The development of Germanic analytical tenses

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/APULTP.2020.41.135-154 The stages that encompass the future tense development are singled out as discrete phenomena within the process of the Germanic language development. The Gothic verb system can serve as the background for the investigation of the tense transformations in question. The difficulties of tense examination in the Old Germanic languages were connected with some conceptions about the Indo-Iranian and Greek languages that used to dominate in the scientific circles for a long time. Those conceptions were based on Latin and Greek patterns and postulated the use of present, past and future tenses in all Indo-European languages. The above conceptions were ruined when the study of Tokharian and Hittite demonstrated the use of the present tense for the description of future actions. The idea of losing “the protolanguage inheritance” was proved wrong, and it was incorrect to transfer the complex tense system of Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin to other Proto-Indo-European languages. The examination of the tense differentiation in Gothic (as the main source of the Old Germanic language) demonstrates that the Gothic infinitive functioned as a no-particular-time unit, while personal verb forms were involved in performing tense functions. The Gothic present tense verbs represented present and future tenses and no-particular-time phenomena. Some periphrastic forms containing preterite-present verbs with the infinitive occurred sporadically. The periphrastic forms correlated with Greek and Latin patterns of the same future tense meaning. The periphrastic future forms in Gothic often contained some modal shades of meaning. The Gothic present tense functioned as a colony-forming archi-unit and a pluripotential (temporal) precursor. The periphrastic Gothic future forms are recognised as a monopotential (temporal) precursor with some modal meaning. The key research method used in the present article is the comparative historical method. The authors viewed it as the most reliable and appropriate for the study of tense forms. Key words: colony-forming archi-unit, future tense, monopotential precursors, periphrastic forms. Information about the authors: Botsman Andriy Vasylovych – PhD in Chemistry, PhD in english philology, аssociate professor; аssociate professor of the department of english philology and intercultural communication; Institute of Philology; Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Dmytruk Olga Viktorivna – PhD in english philology, associate professor; associate professor of the department of english philology and intercultural communication; Institute of Philology; Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Tamara Petrivna Kozlovska – PhD in english philology, associate professor; associate professor of the department of english philology and intercultural communication; Institute of Philology; Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. E-mail: a.botsman@knu.ua; o.dmytruk@knu.ua; kk4138221@gmail.com REFERENCES Ammann H. (1936). Germanischen und indogermanischen. Germanen und Indogermanen. Volkstum, Sprache, Heimat, Kultur, Festschrift für Herman Hirt. Heidelberg: Fachbuchverlag, 328-342 [in German]. Arntz H. (1936). Gemeingermanisch. Germanen und Indogermanen. Volkstum, Sprache, Heimat, Kultur, Festschrift für Herman Hirt. Heidelberg: Fachbuchverlag, 429-451. [in German]. Behaghel O. (1923). Deutche Syntax. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universität. Bd.II. B. Adverbum, C. Verbum, 372 s. [in German]. Beheydt G. (2005). The absolute and the relative present tense with future time references in English and Dutch. Crosslinguistic Views on Tense, Aspect and Modality. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 15-32 [in English]. Botsman, A.V. & Morenets, I.M. (2015). Modals and periphrastics in English and Dutch. Science ans Education. A New Dimension. Philology, 68 (III), 7–10. [in English]. Brinkmann, H. (1931). Sprachwandel und Sprachbewengungen in althochdeutscher Zeit. Jena: Friedrich – Schiller – Universität, 428 s. [in German]. Brugmann, K. & Delbrück B. (1897). Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik den indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg: Fachbuchverlag, 386 s. [in German]. Deiter, F. & Bethge R. (1898). Laut und Formenlehre der altgermanischen Dialekte. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 542 s. [in German]. Diewald, G. & Mechthild H. (2005). Die Entwicklung von werden and Infinitiv als Futurgrammem: Ein Beispiel für das Zusammenwirken von Grammatikalisierung, Sprachkontakt und soziokulturellen Faktoren. Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 229–250 [in German]. Hilpert, M. (2006). A synchronic perspective on the grammaticalization of Swedish future constructions. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 29(2), 151–173 [in English]. Hirt, H. (1928). Indogermanische Grammatik. Leipzig, Veb. F.A. Brokhaus Verlag. Bd.IV, 482 s. [in German]. Karstein, K. (1936). Indogermanisch und Germanisch. Germanen und Indogermanen: Volkstum, Sprache, Heimat, Kultur, Festschrift für Herman Hirt. Heidelberg: Fachbuchverlag, 297–327 [in German]. Kluge, F. (1913). Urgermanisch. Strassburg: Fachbuchverlag, 385 s. [in German]. Krahe, H. (1957). Germanische Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Bd.II: Formenlehre, 438 s. [in German]. Kronasser, H. (1956). Vergleichende Laut und Formen lehre des Hethitischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 526 s. [in German]. Meillet, A. (1917). Caractères généraux des langues germaniques. Paris: Academia, 273 p. [in French]. Meillet, A. (1908). Les dialects indoeuropéens. Paris: Academia, 428 p. [in French]. Merold, F. (1875). Futurum und futurische Ausdrücke in Gotischen. Wissenschaftliche Monats blätter. Wien: Lang, 283–298 [in German]. Nevalainen, T. (2004). Three perspectives on grammaticalization: Lexico-grammar, corpora and historical sociolinguistics. Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–31 [in English]. Stang Chr., S. (1942). Das slavische und baltische Verbum. Oslo: Akademiska Bokhandeln, 342 s. [in German]. Streitberg, W. (1910). Gotisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 275 s. [in German]. Streitberg, W. (1896). Urgermanische Grammatik. Einfuhrung in das verleichende Studium del altgermanishcen Dialekte. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 488 s. [in German]. Ziegeler, D. (2006). Omnitemporal will. Language Sciences, 28(1), 76–119 [in English].