Subjunctive

Status
Not open for further replies.

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
There is a risk (inevitable, unfortunately), of cross-dialogues confusing us; So, this is:
Response to Post #15
It wasn't the authorities cited that failed to sway my opinion, [...] but rather the way in which their ideas were presented that had me somewhat lost, and in need of clarification (especially where you interpreted Chalker's words on the mandative subjunctive).
I wrote:

"Chalker: [...] especially in BrE, it [= the mandative subjunctive] can be replaced by a should-construction.

Chalker's use of replaced by suggests to me that she does not consider a should-construction to be a subjunctive form."

I have re-read that, and can't see the problem. If A can be replaced by B, then B is not A. Chalker implies that a should-construction is not a mandative subjunctive. If that's still not clear, please tell me what part is not clear, and I'll try again.
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Response to #18
Referenced, yes, but solid and logical, it wasn't (at least not to me). :oops:
Fine. If you point out any parts that you found illogical, please tell me. I'll try to straighten out any problems.
I'm still working on trying to understand why you would use italics to do that (wouldn't using italics confuse the reader, especially if the reader didn't know what the italics were meant to represent?)
I was simply attempting to highlight those words.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Response to #19, #20

#19. As I understand it, Corum (and please correct me if I am wrong in this), you are agreeing that was in if I was you is not subjunctive, and that verbs in a clause with 'possibly/perhaps/reportedly/etc' are not subjunctive, but saying that should is subjunctive.

Before I say more on that, perhaps you could confirm whether or not I have understood you correctly.

#20. it is not clear to me whether the question mark at the end is a typo or you are asking a question. Could you please clarify?.

Thank you
 

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
Response to #19, #20

#19. As I understand it, Corum (and please correct me if I am wrong in this), you are agreeing that was in if I was you is not subjunctive, and that verbs in a clause with 'possibly/perhaps/reportedly/etc' are not subjunctive, but saying that certain uses of should is subjunctive.

That is correct.

it is not clear to me whether the question mark at the end is a typo or you are asking a question. Could you please clarify?

Rhethorical question. ;-)

Zero inflection (unchanged form) necessarily means that no resort has been made to the subjunctive conjugational system?

=

Does the unchanged form always mean that...?

With this I am trying to create a possibly rather weak persuasive effect with the implication that from form we can rarely jump to an indisputable conclusion about subjunctivity.
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I'll have to sleep on that. Back tomorrow,
 

lauralie2

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China
There is a risk (inevitable, unfortunately), of cross-dialogues confusing us; So, this is:
Response to Post #15
I wrote:

"Chalker: [...] especially in BrE, it [= the mandative subjunctive] can be replaced by a should-construction.

Chalker's use of replaced by suggests to me that she does not consider a should-construction to be a subjunctive form."
(We don't really know what Chalker 'considers' given that her words are interpreted, not quoted.)

What we do know is that the mandative subjunctive has an alternative, putative 'should', also called mandative 'should', 'a periphrastic alternant to the non-inflected subjunctive (ref)'. What's unclear is whether 'alternative' and 'alternant' mean variant, that is, that 'should' expresses the subjunctive mood. According to somebody, it does (Note, I can't seem to find the original source for this):

The subjunctive mood can be expressed using the modal verbs 'shall' (should) and 'may' (might).
:
★ '''Should the teacher come', I will speak with him.''
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
[FONT=&quot]Response to #26:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Lauralie: (We don't really know what Chalker 'considers' given that her words are interpreted, not quoted.) [/FONT]

Fivejedjon: I wrote, “Chalker goes on to say (of the mandative subjunctive): [...] especially in BrE, it can be replaced by a should-construction”.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
The words in blue are quoted directly from Chalker.

As far as interpretation is concerned, I wrote (emphasis in bold added): Chalker's use of replaced by suggests to me that she does not consider a should-construction to be a subjunctive form.

[FONT=&quot]Lauralie: What we do know is that the mandative subjunctive has an alternative, putative 'should', also called mandative 'should', 'a periphrastic alternant to the non-inflected subjunctive (ref)'. What's unclear is whether 'alternative' and 'alternant' mean variant, that is, that 'should' expresses the subjunctive mood. [/FONT]

Fivejedjon: It is clear to me that ‘alternative’ does not mean ‘variant':
alternative […] 1 (of one or more things) available or usable instead of another. […] 2 (of two things) mutually exclusive.” Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th edition, (1995)

[FONT=&quot]Lauralie: According to somebody, it does (Note, I can't seem to find the original source for this):[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
The subjunctive mood can be expressed using the modal verbs 'shall' (should) and 'may' (might).[/FONT]

Fivejedjon: Whoever that somebody is, s/he is not alone. George O Curme (1931), Pokemon and Corum have similar ideas. I do not agree – that is why we are discussing this.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Response to part of #24
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Fivejedjon: As I understand it, Corum, you are agreeing that was in if I was you is not subjunctive, and that verbs in a clause with possibly/perhaps/reportedly/etc are not subjunctive, but saying that certain uses of should are subjunctive.

