant correlation of the aspcctivc forms of
retrospective coordination. These are clearly taken to signify the time of the imaginary process, namely,
imperfect for the absolute and relative present, perfect for the absolute and relative past. Thereby, in union with
the past verbal forms as such, the perfect-imperfect retrospective coordination system is made to mark the past
subjunctive in universal contradistinction to the past and present indicative. This feature is all the more
important, since it is employed not only in the structures patterned by the subjunctive were and those used in
similar environmental conditions, but also in the further would - should-structures, in which the feature of the
past is complicated by the feature of the posteriority, also reformed semantically. Cf:.