§ 213. Linguists disagree as to the category the 'perfect' belongs to.

Some Soviet authors (B. A. llyish¹, G. N. Vorontsova ^a) think that it forms part of the aspect system (the 'result-ative' aspect — according to B. A. llyish, the 'transmissive' aspect — 'вид преемственности' — according to G. N. Vo­rontsova). This point of view is shared by quite a number of grammarians both in our country and abroad ³.

Other linguists treat the 'perfect' as belonging to the sys­tem of tense ⁴. I. P. Ivanova ⁵ regards the 'perfect' as part of the 'tense — aspect' system.

¹ Б. А. И л ь и ш, op. cit., p. 165—166.

² Г. Н. В о р о н ц о в a, op. cit., p. 202—203.

³ West, Deutschbein, Sonnenschein, Pense, etc.

⁴ H. Sweet, op. cit., pt. I, §§ 275—281; M. Ganshina, N. Vasi- levskaya, op. cit., p. 108. See also M Bryant and J Aiken Psychology of English. New York, 1940.

''И. П. Иванова. Вид и время в современном английском языке. ЛГУ, 1961.

130

Those who take the 'perfect' for part of the aspect system are up against a very serious difficulty, since proceeding from this poirit of view it is difficult to explain the nature of the 'perfect continuous^, where two aspects ('resultative', 'perfective' or 'transmissive', on the one hand, and 'contin­uous' or 'imperfective'., on the other) seem to have merged into one, which is hardly possible. We cannot imagine a verb as having positive indications of two tenses, two voices, etc. at the same time.

§ 214. Though there is a considerable dissimilarity be­tween the three views mentioned above, they have something in common. They underestimate the peculiarities charac­teristic of the 'perfect' system in English.

A. I. Smirnitsky ^x was the first to draw attention to the fact that opposemes like writes — has written, wrote — had written or to write — to have written represent a grammatical category different from that of tense, though closely allied to it.

§ 215. If we take a close look at the 'perfect' (whether it be a finite verb or a verbid, a verb in the indicative or in the subjunctive mood), we cannot fail to see that it conveys the meaning of priority, precedence.

Cf. She has come (priority to the situation in the pre­sent, to the act of speech).

She had come before Mrs. B. phoned over (priority to the act of Mrs. B. 's phoning over).

She'll have come by that time (priority to the point of time indicated by the adverbial expression).

She is known to have come (priority to the action of knowing). To have come expresses priority though it has no tense opposites.

She behaves as if she had come unwillingly (priority to the action of behaving). Had come expresses priority though it has no tense opposites.

From the string of examples above it is clear that the 'perfect' serves to express priority, whereas the non-perfect member of the opposeme (write as opposed to have written or wrote as opposed to had written) leaves the action unspec-

¹ А. И. С м и р н и ц к и и, op. cit., p. 274—316.

б' 131

ified as to its being prior or not to another action, situation or point of time.

A. I. Smirnitsky ' calls the category represented by writes — has written, writing — having written, the category of time correlation — категория временной отнесен­ности. He gives a fine, detailed analysis of the category, but the terms he uses are very inconvenient. It is impossible to use them alongside of such terms as "present tense", "active voice" when analysing a certain verb. So accepting the argu­ments of A. I. Smirnitsky, we are bound to look for another term that would serve as a name for the category described.