Expectancy of action

4. Expectancy of action

As a result of assigning the appropriate element of complicating the action, designated by the main semantic element of the predicate to the structure of the predicate, it is imagined as accidental, but normally not expected and that’s why unexpected or on the contrary as expected, as natural feature of the object. The complicating element is the verbs like to happen and to prove. For example:

But my memory happened to have tricked me.' (C. P. Snow)- Lekin mening hotiram menga pand berdi.

'It turned out to be Sam.’ (P. Abrahams)- U Sem bo’lib chiqdi.

5.  Attitude of the subject to the action

Complicating elements of the predicate denote desire/ unwillingness, intention (to want, to wish, to intend and so on)

I dоn't wish to leave my mother.' (O. Wilde) Onamni tashlab ketishni istamayman.

I should hate to hurt him,' she said.' (I. Murdoch)- Men unga yomonlik qilishdan hazar qilaman.

For the hybrid, verbal-nominal, nature of the infinitive stipulates the possibility of its use, among other nominal functions, and in the function of the object, and the verbs like to want can be directly-transitive single-objective, the necessity to substantiate the given above interpretation of the word combinations like «to want/to wish + infinitive» as a complex predicate but not as the combination of the verb-predicate with the object.

Consideration of to write (in want to write) as an object cannot be excluded as something wrong. Such kind of interpretation of the functions of the infinitive is principally possible. In scientific analyses of phenomena of the language different interpretations of one and the same phenomena are possible and even appropriate. Divergence of this kind is explained by the difference of initial theoretical reference, the fact of depicting the language in the context of different systems, possibility of different procedures of analyses and methods of depicting the phenomena. Diversity of approaches will allow to study and reflect its properties in scientific transformations fully and in details. “There is not and there will not be a single “correct” description of English language”, wrote G. Sledd. Possibility of various approaches makes unanimity of methods especially urgent within the frameworks of chosen system of description. Eclecticism of the methods and hence, the criteria gives distorted picture of the structure of the language as a result, in which existing in reality distribution of the phenomena in its systems is destroyed

Such kind of displacement of the phenomenon from the system, it belongs to by its nature, into the system, alien to it, is intrinsic to the interpretation of the word combinations like (I) want/wish to write as the combination verb-predicate with the object in those systems of describing grammatical structure of English language, in which the formations like (I) сап write and so on are considered as a predicate. Such kind of understanding is generally accepted and does not require any proof. Predicative status of can write is determined by the fact of correlation of action, expressed by the infinitive with the subject, by their subjective- process relations. This tie is set through the verb in infinite form.

The role of the verb in infinite form is not added up to the expression of grammatical meanings and relations. Can and other complicating elements are also the bearers of corporeal meaning. This kind feature is typical to the verb to want. The difference between сап in (I) can write and want in (I) want to write lies in the field of content and in the belonging of appropriate meanings to various semantic spheres. But syntactically the roles of these verbs are the same.

In the realization of the verb (I) want to write and (I) want a book there are two different meanings, connected with the differences of syntactical encirclement. Orientation to the object is intrinsic to the verb want in (I) want a book, having objective character, and verbal orientation of want in (I) want to write. This difference is clearly manifested, if to contrast the verb want (a book) to the other verb, semantically close to it.

Comp.:

'They burned to tell everybody, to describe, to — well — to boast their doll's house before the school bell rang.' (K. Mansfield).- Ular darsga qo’ng’iroq chalinishdan avval o’zlarining qo’g’irchoq uylari haqida hammaga to’g’rirog’ uni tasvirlab berishga sabrilari chidamsdi.

It is unlikely that someone will maintain the fact of presence of, in this case (burn to tell) the verb and the object. Want to tell is different from burn to tell only lexically, in particular, by the degree of intensity of expressing feature. But syntactically, i.e. according to the character of interrelations of verbs and the character of their connections with the subject , want to tell and burn to tell are identical.

6. Reality of the action

A number of complicating elements deny (to feign, to pretend, to fail) or affirm (to manage, to contrive) the reality of the action, denoted by the infinitive that follows such verb: 'Andrew affected to read the slip.' (A. J. Cronin) 'She managed to conceal her distress from Felicity.' (I. Murdoch)