Дякую за підписку на мій блог -=EMPYREAL=-.

Forgotten by the Gods,
Crucified on rigid thorns
By twisted dreams in storms
Inside neuronal heavy pulse,
You damn the vanity of life,
Look on celestial lucid skies,
Admiring mystic suicides
Of fallen nightly fair sprites.

Requiem of solemn winds
Above the wilderness of fields
Alike the Ocean’s shrilly screams
Fills air with obscure gleams.
The morning dew wash face,
Hot daily Sun burns open veins
And all Your mightiness betrays,
For now, no friends, no ways…

The body shackled by the irons,
The spirit tied in cage of love,
Wings torn by rusty armours –
The Angel’s lost like feeble dove…

Eyes blaze, bright tears dry,
Snakes of the darkness twine,
Soul dips in hellish blows…
The One – cursed Demon howls!
[4.07.08]

Дякую за підписку на мій блог -=EMPYREAL=-.

Distant sunshine, please,
Absorb me, squeeze,
Show gracious lightness,
Hold me tight!
Allow to be Your part –
Let me inside,
Reveal the secret,
Show the key!
I wanna know the essence –
How to be?
The great eternal flaming Sun,
Tell me, clarify,
Throw down the dusky veil
And only say –
Who the fuck I am,
What the kind of man?
What the hell I play,
Where runs the way?

[18.05.08]

Дякую за підписку на мій блог -=EMPYREAL=-.

According to I. R. Galperin,  the English newspaper writing dates from  the 17-th century. It was the last of all the styles of written literary  English to be recognized as a specific form  of writing standing apart  from other forms. But it happened only by the 19-th century that newspaper English developed into a system of  language media, forming a separate  function style.

The specific  conditions of newspaper  publication, the restriction  of time  and space, have  left an indelible mark  on newspaper English. For more than  a century  writers and linguists have been vigorously  attacking “the slipshod construction  and the vulgar  vocabulary” of newspaper English. The  very term  newspaper English carried  a shade of disparagement.(Galperin  :296). And really when we translate some English article into Ukrainian, we may use some neutral or even bookish  words instead of  collocations, whereas  when we translate some Ukrainian article into English the situation is quite the reverse  – we use  many colloquialisms so that to create a real  English newspaper  style.  Yet Fedorov  wrote that  “newspaper-texts  – in  contradiction  to other  texts  – are very seldom translated  completely and in “pure form” (A.B.Федоров  1977:208).

Yet, for  all the defects of newspaper  English, serious  though they  may be, this form of the English literary  language  cannot be reduced  – as  some purists have claimed –merely to careless slovenly writing or to a  distorted  literary English. This  is one of the forms  of the English  literary  language  characterized  by a definite  communicative  aim  and its  own system of language  means.

The modern newspaper carries  material  of an extremely  diverse character. On the pages of a newspaper one finds  not only news and comments on it, press reports and articles, advertisements and announcements, but also stories  and poems, crossword  puzzles, chess problems and the like. It is newspaper printed matter  that  perform  the  function of informing  the reader  and providing  him  with  evaluation  of the information published. In fact, all kinds  of newspaper  writing  are to a greater  or lesser  degree  both  informative  and evaluative.

Information  in the English newspaper  is conveyed, in the first  place, through  the medium of:

1. brief news  items;

2. press reports;

3. articles purely  informational in  character;

4. advertisements  and announcements.

Elements  of appraisal  may  be observed  in the very selection  and way  of presentation  of news, in the use of  specific vocabulary. The headlines of  news  items, apart  from  giving information about  the subject-matter, also  carry a considerable amount of  appraisal. But, of course, the principal vehicle  of interpretation  and appraisal  is the newspaper article, and the editorial in particular. Editorial  are  characterized  by a  subjective  handling of fact, political or otherwise.

Now, let us dwell on the peculiarities of the Ukrainian newspaper style. We should not forget  the fact that  Ukraine is a very young  independent  country  and, of course, since the times of Reconstruction the style of the Ukrainian mass media has  impressively changed. These changes  are  not simply radical but  revolutionary, reflecting  new conditions  of social life  in Ukraine. First of all, they relate to the quickly disappearing heavily- censured, dull, sometimes  even Aesopian,  style of  the party  press and to the emergence of out-spoken, vivid, close-to-life, colloquial  style, and, most importantly, to  the consolidation  of a comic  element in it, when humor, irony  and  satire  are  in everyday usage, esp. in independent  or  opposition  Ukrainian mass media (MM).

