SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES OF MOOD IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK LANGUAGES
Keywords:
Indicative mood, imperative mood, conditional mood, subjunctive mood, Uzbek language, English language.Abstract
When expressing a speaker's attitude toward the activity or situation that
the verb is indicating, mood—a grammatical category—is extremely important. It's an
essential component of many languages, like Uzbek and English, and allows speakers to
express a variety of nuances, including wishes, possibilities, orders, and assertions.
Recognizing the ways in which these two languages employ mood differs and similarly
offers important insights into their respective cultural settings and syntactic and semantic
structures. The imperative, subjunctive, and indicative moods are the three main ones in
English. Statements of facts and opinions belong in the indicative mood; orders and
requests belong in the imperative mood; wishes, fictitious scenarios, and actions that are not
true to reality belong in the subjunctive mood. Despite its limited usage, the subjunctive
mood in English is still a crucial part of the language's grammatical structure.
An extension of the Turkic language family, Uzbek similarly uses the indicative,
imperative, and subjunctive moods, but it also has the optative and conditional moods. In
contrast to the imperative mood, which gives directives, the indicative mood works
similarly to its English counterpart. Nonetheless, Uzbek uses the subjunctive mood more
frequently, frequently covering situations where English would use conditional structures.
One of Uzbek's distinctive moods, optative, conveys wishes and desires, expanding the
expressive possibilities of the language. We are better able to understand the similarities
and distinctive qualities of each language when we compare these components of mood in Uzbek and English. This comparative analysis illuminates the linguistic diversity that
influences human communication in addition to improving our comprehension of their
grammatical systems.
References
Blake, Barry J. Case. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001 – 147 p.
Comrie Bernard Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. – Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981 – 220 p.
Dixon R. M. Basic Linguistic Theory Further Grammatical Topics. – Oxford: University
Press, 2000 – 427 p.
Haspelmath Martin The World Atlas of Language Structures. – Britain: Oxford
University Press, 2013 – 231p.
Jakobson R. Shifters, Verbal Categories, and the Russian Verb. – Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1957 – 287 p.
Payne T. Understanding Grammar. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
p.
Nichols Johanna Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. – London: Language
Press, 1986 – 421 p.
