The category of number and the category of gender

The category of number shows whether the action is associated with one doer or with more than one. Accordingly it denotes something fundamentally different from what is indicated by the number of nouns. We see here not the “oneness” or “more-than-oneness” of actions, but the connection with the singular or plural doer. For example, He eats three times a day does not indicate a single eating but a single eater.

The category is represented in its purity in the opposeme was – were in the English language and accordingly in all analytical forms containing was – were (was – writing – were writing, was written – were written).

In am – are, is – are or am, is – are it is blended with person. Likewise in speaks – speak we actually have the “third person singular” opposed to the “non-third-person singular”.

Accordingly the category of number is represented not fully enough in Modern English. Some verbs do no distinguish number at all because of their peculiar historical development: I (we) can …, he (they) must …, others are but rarely used in the singular because the meaning of “oneness” is hardly compatible with their lexical meanings, e.g.; to crowd, to conspire, etc. [24; 148–150].

In Ukrainian the category of number is expressed in the forms of three pairs of opposition: 1 person singular – 1 person plural, 2 person singular – 2 person plural, 3 person singular – 3 person plural (я читаю – ми читаємо, etc.).

Thus, it can be stated, that in both languages the category of number is tightly connected with the category of person. The system of the Ukrainian verb expresses the category of number very distinctly: the forms of singular and plural are characteristic of the majority of Ukrainian verbs in all three moods – indicative, imperative and conditional (дійсний, наказовий, умовний).

In some cases, though, the difference in verb forms has a purely formal character. Such is the usage of the first person plural with the generalizing meaning (побачимо, instead of побачу), the “author’s” plurality (ми переконалися у доповіді чи науковому творі, instead of я переконався). To some extent close to them are the so called polite forms: ви говорите (addressing one person) and ви говорите (addressing a lot of persons).

In English the category of verb is expressed still less distinctly than the category of person. In the forms of past and future tenses it is not revealed all together. In the present indefinite tense some expression of the category of number can be the same form of the third person singular: (he) writes. But here the ending - (e)s does not involve all the singularity and the form writes is opposed not only to plural forms but also to other singular forms, e.g.: (I) write.

Somehow more distinctly the category of number is expressed in the forms of the verb to be, which has in present and past tenses the singular (am, is, was) and plural (are, were) forms. But here the forms of number are expressed in a suppletive way that is not morphologically but lexically [5; 72–73].

The category of gender. The English verb does not have any forms which would express some gender characteristics. In Ukrainian the category of gender is expressed only by verb forms of the past tense (брав, брала, брало) and by the conditional mood (взяв би, взяла б, взяло б). In plural in all these cases we have the common form for all three genders (брали б, взяли б).

Gender forms are created in both cases with the help of the special suffix - в- (-л-) and gender flexions - а (feminine gender), -o- (neuter gender), zero flexion (masculine gender). According to their origin these gender forms are by themselves the forms of short participles that entered the structure of ancient analytical forms of the past tense (єсмь писаль).

Verbal gender forms express the person, denoted by the personal pronoun or noun that fulfills the function of the subject. So, the verbal gender forms are the forms of coordination of the verb with the subject and that is why to a large extent they have the formal meaning (but of course there is no any difference in the character of the action performed, dependent on this or that person) [5; 73].