Such tendencies  led to the reduction of the gap  between the  downright and scoffing  style of the west  MM and their  Ukrainian correspondences. P.Newmark  describes the West  newspaper  style as “…a familiar, racy, non-technical  style for popular journalism, characterized  by surprising metaphors, short sentences, Americanese, unconventional  punctuation, adjectives  before  proper  names and colloquialisms” (Newmark , 1988, p. 41). And here is another  comment  about the language of Ukrainian newspaper – “the  Day”- one of the most objective  newspaper in opinions  of many  deputies  of the Supreme  Soviet  (Експрес, 11.01.2000, c.4), made by a famous  historian O.Субтельний: “… I’m pleased  to read  “the Day”… One of the reasons  -  is  your  candid language. Because  a lot of Ukrainian newspapers , you know, have  such a tradition: to whirl, whirl” (Д., 5.01.1999, c.4).

New style  is brightly  revealed  in the headlines:

1. (about economic  agreement) “ Як Україна, Румунія та Угорщина “зметикували  на трьох”.
2. (about financial  system) “ Банки вмирають, як динозаври”.
3. (about the economic policy of the government) “Уряд ризикує “кинути” долар, спішно повертаючи борги електорату.”

But in spite of such radical  changes in Ukrainian MM, it is only  approaching  the current style of democratic  mass media, and the language  of many journalists  still remains  pompous. Let us compare  such exаmples:

1. “… про це розмова журналістів “Дня” з Валентином Симоненком, головою вищого державного органу фінансово-економічного контролю”.( Д., 10.12.98, с.4) – “…with  V. Symonenko, head of supreme state watchdog of financial and economic operations  (Д., 22.12.98.,p.4).

Apparently,  we should take into  consideration  the fact  that, in  comparison  with  Ukranian MM, irony is a distinctive feature  of the Anglo-American  tradition (and  not only in  MM!). Besides, it depends  on the age  of journalists – a new generation has a more  lashing  pen, whereas  the old ones were trained  on the dead dogmas of totalitarian  age.

The criminality of political and economical life in Ukraine, new political powers, introduced sometimes even by the former criminals, who won the immunity of deputies for themselves – all this caused the appearance of criminal jargon not only in oral speech but also in written style of UMM:

“Дехто з них (депутатів ВР) із виглядом ображеної невинності говорили кореспонденту “Дня” – “якщо Паша (екс-прем’єр Лазаренко) “спікся”, хто ж тут за нього повинен тільник на грудях рвати?! Якби він не “звалив” (до США), усе було б інакше” (наводимо цей текст на депутатському жаргоні в оригіналі. – Ред.)(Д., 18.02.99, с.4).

The usage of such words is considered as taboo by the representatives of Mass Media. The correspondent of “The Day” describes the “The man of the year 1999” competition in such a way:  “ І ставало гірко на душі від цього тріумфу олігархів, від їхніх жартів із зеківською термінологією (один “мер в законі” чого вартий) …” (Д., 9.05.99, с. 4). Besides being non-literary, the term “мер в законі” is also a strong marker of satiric appraisement. The translator has done everything in his power – but he omitted a parenthetic sentence, because the main stress is laid on the phrase “ставало гірко” concerning which the satiric effect is of less importance:

“ The whole thing left a bitter taste in one’s mouth. Oligarchs in their hour of glory, their jokes using words from prison camp vocabulary.” (16.03.99, p. 4).

Дякую за підписку на мій блог -=EMPYREAL=-.

“When people ask about the effects of media they generally turn out to be interested in something else of which media  might be a cause such as  violence or political bias. A history of media could easily slip into being a history of a society as a whole. This in itself reflects the centrality of media in our lives.” (Colin Seymour-Ure 1991:239)

Now when you ask people about the effect of media upon  them, you can often get unsatisfactory  answers. It is  clear that media has influence to some extend over individuals and groups. Media create and destroy  reputations; pop starts, as a class, were the creation of media. Media transformed the economics and political life of many nations.

