In the first sentence the usage of the indefinite article serves to introduce a new person in our narration. This means that we are interested in the doer

of an action but not in the action itself as it is in the second example in which the usage of the definite article stresses the fact that the doer of the action is quite familiar to us. The usage of the indefinite article with such nouns as the sky. the sun, the evening, etc. serves to denote a state which is transit to a given substance, e.g. It was a clear evening with a bright moon.

The indefinite article may characterize an object denoted by a noun as a representative of a whole class, e.g. A dog is a domestic animal.

Here any dog is a domestic animal hence the noun denotes the whole class of dogs as domestic animals. The use of the definite article in this sentence would distinct it from other classes, compare it with some other classes. The dog is a domestic animal (but the tiger is a wild animal).

While speaking of the article in general we are to take into consideration some cases in which neither the definite nor the indefinite article may be used. In such examples some grammarians speak of the omission of the article, others speak of the absence of the article and still others speak of the usage of the zero article.

Professor Smirnitsky proves that in such cases the zero article should be discussed for the zero article as well as the indefinite and the definite articles may be characterized from the point of view of their lexico-grammatical peculiarities. Thus, the zero article is used when we are not interested in classifying or defining the substance but we are interested in its essence, in its nature as distinct from its form, number, shape, colour or some other features. That is why the usage of the zero article is more characteristic of the nouns denoting material or abstract phenomena.

The zero article should not be mixed up with the omission о "the definite or the indefinite articles. Omission of the article does not change anything in the meaning of the noun and has no any semantic notion. In the case of omission we may always insert the omitted article definite or indefinite. Omission of the article is usually forced by some technical or stylistic reasons.

Lecture VIII The Numeral

1. Its definition. Types of numerals.

2. Different approach to numerals as a part of speech.

3. Similarity between numerals and pronouns. Substantivization of numerals.

The Adjective

1. Its definition. Its grammatical meaning, morphological characteristics and syntactical functions.

2. Degrees of comparison. The problem of analytical degrees"of comparison. The definite article with the superlatives. The elative meaning of the superlative degree.

3. Substantivization of adjectives.

4. Adjectivization of nouns.

5. The problem of the classification of adjectives.

The Numeral

The numeral is a class of notional words expressing number or order used in the function of the subject, object, predicative and attribute connected in the sentence with the noun and morphologically invariable.

All the numerals in English are divided into two main classes: cardinal and ordinal numerals. The difference between these two classes of numerals lies in their lexical meaning and in their word-formation. Cardinal numerals express number while ordinal numerals express order. Almost all the ordinal numerals are formed in the same way from the corresponding cardinal numerals. The exception makes only the first three numerals: the first has developed from the Old English superlative degree of the adverb fore which meant before or in front; second is a Latin borrowing secundus, the following; the numeral third has developed from the O.E. bridda in which / and r changed their places, the process called metathesis.

Some numerals in English may be substantivized, e.i. both cardinal and ordinal and fractional may obtain the characteristic of the nour this is shown by the fact that they may be modified by an adjective used \vith the article, e.g. the first, hundreds, the safe-half, at first, by dozens.

Such numerals as hundred, thousand may also be substantivized.

Cf. nro thousand men and nvo thousands of men.

In the first case it is a numeral, in the second it is a substantivized numeral. It also acquires the category of number which is characteristic of noun.

When we say two hundred or two thousand the numeral is used as an attribute and it precedes the noun directly. When the numeral is substantivized as in nvo hundreds of men it cannot directly precede the noun but is used with the preposition o/and acquires the category of number.

In fractions the numerator is a cardinal and the denominator is an ordinal used as a noun, e.i. it is substantivized and acquires the plural form, e.g. 2/5 (two fifths); 2/3 (two thirds).

Some nouns are developing into numerals such as pair, dozen, score, couple. When preceded by numerals they are almost never used in plural, e.g. two pair of shoes, three dozen of books.

