would you mind if

[riverkid]

Casiopea wrote:

I'm not sure I understand your meaning here, 'There are pragmatic considerations involved'. Could you expound on that?
'played' (past tense) and 'played' (subjunctive mood) look and sound alike, but they are different.

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

Casiopea: In Would you mind if she played with his toys, the verb 'played' isn't a 'regular past time verb'. It's a remnant of the present subjunctive. Note, Would you mind if I were to ...

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.


Casiopea: In Would you mind if she plays with his toys, 'plays' is indicative and it's a modern variant of were to play; i.e., Would you mind if she were to play with his toys - subjunctive.

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?

All the best.

To you too, Casiopea.

[Casiopea]

My apologies, river, but I'm having a rather difficult time following your argument. Also, with regards to the response itself, it would help if you could write your response outside the quote- box, so that I can access it. As is, it's not accessible.

Looking forward to your reply-post.

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

My apologies, river, but I'm having a rather difficult time following your argument. Also, with regards to the response itself, it would help if you could write your response outside the quote- box, so that I can access it. As is, it's not accessible.
Looking forward to your reply-post.

I['ve]removed the quote boxes, Casiopea. If you're using a Chinese OS, you could perhaps try to change under VIEW, ENCODING, to a Western European Windows. That might help you view it.

[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...

[riverkid]

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

Red is simply my choice. Please don't read anything in that isn't there.


Casiopea:
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?

RK: Methinks 'twas a red herring. The issue, the one I asked you about directly was in reference to your stating that,

"[/i]In Would you mind if she played with his toys, the verb 'played' [is] a remnant of the present subjunctive."

C: 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.

RK: Regular "ed" verbs [and irregular verbs] used ina subjunctive fashion are not remnants. I know you understand 'remnant' so how could a modern form of "ed" verbs be a remnant? That was my only question, Casiopea.

C: 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?

RK: There's no need to launch into a detailed discussion of the subjunctive unless you want to. All I asked was a simple question, [above], querying you on what I perceived to be an inaccurate description.

C: 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...

RK: If that's your desire, be my guest. I love a good discussion as much as the next gguy/girl. But I think it's best to clear up the issues of one thread in the same thread.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by riverkid

I think it's best to clear up the issues of one thread in the same thread.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by riverkid

... how could a modern form of "ed" verbs be a remnant? That was my only question, Casiopea.

Thank you for clearing that up, riverkid. The answer, quite simply, and it's fairly straightforward, is, 'remnant' as in [subjunctive] mood.

See you in a new thread.

[riverkid]

Casiopea:
The answer, quite simply, and it's fairly straightforward, is, 'remnant' as in [subjunctive] mood.

This has been quite the dance, Casiopea.

The remaining subjunctive forms that we still use in English are remnants. Even after these remnants disappear, English will still have a subjunctive mood. Regular ["ed"] and irregular verbs are not remnants of the subjunctive.

[Casiopea]

Once again, riverkid, mood, not form.

[Casiopea]

Sorry. Technical problems with my computer. I had to post again.

Originally Posted by riverkid

Regular ["ed"] and irregular verbs are not remnants of the subjunctive.

You're dealing with form, me, function. Take a look-see here at the past indicative and past subjunctive forms of the verb To Work.

Past
Indicative: She worked
Subjunctive: She worked

[Coffa]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Sorry. Technical problems with my computer. I had to post again.

You're dealing with form, me, function. Take a look-see here at the past indicative and past subjunctive forms of the verb To Work.

Past
Indicative: She worked
Subjunctive: She worked

I feel RK simply doesn't accept that the subjunctive mood is, or indeed should be, part of modern English. Personally, I disagree.