Of course, now media is a part of our lives, our history, but its influence should not be exaggerated, because as Colin Seymour Ure said “People in 1945-1990 were not the puppets of the media barons, jerking at  every tug of the string. Nor, equally, can we seriously believe that popular attitudes  were entirely  unmoved by the media” (Colin Seymour-Ure 1991:240)

Still for most people the mass media are the major sources of information about  world   events  and about political affairs . Both images and texts form the basis of  public  perceptions and responses to events. “It is therefore  conceptually useful  to distinguish  between what  the mass media tell us to think about – this is signaled by the events they  cover – and what specific   attitudes  or opinions we have to adopt towards those  events, though clearly  these distinctions  may be  difficult to uphold in practice” (Negrine  :35). Because it depends only on mass  media  which events to select and how these events are to be presented. Therefore  we do not only  get information but the information  is already  interpreted and explained to us. To paraphrase C. Wright  Mills, “…men (and women!) live in second-hand worlds… The quality of their lives is determined by meanings they have received from  others. Everyone lives in a world of such  meanings” (Negrine   :36). Because only a few people  can  experience the events at first hand and we rely on the mass  media  to inform at about these events.

Of all the existing means of mass communication, despite television’s growing  importance  as a source of information, regular readers of newspapers continue to attach  a great  deal  of weight to the print medium. Means of communication have  developed  since  the inception of press in the 17-th – 18-th centuries. Yet  the press has gone  many  significant changes: new  forms  of journalism  have  developed, there have  been  changes  in printing techniques and even  changes in perceptions of the role of the newspaper within  society. Furthermore, the press is now only one medium amongst  many. Radio, and later television have usurped  some  of its duties (Negrine, p. 39).

Before investigating the  problem of stylistic  functions  of colloquialisms  and their reproduction in TT, we should compare both Ukrainian and English  newspaper  styles. As we know,  English newspaper  style has  its  peculiarities: it  still  differs   from the  Ukrainian  one due  to the  more frequent  use of colloquial,  slang  and vulgar  elements, various  paraphrases, eye-catching headlines, although the Ukrainian language of mass media is quickly catching up.

Дякую за підписку на мій блог -=EMPYREAL=-.

The whole word-stock of Ukrainian language can also be divided into standard and non-standard or colloquial. But the classification of colloquial vocabulary is a bit different in comparison with English. The whole colloquial vocabulary is subdivided into literary colloquial words and low colloquial words. There is a difference between these two layers. The literary colloquial vocabulary consists of the words which, being the part of literary norm, give the expressions some colloquial character. Literary colloquial words are characterized by emotionality, expressiveness and estimation. This expressiveness is rendered by exclamations or similar words and word-combinations: [гультяй, замазура, мастак, перекинчик, розбишака, телепень, верзтися, віднаджувати, макітритися, літувати, лопотіти, лупцювати, маніжитися, шастати, теревенити, ахкати, ойкати, хвацький, навсидячки, бозна-скільки, достобіса, хрусь, трісь, бах, гах and others].

To literary colloquial words also belong the words, which have their neutral correspondent words:

гулянка – гуляння

мастак – митець

репетувати – кричати

навсидячки – сидячи

Low colloquial words

This vocabulary stands on the line of literary norm or even sometimes goes beyond it. To this layer belong such words:

-         which distort the lexical norm: секлетар, компропентація, кіоска, транвай, охтобус;

-         with roughly, somewhat low expressive colouring: свиняка, видра, коровище, примандюритися, випендрюватися, собачитися;

-         unmotivated Russian words: понімаєтє, пожалуста, до свіданя.

Vulgar words also are a part of this vocabulary. They include bad language, execrations, nicknames:

сука, падло.

Literary colloquial words in conjuction with popular words are often used for humorous and satiric effects. (О.Д.Пономарів :104 – 108).

Such a term as slang does not exist in Ukrainian language. But very close to it are jargon words. As O. D. Ponomariv defines it:  “jargon – is a vocabulary of people connected by common interests. The psychological basis of the appearance of jargon is the wish of people to seem smart and their desire to distract themselves. There are a lot of jargon words used by the youth (esp. by students or pupils).

“Трояк” (задовільно)

“Плавати” (показувати неглибокі знання).

The majority of jargons are words of common language, used in particular meanings:

-         киряти

-         мерзавки

-         фара

-         злиняти

Besides, some common transformed words belong here:

-         маг

-         велик

телик (П. : 104 – 108)

Дякую за підписку на мій блог -=EMPYREAL=-.

