The problem of the category of tense and that of correlation have to be considered together, for reasons which will become clear immediately.

In so far as the verbals (infinitive, gerund, and participle) make up a part of the English verb system, they have some features in common with the finite forms, and in so far as they are singled out amid the forms of the verb, they must have some peculiarities of their own.

It is natural to assume that in the system of verbal categories there is some hierarchy, that is, some categories are above others, determining their possibilities. To give a clear example: the category of voice to some extent dominates that of aspect, as there are fewer continuous forms in the passive than in the active voice: such continuous forms as shall be writing, have been writing, had been writing find no counterpart in the passive. We could also say that the passive voice limits the possibilities of the continuous aspect.

Another question arises concerning the so-called emphatic do-forms, such as he does know, she did go, meaning more or less the same as he really knows, she really went, etc. The specific meaning of such formations is well known, but their status in the morphological system of the verb has not been clearly defined.

An important question arises concerning the interrogative forms of the English verb. It is well known that the auxiliary do is used here in the same way as in the negative forms and that interrogative-negative forms exist, in which the auxiliary do is used on the same principle.

The English language has in its verbal system a peculiarity distinguishing it both from Russian, German, French, and other Indo-European languages. To express the notion that an action did not take place, the English verb does not always simply add a negative particle to the verb form, as in the example has come — has not come. In many cases a special auxiliary verb, namely the verb do, is used if the negative idea is to be expressed. l Since the negative has (at least partly) its own auxiliary verb, it must be acknowledged as a special morphological category of the English verb.

The categories of person and number must be considered in close connection with each other, since in language of the Indo-European family they are expressed simultaneously, i. e. a morpheme expressing person also expresses number, e. g. in Latin the morpheme -nt in such forms as amant, habent, legunt, amabant, habebunt, legerunt, etc., expresses simultaneously the 3rd person and the plural number.

This problem arises chiefly in connection with the possible double use of a number of verbs in Modern English. Compare, for instance, such pairs of sentences as these

Under this heading we will consider formations like greeted each other, or loved each other, or praised one another. The problem is somewhat similar to that of the reflexive voice, and it is this: Does the group each other (and the group one another) make part of an analytical verb form, that is, is it an auxiliary element used for forming a special voice of the verb, the reciprocal voice, or is it always a separate secondary part of the sentence (though it is hard to tell exactly what part of the sentence it may be)?

Taking, then, first the problem of the reflexive voice, we will formulate it in the following way. Can the group "verb + self-pronoun" (i. e. myself, himself, ourselves, etc.) be the reflexive voice of a verb, that is, can the self-pronouns ever be auxiliary words serving to derive a voice form of the verb? This is putting the problem in purely morphological terms. But it also has a syntactical side to it. From the syntactical viewpoint it can be formulated in another way: does a self-pronoun coming after a verb always perform the function of a separate part of the sentence (the direct object), or can it (in some cases at least) be within the same part of the sentence as the verb preceding it (in the vast majority of cases this would be the predicate)?