Abstract
Modern structural grammars of English have typically postulated much less homonymy in the verbal paradigm than traditional grammars — partly because of a shift from the word-and-paradigm model, partly because distinctions overtly marked in one verb are no longer necessarily carried over into the paradigms of all verbs. This paper defends the traditional practice of extending to all verbs the mood distinction phonologically marked in he was versus he were, but argues againts analysing the latter as the past tense counterpart of he be. The distinction of are versus be is likewise generalised, but the concordial distinctions of am versus are and indicative was versus were are not.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