I. V. Arnold notes that the term  “colloquial” is old enough: Dr.Johnson, the great English  lexicographer, used it.  Yet with him it had  a definitely derogatory  flavor. Johnson thought  colloquial  words are inconsistent  with good usage  and, thinking that to reform the English  language was his duty, he advised “to  clear it from colloquial  barbarisms”. By the end  of the 19-th century with  Neo-grammarians the description  of colloquial  speech came  into  its own, and  linguists  began  to study  the vocabulary  that  people  actually use under  various  circumstances  and not  what  they may be justified in using. (A. 1973:273).

As employed in our  time, the adjective “colloquial” does not necessary  mean “slangy” or “vulgar”, although slang and vulgar  vocabulary  make part of colloquial  vocabulary. (A. 1973:274).

The following classification  of  English colloquial  vocabulary is given by  I. Arnold :

- literary  colloquial – is used to denote the vocabulary  by educated  people  in the course  of ordinary  conversation or when  writing  to intimate  friends. A good sample  may be found in works  of such authors, as S.Galsworthy, E.M.Forster, S.P. Shaw, J.B.Priestly. For a modern reader  it represents the speech of the elder  generation. The younger generation of writers, esp. those belonging to the Angry  young men (Braine, Amis, Wain  and others) adhere to

-         familiar  colloquial. It is more  emotional and much more free than  literary colloquial.  It is also characterized by a great number of jocular or ironical expressions  and nonce-words .

-         low colloquial is a term  used for illiterate  popular speech . It is very  difficult to establish  the boundary between low colloquial and  dialect, because in active  communication the two  are often used together. B. Shaw’s play “Pygmalion” may serve as an example. The chief  peculiarities  of low colloquial vocabulary concern grammar  and pronunciation; as to the vocabulary, it is different from familiar  colloquial in that it  contains  more vulgar  words, and sometimes  also elements  of dialect.

Other vocabulary layers below the level  of standard  educated  speech  are the so-called slang and argot. Unlike low  colloquial vocabulary they have only  lexical  peculiarities. Argot  also should be distinguished  from  slang : the first term serves to denote a special vocabulary and idiom, used by a particular social or age group, especially by the so-called underworld (the criminal circles).

Slang

Slang comes to us from movies, novels, newspaper stories, and everyday conversation. Fad words, metaphors, wordplay, and various figures of speech make up the body of slang. Slang is rarely the first choice of careful writers or speakers or anyone attempting to use language for formal, persuasive, or business purposes. Nonetheless, expressions that can be called slang make up a major part of communication in movies, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and informal spoken conversation.

It is quite difficult to define what slang is.

“There is hardly any other term that is as ambiguous and obscure as the term “slang”. Slang seems to mean everything that is below the standard of usage of present-day English” (G., 1973:104).

I. V. Arnold defines slang words as “expressive, mostly ironical words serving to create fresh names for some things that are frequent topics of discourse. For the most part, they sound somewhat vulgar, cynical and harsh, aiming to show the object of speech in the light of an off-hand ridicule. Vivid examples can be furnished by various slang words for money, such as beans, brass, dibs, dough, chink, oof, wads; the slang synonyms for the word “head” are attic, brainpan, hat-peg, nut, upper storey (A. 1973:285). There are many slang names for food, alcohol drinks, stealing and other violations of the law, for jail, death, madness, etc.

Slang has often attracted the attention of lexicographers. The best known English dictionary is compiled by E. Partridge (E. Partridge, A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, I-II, L., 1961).

The subject of slang has caused much controversy for many years. Very different opinions have been expressed concerning its nature, its boundaries, and the attitude that should be adopted towards it (A., 1973, p. 285).

G.B. Greenough and C.L. Kitteridge define slang in these words:

“Slang … is a peculiar kind of vagabond language, always hanging on the outskirts of legitimate speech but continually straying or forcing its way into the most respectable company” (G.B. Greenough, C.L.Kitteridge 1929:55).

Another definition of slang made by Erick Partridge:

“Slang is much rather a spoken than a literary language. It originates nearly always in speech. To coin a term on a written page is almost inevitably to brand it as neologism which will either be accepted or become a nonse-word (or phrase), but, except in the rarest instances, that term will not be slang” (Partridge, Erik 1935:36) (G.:105).