[FONT=&quot]Corum: That is Correct[/FONT]

Fivejedjon: If we agree that was in if I was you is not subjunctive, then surely should is not subjunctive? Or, if should is subjunctive, as you maintain (because it is used putatively), then surely was must be?

I think that you and I may be arguing about two different points; I’ll clarify my position.

I am using the word modality for the whole clause; the following (in blue) are examples of modality:

1. I suggest that he come.
2. I suggest that he should come.
3. If he came, I’d be happy
4. If he should come, I’d be happy.
5. Should he come, I’d be happy.
6. Were he to come, I’d be happy.
7. If I was you, I’d come
8. If I were you, I’d come.
9. Perhaps he is coming.
10. He may come.

I am using the word subjunctive for a form of the verb. So in the examples above, come (1), came* (3), were (6 and 8) are subjunctive forms.
Should come (2, 4 and 5), ‘d be (3, 4, 5, and 6) ‘d come (7 and 8) was (7) show modality, but are not subjunctive. The same is true for 9 and 10.

So, was (7) and were (8) both show modality, but was is indicative and were is subjunctive.

By this reasoning, should in (for example) 4 is indicative (like was in 7) or subjunctive (like were in 8).

I go for the indicative, you for the subjunctive. I don’t think either of us is going to change the mind of the other. I prefer my analysis because it appears to me to be much simpler in modern English. However, I have to admit that your analysis is not as unjustified as I thought originally. Dammit! I have done your arguing for you:roll:.
 

lauralie2

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]It is clear to me that ‘alternative’ does not mean ‘variant': “alternative […] 1 (of one or more things) available or usable instead of another. Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th edition, (1995)
It remains fuzzy: 1 is ambiguous. (Please let us not discuss dictionary entries. It's no different from interpreting someone's words.)

The issue is that no one authority that we can find has yet to clearly state that 'should' does or does not express a subjunctive mood. Why is that?

Fivejedjon: Whoever that somebody is, s/he is not alone. George O Curme (1931)
1931?
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Response to # 29
It remains fuzzy: (Please let us not discuss dictionary entries. It's no different from interpreting someone's words.)

You wrote, "What's unclear is whether 'alternative' and 'alternant' mean variant". I responded that it is clear to me that 'alternative' ( I did not use 'alternant') cannot mean this.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary and the full Oxford English Dictionary both agree with me, but you seem to want not to discuss dictionary entries.
We cannot continue a discussion if we cannot agree on terms.

Incidentally, as I pointed out in a previous post, I quoted someone's words.

The issue is that no one authority that we can find has yet to clearly state that 'should' does or does not express a subjunctive mood. Why is that?

If you don't want to accept the authority of a dictionary, why should the authority of a writer of grammar be of any interest to you?
5
 

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
If we agree that was in if I was you is not subjunctive, then surely should is not subjunctive? Or, if should is subjunctive, as you maintain (because it is used putatively), then surely was must be?

34.gif


The past subjunctive form of 'be' is 'were'. The past tense indicative form of 'be' is 'was. From this we can safely say that 'was' is no subjunctive.
Pure modal auxiliaries have one (others say two) forms. When no change takes place in form, we can only guess at from the meaning whether subjunctive is used.
As I have already suggested, there are several factors that play a role in the speaker's choice of inflectional system.

However, I have to admit that your analysis is not as unjustified as I thought originally. Dammit! I have done your arguing for you:roll:.
tongue12.gif
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
(The field is blank because you responded inside the quoted portion of the text. :-()
I don't know what has happened. I responded with my normal '5' outside the quoted portion of the text, and post #30 is reading properly when I look at it. If it is still not reading properly for you, let me know. I'll send it to you as a PM
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Well, Corum (and Pokemon and lauralie),

I don't think I have anything else to say - I have repeated myself enough already.

We will have to agree to differ, though our differences are, I feel, far smaller than may have appeared at first.

