English Predicate and its Translation Properties into Uzbek — страница 7

  • Просмотров 7994
  • Скачиваний 68
  • Размер файла 110
    Кб

fulfilling the function of mediation of the tie between the subject and such form ”, forms single part of the sentence (and the consistency in the principles of description of language phenomena requires this), then complex predicate can include a number of constructions, which are not often acknowledged as such. Depending on morphological nature of complicating element one can distinguish three types of complication: 1. Active- verbal complication 2. Passive-verbal complication 3. Adjective complication In the first two types the complicating element is verb, accordingly in the form of active and passive voice, and in the third type it is adjective (also participle, the word of category of state) with the copula verb. Semantic parallelism finds out structural difference of

complication of three types comp.: Не may соте.— Не is expected to come. —He is likely to come. Traditional terminology of the name of copula is assigned to the verb to be and the verbs of the type to seem, to look an so on, which come forth as mediation link between the subject and the nominal part of the predicate, which expresses the feature. But the similar function is carried out by modal verbs as a part of complex predicate, setting connection between the subject and the feature (here it possesses the nature of action) expressed by infinite form. Taking into account the differences in semantics of complicating element, one can distinguish several types of active- verbal complication (we shall call them according to the content of complicating element): 1. Modal

characteristics of connection of action with the subject The predicates of this type include modal verbs (can, may, mast and so on) or verb with modal meaning (for example, to be, to have) as complicating element plus infinitive: 'Не can swim like a fish.' (D. Lessing)- U huddi baliqqa o’hshab suzadi 'He must come back.1 (D. C. Doyle)- U qaytib kelishi kerak 'It has to be right.' (H. E. Bates)- Bu narsa to’g’ri bo’lishi kerak. 2. Aspectual characteristics of action Complicating element designates the stage of the development of action (the beginning, the continuation, the end), its regularity: to begin, to proceed, to quit, to keep on and so on: She started to walk along the shingle.1 (I. Murdoch)- U dengiz yoqalab yurishni boshladi. 'His heart stopped beating.' (J.

Galsworthy)- Uning yuragi urishdan to’htadi. 3. Probability of action The number of verbs with the meaning of probability, outward appearance of action is very limited (to seem, to appear). For example: 'He seemed to have lost all power of will ' (S. Maugham) U o’zidagi kuchni butunlay yo’qotganga uhshardi. 'They didn't appear to be тоving.' (I. Murdoch)- Ular harakat qilmaydiganga uhshardilar. 4. Expectancy of action As a result of assigning the appropriate element of complicating the action, designated by the main semantic element of the predicate to the structure of the predicate, it is imagined as accidental, but normally not expected and that’s why unexpected or on the contrary as expected, as natural feature of the object. The complicating element is the verbs

like to happen and to prove. For example: But my memory happened to have tricked me.' (C. P. Snow)- Lekin mening hotiram menga pand berdi. 'It turned out to be Sam.’ (P. Abrahams)- U Sem bo’lib chiqdi. Attitude of the subject to the action Complicating elements of the predicate denote desire/ unwillingness, intention (to want, to wish, to intend and so on) I dоn't wish to leave my mother.' (O. Wilde) Onamni tashlab ketishni istamayman. I should hate to hurt him,' she said.' (I. Murdoch)- Men unga yomonlik qilishdan hazar qilaman. For the hybrid, verbal-nominal, nature of the infinitive stipulates the possibility of its use, among other nominal functions, and in the function of the object, and the verbs like to want can be directly-transitive single-objective, the necessity

to substantiate the given above interpretation of the word combinations like «to want/to wish + infinitive» as a complex predicate but not as the combination of the verb-predicate with the object. Consideration of to write (in want to write) as an object cannot be excluded as something wrong. Such kind of interpretation of the functions of the infinitive is principally possible. In scientific analyses of phenomena of the language different interpretations of one and the same phenomena are possible and even appropriate. Divergence of this kind is explained by the difference of initial theoretical reference, the fact of depicting the language in the context of different systems, possibility of different procedures of analyses and methods of depicting the phenomena. Diversity of