V.A. Kukharenko writes that:

“Slang is a layer of words of a highly colloquial character whose expressiveness, novelty and certain coarseness make them emphatic and emotive as compared with their neutral synonyms” (     ).

According to the sphere of usage we may divide slang into

- general and

- special.

General slang includes words that are not specific for any social or professional group, whereas special slang is peculiar for some such groups: university slang, public school slang, Air Force slang, football slang, & so on. This second group is heterogeneous. Some authors, Schweitzer, for instance, consider argot to belong here. It seems, however, more logical to differentiate slang & argot. The essential difference results from the fact that the first has an expressive function, whereas the second is primarily concerned with secrecy: rap – “kill”, shiv – “knife”, book – “a life sentence”.

Slang is a difficult problem. The most important peculiarities of slang concern not the plane of form but the plane of content. The lexical meaning of a slang word contains not only the denotational component but also an emotive component (most often it express irony) and is the marked member of a stylistic opposition (A. : 286 – 287). Citing I. R. Galperin, we may say that “the term ‘slang’ is ambiguous because, to use a figurative expression, it has become a Jack of all trades and master of none” (G.:109).

Дякую за підписку на мій блог -=EMPYREAL=-.

The verb ought descends from the verb agan past tense ahte, which had in the Old English the meaning “to have, to own (possess)”. Under the influence of the row of phonetic events on time of the Early English period the infinitive agan changed into owe, and the past tense into ought. The verb agan – owe passed a complicated way of the development, as a result of which it took a new, transition meaning “to be due (owe)” (money etc.), and also more general meaning of obligation, as for example:

Also ye owen to encline and bowe youre herte to take the patience… (Chaucer, Cant. Tales, 401).

(Ви повинні також схилити своє серце до терпіння…) [6; p. 62].

Simultaneously with the indicative form of the verb owe in the same common meaning of obligation was used the conjunctive form of the past tense ought. Through the shade of the convention, peculiar to ought as the form of the conjunctive, the instructive character of the expression was underlined:

Nece, quod he it ought ynough suffice Five hours for to slepe upon a night (Chaucer, Cant. Tales, 353).

(“Племінниця, – сказав він, –  повинно б достатньо бути п’ять годин сну на ніч”) [6; p. 63].

Gradually the indicative forms of the verb “owe” became out of use in the analogous meaning, and as the general meaning obtain the transitive meaning “to be due (owe)” (money etc.). In the XV century this verb had the new past tense – owed ad exemplum the so-called regular verbs. The form ought obtained definite meanings shade of obligation: an expression of moral duty, moral obligation. Thus, ought separates from the verb “owe” both phonetically and semantically and since XVI – the beginning of XVII century obtained the meaning of a separate, independent verb. By this, when ought became a separate verb, the use of the particle “to” with the infinitive became generally adopted norm, and ought regularly accepts the infinitive with the particle “to”.

Verb ought has the meaning of obligation.

e.g. “Well, it’s a fine book, and everybody ought to read it.”

(“Чудова книга, її повинен прочитати кожен.”) [28; p. 23].

e.g. “Do you mean that we oughtn’t to paint other human beings?” asked miss Carter”.

(“Ви маєте на увазі, що ми не повинні малювати інших людей?” –  запитала міс Картер.”) [30; p. 79].

e.g. “I know it’s very naughty, and I ought to be working, but I really must have some air.”

(“Я знаю, що це примхливо, і що я повинна працювати, але мені дійсно треба трохи повітря.”) [30; p. 84].

Besides verb ought expresses shades of obligation, which characterize the action, expressed by the infinitive, as an appropriate, corresponding, recommended, desirable.

e.g. “Have I said anything I oughtn’t?”

(“Чи я сказала щось, чого не слід було говорити?”) [31; p. 92].

e.g. “He thinks we ought to get back to Byzantine styles or else not paint at all.”

(“Він думає, що нам слід повернутися до візантійського стилю, або не малювати взагалі.”) [30; p. 52]

Verb ought can express obligation concerning the past.

e.g. “He ought to have gone into school long ago.”

(“Він вже давно повинен був піти в школу”.) [30; p. 18].