I still feel personally that to speak of should as a subjunctive form is pointless, but I have accepted that it is logically possible to consider should, in some utterances, to be a subjunctive form.

Unless you come up with some startling new revelation, I shall take my leave.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.
 

Pokemon

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
My dear colleagues, I never wrote that I consider 'should' as a subjunctive form in the sentence being discussed. Let me state my position on the issue. First of all, modality can be expressed both grammatically (through different of moods) and lexically (through modal verbs, expressions, etc.). Grammar deals with classes of word-forms, lexicology - with individual words. What is 'should' in the construction 'Should you ..., let me know' - a modal verb or a mood auxiliary? Among its various meanings 'should' has an epistemic one, which finds expression in this very sentence. A mood is a tool for expressing modality. Since the modal meaning is already expressed lexically, through a modal verb, what do we need a mood for? Let me show you a context where 'should' is used as a mood auxiliary: "I demand that the letter should be sent at once". Here 'should' correlates with the form 'be sent' (I demand that the letter be sent at once) which can easily be substituted for it without changing the meaning of the sentence in any way. And on this pattern we can create thousands of different sentences, which means that here we deal with a grammatical category and not an individual lexical unit. Therefore, 'should' in the latter sentence is a mood auxiliary. Which mood? The imperative one expressed by the word-forms classified as belonging to the Old Subjunctive. I suggested at the beginning of the discussion that you state your position on what is modality and mood, etc. But you said that those were too theoretical issues and quoted some primitive definitions contained in practical English grammars not intended as sources for such debates at all.
 

lauralie2

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China
I suggested at the beginning of the discussion that you state your position on what is modality and mood, etc. But you said that those were too theoretical issues and quoted some primitive definitions contained in practical English grammars not intended as sources for such debates at all.
Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Thank you. :cool::-D:up:
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Well, I am back again, though not for the original discussion, but to respond to a couple of points Pokemon made.
But you said that those were too theoretical issues
I can't find where I said that. However, myopia comes with old age. In which post was that?

and quoted some primitive definitions
A definition of 25 or so words is not going to cover every aspect of the subjunctive that can be imagined, but it seemed to be a starting point. To describe that definition as 'primitive is perhaps a matter of opinion. Anybody joining the discussion could have suggested another. You did not do so then; would you care to suggest something else now?

contained in practical English grammars not intended as sources for such debates at all.
I didn't present them as a 'source for debate'. I wrote, "I thought I'd start us off with a definition or two from a third party", following your suggestion 'to describe the characteristics of class B'

As I explained fairly early on, "I quote other authors, not to prove my point but to show that I am not alone in my views. Also, these authors make the point more succinctly than I can. (You may have noticed that I tend to become a little verbose)."
 

Pokemon

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
It was in post 9.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
It was in post 9.
This is what my post #9 (copied and posted without alteration) says:

"Do you believe that modality can be expressed both grammatically and lexically or only grammatically?
In a wider sense of the word modality, yes. However, the original question was The problem to be discussed is whether 'should' is a subjunctive form or not when it's used in a construction like "Should you change your mind, let me know". I fear that we may get sidetracked into a discusssion on modality. This might not be totally irrelevant, but I hope we can all stick closely to discussing the original question.

I'll take a break now until others have had a chance to catch up. Back tomorrow. "

If you feel that you can say of this, "you said that those were too theoretical issues", then we are speaking different languages.

Incidentally, you said in post #35 "I suggested at the beginning of the discussion that you state your position on what is modality and mood, etc." What you actually said at the beginning (post #1) was: "The problem to be discussed is whether 'should' is a subjunctive form or not when it's used in a construction like "Should you change your mind, let me know". To decide whether A belongs to class B, we need: 1)To describe the characteristics of class B; 2) To prove that A has or doesn't have those characteristics."

In Post #8, i.e. not at the beginning of the discussion, you asked Corum and me to answer a question (your own words); you did not present it as a suggestion. : "Would you please answer the following question: Do you believe that modality can be expressed both grammatically and lexically or only grammatically? By the way, according to protocol, forum members following the discussion are welcome to ask questions to the opponents."

In post #9, I answered that question briefly.

I enjoyed the discussion with Corum, but I foresee no enjoyment in further explanation of what you and I said or did not say, so I shall leave you for other things.
 

Pokemon

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
I'd like to thank all those who took part in the discussion. It was a most enjoyable conversation. I'm sorry for Mr. Fivejedjon who left a little upset but that seems to be his way. Look forward to having more debates in the future.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top