X tried to insist that all firearms are/were

[ademoglu]

Hi,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv105.shtml

- The government tried to insist (that) all firearms should be handed in without delay.
- The government tried to insist (that) all firearms be handed in without delay
- The government tried to insist (that) all firearms are handed in without delay

I would like to ask why 'were handed in' is not used in the sentence because of the verb 'tried.'

- The government tried to insist (that) all firearms were handed in without delay

Thanks.

 

[Skrej]

Because the firearms haven't been handed in yet. Did you notice the part at the top of that page that explains the usage of the subjunctive?

The subjunctive is used to express intention or proposal about the future. It requires use of the verb in its basic form rather than its normal tense form.

This is a proposal from the government that people who currently have firearms should turn them, and do so quickly.

 

[ademoglu]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv201.shtml

1- It was desirable (that) she should go to a school where Italian was taught.
2- It was desirable (that) she go to a school where Italian was taught.
3- It was desirable (that) she went to a school where Italian was taught.

So many thanks for the answer. But I cannot understand why 'was' is used in sentences 1 and 2 although ''the subjunctive is used to express intention or proposal about the future. It requires use of the verb in its basic form rather than its normal tense form.'' Should it not be 'is' instead of 'was' in the first two ones?

Thanks again.

 

[Matthew Wai]

But I cannot understand why 'was' is used in sentences 1 and 2

I think this is because it was desirable in the past, but I am not a teacher.

 

[ademoglu]

So it is also correct to say, The government tried to insist (that) all firearms were handed in without delay" if it is in the past, for example 5 days ago.

- 5 days ago the goverment tried to insist that all firearms were handed in without delay.

Am I right?

 

[Skrej]

Yes. As Matthew mentioned above, we're talking about the past, but at that particular time in the past, the proposal to turn in all firearms was a proposal for the future. It had not happened yet at that point in the past.

[STRIKE]5[/STRIKE] Five days ago the government tried to insist that all firearms were handed in without delay.

We normally write out small numbers in sentences, but otherwise, yes, this sentence is okay.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Five days ago the government tried to insist that all firearms were handed in without delay, but this proposal was cancelled yesterday.

I think 'were' refers to the past. Am I right or wrong?

Not a teacher.

 

[Skrej]

Five days ago the government tried to insist that all firearms were handed in without delay.
The government tried to insist (that) all firearms are handed in without delay.

These two sentences aren't saying exactly the same thing, even though they're both correct.

The first one is reporting what the government claimed happened five days ago.
The second one is reporting what the government proposed should happen.

 

[Weaver67]

I think 'were' refers to the past. Am I right or wrong?

Not a teacher.

As far as I can judge, it does refer to the past. Yet, there is a 'but'.

The thing is, "Five days ago the government tried to insist that all firearms were handed in without delay" does not look like a proposal.
It is more of a statement of a fact: the goverment insisted (or tried to) on the fact that all firearms were handled in. Perhaps, they were persistent trying to present this to the public as a fait accompli -- nothing about anticipation, expectation, or proposal of some future "handling in".


1) I insist that she is here.
2) I insist that she (should) be here.

In the first example sentence, the subject seems to be very sure that the person in question (she) must be there -- perhaps, for instance, in the same building: they saw her enter it a minute ago without anyone seeing her out after that.

In the second one, the subject expresses his strong wish or proposal to see her there -- as described in that BBC article above.

Not a teacher.

 

[Matthew Wai]

"Five days ago the government tried to insist that all firearms were handed in without delay" does not look like a proposal.

I think it seems a proposal below, but I am not a teacher.
'Five days ago the government tried to insist that all firearms were handed in without delay, but it subsequently backed down in the face of strong opposition.'

 

[Weaver67]

Five days ago the government tried to insist that all firearms were handed in without delay.
The government tried to insist (that) all firearms are handed in without delay.

These two sentences aren't saying exactly the same thing, even though they're both correct.

The first one is reporting what the government claimed happened five days ago.
The second one is reporting what the government proposed should happen.

Not a teacher.

The second one is interesting in that the indicative 'are' is used instead of the subjunctive form 'be' or modal 'should be' with the verb 'insist'.
Yes, I am well aware of the tendency in the contemproary English usage (especially British) for subjunctive forms to diminish; such things as "It is essential that our son has a good education" are very common nowadays, where the indicative 'has' is used but the subjunctive meaning is implied.

The question is, can we always substitute the subjunctive form of a verb for its normal inflected indicative form in such cases as above?
What would the form of the verb in question be if we were to transofrm the second example sentence into reported speech?

"The governmen tried to insist all firearms are handled in", said Mike. --> Mike said that the governmen had tried to insist all firearms were(?) handled in.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think the present subjunctive can be used in reported speech, but I am not a teacher.

 

[Raymott]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv201.shtml

1- It was desirable (that) she should go to a school where Italian was taught.
2- It was desirable (that) she go to a school where Italian was taught.
3- It was desirable (that) she went to a school where Italian was taught.

Regarding the past: The suggestion is not that she be sent to a school where they used to teach Italian. It's backshifting.
Yes, the desire could be in the past.
"She should go to a school where Italian is taught" -> It was desirable (that) she should go to a school where Italian was taught.

 

[Matthew Wai]

It was desirable (that) she should go to a school where Italian was taught.

I think the two 'was's refer to the same time in the past, but I am not a teacher.

 

[Raymott]

I think the two 'was's refer to the same time in the past, but I am not a teacher.

I think the 'was' in "It was desirable" precedes the 'was' in "where Italian was taught". The second 'was' refers to the time that she goes to that school - I'm assuming they want her to learn Italian. Naturally, she's not there yet (at the time of the first 'was'), so the desire occurs before she goes there. The first 'was' indicates that the implicit 'is' in the last clause can be backshifted.
In fact the last 'was' clause most likely means "where Italian will be being taught when she's there."

 

[Weaver67]

I think the present subjunctive can be used in reported speech, but I am not a teacher.

I think not only can but should, just to avoid any possible ambiguity, especially in cases where the verb is 'insist', whicn can also have the meaning of 'to say firmly that something is true' (as I described in post 11 with the first example sentence).

Not a teacher.

 

[Matthew Wai]

'It was desirable (that) she should go to ABCD school, where Italian was taught.'

Do the two 'was's refer to the same time in the past?

 

[Raymott]

'It was desirable (that) she should go to ABCD school, where Italian was taught.'

Do the two 'was's refer to the same time in the past?

You've changed the defining clause to a non-defining one, but it still implies that they want her to learn Italian, or at least they want Italian to be taught there when she goes there.
If you really mean "where Italian had been taught" you should probably write that to avoid confusion.
If the non-defining clause merely adds information about ABCD school, it's probably irrelevant.

Strictly, the "was taught" could mean "had been taught" or "is taught" or "will be being taught". If they want her to learn Italian, it has to mean the latter. Otherwise, it's not clear.