Verb ought has also the meaning of probability or supposition with the shade of certainty, but only in combination with simple infinitive.

e.g.    – “It’ll be lovely round there to-day”.

– “Yes, it ought to be quite nice”.

(– Там сьогодні буде чудово.

– Так, мабуть, буде дуже гарно.) [6; p. 65].

e.g. “It is the last of the Madeira I had from Mr. Jolyon when we came in here – never been moved; it ought to be in prime condition still.”

(“Це остання пляшка мадери з тих, які мені подарував містер Джоліон, коли ми приїхали сюди, її з тих пір не рухали; вино мабуть, як і колись чудове). [6; p. 65].

Ought to in this meaning is generally found in affirmative sentences and in combination with the simple infinitive. The use of ought to in this case is not very common as this meaning is normally rendered by must. In this meaning ought to, as well as must, can be rendered into Ukrainian as “напевно”, “мабуть”.

Дякую за підписку на мій блог -=EMPYREAL=-.

The verb will is an auxiliary verb of the future, and it is its main function in English language. The verb will has the following forms: will – the present tense and would – the past tense.

The verb will descends from the Old English verb willan, which expressed wish, desire, intention.

Verb will doesn’t belong to the number of the main modal verbs. In Modern English language verb will adds to the action, expressed by the infinitive, a shade of desirability, it characterizes the action as desirable, voluntary. Besides, verb will can express supposition:

e.g. “I suppose this will be the last ball of the season?”

(“Я думаю, що це останній бал в сезоні?”) [6; p.80].

Verb will (would) can characterize the action as desirable or voluntary.

e.g. “I will go with him as far as the park,” he said.”

(“Я проведу його до парку,” – сказав він.”) [27; p. 30].

e.g. “I will make up my mind on that point by to-morrow, Miss Catherine,” I replied.”

(“Я прийму своє рішення стосовно цього на ранок, міс Кетрін,” –  відповіла я.”) [27; p. 215].

e.g. “Will you” (looking at me) “step into the kitchen and see?”

(“Можливо, ви б пройшли на кухню і подивилися?”) [27; p. 202].

e.g. “I wish you would say Catherine, or Cathy, “ interrupted my young lady.”

(“Я би хотіла, щоб ти мене називав Кетрін або Кеті,” – перебила моя молода господиня.”) [27; p. 202].

The past form of the verb will – would is used in polite treatments, and requests.

e.g. “Would you like to drive?”

(“Ви б не хотіли покататися?”) [30; p. 89].

e.g. “Arthur, would you mind seeing if Mrs. Erlynne’s carriage has come back?”

(“Артуре, чи не були б ви такий добрий поглянути, чи не повернувся екіпаж місіс Ерлін?”) [6; p.81].

Also we can use the indicative form.

e.g. “Will you do so, my good Nelly?”

(“Ти йому скажеш, моя хороша Неллі?”) [27; p. 109].

e.g. “Will you ask them to call my carriage, please?”

(“Чи не могли б ви сказати, щоб вони викликали мій екіпаж?”) [6; p.82].

Verb will can express intention, determination.

e.g. “As White Fang watched Weedon Scott approach, he bristled and snarled to advertise that he would not submit to punishment.”

(“Побачивши Уідона Скота, Біле Ікло визвірився і заричав, даючи зрозуміти, що не потерпить розправи над собою”.) [29; p. 148].

e.g. “I will never speak to you again.”

(“Я ніколи більше не буду розмовляти з вами.”) [6; p.82].

Дякую за підписку на мій блог -=EMPYREAL=-.

Verb shall in ancient period has the form “sceal”. Primary and more concrete meaning of “scea”l was modeless – “to be due”(smth.), in Modern English “owe”:

e.g. Hu mycel scealt pu minnum hlaforde? (An.-Sax. Dict., 843).

(Скільки ти винен моєму господарю?) [6; p.65].

In the Old English verb “sceal” was used with modal meanings in combination with the infinitive. It expressed different shades of necessity, obligation.

Ne sculon ye no pyncean eow selfum to wise (Alfr., G.P.C., II, 306). (You must not think yourself too wise) [6; p.65].

Since Old English period verb shall had lost its primary meaning and became an auxiliary verb.

In Modern English language shall belongs to auxiliary verbs.

