[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by riverkid

I understand that the pragmatic implications are different, Casiopea. That's not at issue here.

Hmm. I'm confused... You see, you've brought up an issue I'm interested in hearing more about. Now, if it is a non-issue now, then why was it an issue then?

Psst. Red font is somewhat argumentative. You may want to consider changing it.

Originally Posted by riverkid

I suggest that the 'played' in, '... if she played' is not a "remnant of the subjunctive" because it was never an old subjunctive form. Rather, and I could be mistaken, normal and irregular past tense forms, are modern variants of older subjunctive forms that are no longer in the language.

Gee, first off, it'd be best if you could put the example back in its original context. Second, let's clear up the semantics here - no offence. What's the difference, in your mind, between 'remnant' and 'old', and between 'remnant' and 'old' and 'no longer in the language'? To me, they are (near) synonyms. If so, then, your statement reads somewhat odd. Again, no offence. I'm just trying to work out what it is exactly that you are aguing here.

If both 'plays' and 'played' when combined with 'if' mean, "were to play", then there can be nothing wrong with using a present tesne form in these structures. Wouldn't you agree?

But, riverkid, 'were' is a present form in that context. Maybe we are dealing with different definitions here. Let's define our terms, shall we? What do you think the subjunctive is? And, oh, by the way, since this thread isn't yours, what say we move to a new thread? Let the world come in and discuss this issue...