Sometimes the preposition o/is omitted and we may say either four dozen of apples or four dozen apples.

Decimal fractions are read like this:

1.62 = one. point (or decimal) six. two. 6 1 '5 = six and one fifth.

As to their structure English numerals fall into:

1. Simple (from one to twelve).

2. Derivative formed by means of the suffixes -teen and -ty,

3. Compound having two root-morphemes, as in thirty-five, twenty-one.

4. Composite: five hundred and thirty-one, two hundred and three.

Different scientists approach the numeral as a part of speech from different angles of view. In the grammars by O. Jespersen and Curme and Professor Peshkovsky we find no numerals as a part of speech. They refer cardinal numerals to the class of nouns and ordinal numerals to the class of adjectives. Professor Smirnitsky thinks that only cardinal numerals are numerals while ordinal numerals must be included into the class of adjectives. Both opinions must be rejected on the ground that numerals are different both from nouns and adjectives in many respects. Cardinal numerals and nouns are different in lexical meaning, cardinal numerals expressing number while nouns denote things. Their syntactical characteristics are also different: cardinal numerals are regularly used as an attribute, preceding the noun directly, as in three books. Such a position is not characteristic of a noun. Nouns are modified by adjectives, as in a black dress, numerals cannot be modified by adjectives. Morphologically they arc also different, numerals being invariable while the nouns may be changed. The only feature they have in common is their syntactical functions.

The ordinal numerals and adjectives have also man}1 points of difference: their lexical meaning is different and their svntactical functions are not the

same, the ordinal numerals may be used as objects and subjects which is not characteristic of adjectives which are mostly attributes. The ordinal numerals are invariable while adjectives are not. They are different also in the word-formation. Therefore taking these arguments into consideration we consider the numeral as a separate part of speech.

The numerals have no grammatical categories, they are invariable. They can only be substantivized. The numerals cardinal and ordinal share certain peculiarities of syntactic construction with pronouns.

Cf five children, five of the children, five of them and some children, some of the children, some of them; also the first travellers, the first of the travellers, the first of them.

But as was said above pronouns and numerals are not united into one part of speech.

The Adjective

The adjective is a part of speech the lexical meaning of which is that of a quality or characteristics of a thing. Syntactically it is characterized by its functions those of an attribute and a predicative. The adjective is characterized by its being connected with the noun. Morphologically the adjective is characterized by only one category, that of the degrees of comparison.

The Old English adjective had such categories as the category of number, case, gender, degrees of comparison, and strong and weak forms. During the historical development however the English adjective has lost the majority of its categories.

Traditionally Modern English adjectives are divided into two groups: qualitative and relative. The difference between them lies in their lexical meaning, their morphological characteristics and their word-formation.

The lexical difference between qualitative and relative adjectives is as follows: the qualitative adjectives express the quality of a thing in itself while the relative adjectives express the characteristics of a thing through its relations to another thing. For example, such adjectives as good, bad arc qualitative while such adjectives as wooden, woolen are relative adjectives: a wooden table is a table of wood. A relative adjective may be replaced by a noun with a preposition because it characterizes a thing through its relation ю another thing. But when we say a warm jacket we cannot have such a substitution. This proves that the adjective warm is not relative but qualitative.

The morphological difference between them is that qualitative

adjectives have the degrees of comparison while relative adjectives have not. Relative adjectives are morphologically invariable. If we say that the table is wooden it cannot be more or less wooden, hence the characteristics expressed by relative adjectives cannot have different degrees and therefore they have no degrees of comparison.

Qualitative and relative adjectives differ also in word-formation. Many relative adjectives are formed from nouns by means of the suffix -en which is not characteristic of qualitative adjectives.

Thus, we see that the two classes of adjectives differ in their meaning, morphological characteristics and word-formation.