From the ancient meaning “to have to” in the verb shall is kept the capability to express different shades of certainty in performing the future action, which is expressed by the infinitive. Sentences with shall often contain a threat, a warning or a promise:

e.g. “The police shall take you up.”

(“Тебе забере міліція.”) [31; p. 61].

e.g. “No,” she persisted, grasping the handle; “not yet, Edgar Linton: sit down; you shall not leave me in that temper.”

(“Ні,” – наполягала вона і взялася за ручку дверей, – “не зараз, Едгаре Лінтон. Сідайте! Ви мене не покинете у такому стані!”) [27; p. 72].

e.g. “You shall go up and down and round the town in a taxi every day.”

(“Ти будеш їздити по місту в таксі кожного дня.”) [31; p. 47].

e.g. “You’re perfectly right, of course”, said Mor, “and naturally I shall tell her when I get back.”

(“Ти звісно ж права,”  – сказав Мор, – “і звичайно ж я їй все розповім коли повернуся.”) [30; p. 87].

Thus, the main function of the verb shall in Modern English language – is the function of auxiliary verb of the future.

Should

The verb should with the meaning of obligation by its origin is the form of conjunctive mood (Subjunctive) from the verb shall, and although historically the forms shall and should ascend to one verb and there is some semantic relation between them in modern language, nevertheless this relation became weaker so much, and should in the meaning of obligation obtained so great independence, that it is advisable to distinguish it in the semantic plan separately from shall.

Nevertheless by the character of the lexical meaning and by the usage should in the Modern English is closer to the verbs must and ought, than to shall. It is used with reference to the future and remains unchanged in reported speech.

Should has the meaning of obligation:

e.g. “Can you show me any English woman who speaks English as it should be spoken?”

(“Чи ви можете показати мені хоча б одну англійку, яка б говорила на англійській мові так як потрібно говорити?”) [31; p. 108].

e.g. “You shouldn’t have come out, “ she said, rising and reaching from chimney-piece two of the painted canisters.”

(“Вам не слід було виходити з дому”, – сказала вона і вставши зняла з каміна дві яскраві жерстянки.”) [27; p. 25].

e.g. “It was inevitable that the clash for leadership should come. Buck wanted it.”

(“Бій за першість неминуче повинен був відбутися. Бек хотів цього.”) [29; p. 222].

e.g. “While leading the way upstairs, she recommended that I should hide the candle…”

(“Піднімаючись по сходах, вона сказала, що я повинен прикрити свічку долонею…”) [27; p. 31].

In Ukrainian language should is rendered as “слід, треба було” and                “повинен, повинен був би.”

In combination with the perfect infinitive should is used concerning the past and in the affirmative sentences, the same way as ought, characterizes the action as due or proper, but which didn’t take place in reality. In the negative sentences, vice versa, the accomplished action is characterized as undesirable, inappropriate, the action which wouldn’t have happened.

e.g. “I confess I did not foresee this turn of events. But I should have foreseen it.”

(“Зізнаюся, я не передбачив такого повороту подій. Однак мені слід було це передбачити.”) [6; p.68].

e.g. “You have discovered what I intended you should never have known.”

(“Ви вияснили те, що я вважав, ви ніколи не повинні були би знати.”) [6; p.69].

Should has the meaning of probability, something naturally expected (only with reference to the present or future):

e.g. “The film should be very good as it has been produced by an excellent artist.”

(“Фільм, мабуть, чудовий так як він був зроблений талановитим режисером”) [17; p. 52].

Should in this meaning is generally found in affirmative sentences in combination with the simple infinitive.

e.g. “If it’s a story by Wodehouse it should be amusing.”

(“Якщо ця розповідь Вудхауса, вона мабуть кумедна”) [8; p. 127].

We needn’t get ready yet. The guests shouldn’t come for another hour.

(Нам не потрібно готуватися. Гості навряд приїдуть раніше, ніж за годину).

Should can be followed by a past participle (when we want to say that we are fairly sure that something has happened):

You should have heard by now that I’m O.K.

(Ти мав би чути що зі мною все гаразд).

Should can be followed by a past participle (when we want to say that we do not think that something has happened):

You shouldn’t have had any difficulty in getting there.

(Ви не повинні були би мати якісь труднощі щоб дістатися туди).

Дякую за підписку на мій блог -=EMPYREAL=-.