Which one does sound more natural to native speakers?
According to most grammar books, such several verbs as insist, demand, propose etc following that-clause can omit modal auxiliary "should" in that-clause. For example, "He insisted that we (should) start at once." But I recently read a book explaining that omitting should sounds old English. This untraditional explanation makes me feel confused, as it contradicts my old belief(This is especially so because the author of the book is one of the prominent translators in Korea.)
So, here is my question.
Which one sounds more natural to you? Does the sentence without should sound really "ancient" English?
Re: Which one does sound more natural to native speakers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HUFS1999 
According to most grammar books, such several verbs as insist, demand, propose etc following that-clause can omit modal auxiliary "should" in that-clause. For example, "He insisted that we (should) start at once." But I recently read a book explaining that omitting should sounds old English. This untraditional explanation makes me feel confused, as it contradicts my old belief(This is especially so because the author of the book is one of the prominent translators in Korea.)
So, here is my question.
Which one sounds more natural to you? Does the sentence without should sound really "ancient" English?
"He insisted that we (should) start at once." Fine with or without the "should".
No, to me it doesn't sound like "ancient" English.:-)
Re: Which one does sound more natural to native speakers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bhaisahab "He insisted that we (should) start at once." Fine with or without the "should".
No, to me it doesn't sound like "ancient" English.:-)
Thank you very much for your answer. Some grammar books say that in Britain English should is mostly ommitted. I wonder that is why you might not feel uncomfortable with the sentence without should.
How does the sentence sound to Americans?
Re: Which one does sound more natural to native speakers?
I think you've got your Englishes the wrong way round, HUFS1999. The more natural American English would be without 'should', e.g.
He insisted (that) we start immediately.
I suggested (that) he start immediately.
The subordinate committee recommended (that) the subjunctive be abolished. (JOKE!)
British English, on the other hand, more commonly uses 'should'.
Re: Which one does sound more natural to native speakers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
iconoclast The subordinate committee recommended (that) the subjunctive be abolished. (JOKE!)
:lol::lol::lol::lol::up:
Re: Which one does sound more natural to native speakers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
iconoclast I think you've got your Englishes the wrong way round, HUFS1999. The more natural American English would be without 'should', e.g.
He insisted (that) we start immediately.
I suggested (that) he start immediately.
The subordinate committee recommended (that) the subjunctive be abolished. (JOKE!)
British English, on the other hand, more commonly uses 'should'.
Hi iconoclast, I am afraid that I must beg to differ on one point, whatever about American English, I can't comment, I have never lived there. "Should" is frequently dropped; I could say nearly always, but I don't want to exaggerate, in British English, in the sort of sentence we are talking about. At least in, the spoken form.:-)
Re: Which one does sound more natural to native speakers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
iconoclast I think you've got your Englishes the wrong way round, HUFS1999. The more natural American English would be without 'should', e.g.
He insisted (that) we start immediately.
I suggested (that) he start immediately.
The subordinate committee recommended (that) the subjunctive be abolished. (JOKE!)
British English, on the other hand, more commonly uses 'should'.
You do? wow! Thanx a trillion.(JOKE back!)