The number of relative adjectives in Modern English is not great. This is because the same characteristics may be expressed by nouns used in the function of an attribute, e.g. A gold watch, a silver chain, a watch-chain, etc. In these combinations the first word is an adjectivized noun which is used to modify another noun. In Modern English such adjectivized nouns are widely used and therefore there are comparatively few relative adjectives.

We say a wooden table, i.e. a table made of wood. But we may also say a wooden countenance which is not, of course, a countenance made of wood. Here the same adjective from relative became qualitative.

In some cases an adjectivized noun is used to express a relative meaning and the adjective form from it with the suffix -en becomes a qualitative one. For example, we say a gold watch and golden hair. Here the adjectivized noun gold expresses the relative meaning and the adjective go Iden becomes qualitative. When it becomes qualitative it loses its relative meaning and it cannot be replaced by a noun with a preposition and it acquires the degrees of comparison. We cannot say that the watch is more or less gold, but we can say that somebody's hair has become more golden.

Most adjectives in Modem English have one morphological category: the category of the degrees of comparison. Besides the initial form of the adjective called the positive form (degree) there are two degrees of comparison: the comparative and the superlative. The degrees of comparison in Modern English are expressed in three ways: synthetically, analytically, and in the supplctivc way.

The most usual way of expressing the degrees of comparison is the synthetical way, i.e. by means of the suffix -er (for the comparative degree) and the suffix -est (for the superlative degree), e.g. great —greater - greatest.

The analytical degrees of comparison are expressed by means of more and most placed before an adjective, e.g. difficult - more difficult - most difficult.

The suppletive degrees of comparison are expressed by means of different

roots, e.g. good - better - best; bad - worse - worst.

A few adjectives have two forms of comparison, the second form having a special meaning and being actually a separate word: far - farther (further) - farthest (furthest) near - nearer - nearest (next) late - later (latter) - latest (last) old - older (elder) - oldest (eldest)

The suppletive formation of the degrees of comparison is the oldest one in English and is preserved in a few adjectives which are often used.

The most usual way of expressing the degrees of comparison is synthetical way which is found in adjectives of one syllable and in most adjectives of two syllables.

The analytical form of the degrees of comparison is usual for the adjectives of more than two syllables. There is no however strict line between the adjectives which form the degrees of comparison syntheticallv and analytically. A number of adjectives of two syllables form their degrees of comparison both synthetically and analytically.

E.g. clever - more clever - most clever

cleverer - cleverest narrow - narrower - narrowest

more narrow - most narrow

It is observed that the adjectives of two syllables which end in -v (pretty). -0и> (narrow), -er (clever) may have both the synthetical and the analytical forms of the degrees of comparison. All the other adjectives of two syllables form their degrees of comparison in the analytical way.

Some authors consider the degrees of comparison not as grammatical category but as separate lexical units. This means that the forms large -larger-largest ак not different forms of one and the same word but separate words, separate lexical units.

We cannot agree with such an opinion because the forms of the degrees of comparison do not have different lexical meaning but different degrees of one and the same quality.

Some grammarians think that the words more and most arc not wholly devoid of their lexical meaning in such combinations as more interesting and most interesting and the comparison of superiority formed by means of these words is not an analytical form and consequently the words more and most and the following adjective are free syntactical word-combinations just as is the case with the comparison of inferiority built up by means of the words less and least.

The majority of grammarians however is of the opinion that the degrees

76

of comparison built up by means of the words more and most are analytical forms in which more and most are auxiliary words serving to build up the comparative and the superlative degrees.

As for the comparison of inferiority built up by means of less and least some grammarians regard them also as the analytical degrees of comparison. But this point of view is hardly acceptable. We consider them separate lexical units (less cold, least cold), less and least being suppletive forms of the comparative and superlative degrees of the adverb little. This is not a grammatical category of comparison, it is not so regularly used and may be replaced by not so, e.g. less cold = not so called.

So we consider the combinations of less, least and the adjective as free lexical units in which less and least preserve their lexical meaning.

The Definite Article with the Superlative