[Grammar] If it were possible to go near when one of the volcanic eruptions TOOK/TAKES...

[Sahil Dhankhar]

This is not my homework.

If it were possible to go near when one of the volcanic eruptions TOOK/TAKES place, we would see a grand sight.

Which will be the feasible choice?

 

[emsr2d2]

Zkiller, please curb your enthusiasm a little and wait for at least a couple of native speakers/teachers to reply before attempting to respond to another learner's question.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Sahi, I would choose the past tense "took".

 

[Raymott]

I'd choose the subjunctive 'took'. If you use the past tense 'took', it would have to read: "If it had been possible to go near when one of the volcanic eruptions TOOK place, we would have seen a grand sight."

 

[Mrfatso]

I'd choose the subjunctive 'took'. If you use the past tense 'took', it would have to read: "If it had been possible to go near when one of the volcanic eruptions TOOK place, we would have seen a grand sight."

Not A Teacher

Could it depend on whether Sahil Dhankhar is writing about a past eruption like studying the Mount St Helens eruption or looking forward to a possible future eruption such as the one expected in the near future in the Canaries?

 

[emsr2d2]

This is not my homework.

If it were possible to go near when one of the volcanic eruptions TOOK/TAKES place, we would see a grand sight.

Which will be the feasible choice?

If it were possible to go near when one of the volcanic eruptions is taking place, we would see a grand sight.
If it is possible to go near when one of the volcanic eruptions is taking place, we will see a grand sight.
If it had been possible to go near when one of the volcanic eruptions was taking place, we would have seen a grand sight.

I much prefer the continuous in these sentences.

 

[Sahil Dhankhar]

emsr2d2,

according to your reply:- "If it were possible to go near when one of the volcanic eruptions is taking place, we wouldsee a grand sight." , it is clear that when talking about unfulfilled wish like situations of present, "were" is used in the introductory clause. Therefore it is clear from my question that it is a case of present unfulfilled wish instead of past. still some respected members chose the use of "took" (past tense) but you used "is taking" (present tense).

I want to ask humbly, which one is correct ?

 

[MikeNewYork]

I would not call "took" in that relative clause subjunctive. The subjunctive verb in the sentence is "were". For me, "took" is just the past tense referring to the time of the volcano eruption.

 

[Raymott]

Therefore it is clear from my question that it is a case of present unfulfilled wish instead of past. still some respected members chose the use of "took" (past tense) but you used "is taking" (present tense).

I want to ask humbly, which one is correct ?

One occasionally respected member suggested the subjunctive. It can't be the past tense (as further evidenced by ems's post). I think you have subjunctive in Hindi, so I guess you understand the concept. Your analysis is correct. It's an unfulfilled wish in the present, and hence we use the subjunctive mood of the present tense, ie. 'took'.

It can't be the past tense because the following is not grammatical: "If it were possible to go near when one of the volcanic eruptions TOOK place (last week), we would see a grand sight."

Everyone seems to understand that 'were' is subjunctive in: "If I were you, I would be embarrassed". But some people miss it if the verb isn't 'were'. Eg. "If a volcanic eruption took place, it would be awesome." I suppose that's because many lessons on the past subjunctive seem to use 'were' as the only example.

Ask yourself, if 1 is subjunctive, why are the rest past tense?:
1. If I were an astronaut, would you be impressed?
2. If I took your bicycle, would you be angry?
3. If an eruption took place, would you be surprised?
4. If it were possible to go near when one of the volcanic eruptions took place, we would see a grand sight.

http://www.grammaring.com/past-subjunctive
... and others

 

[MikeNewYork]

But the clause was not "if an eruption took place" it was "when an eruption took place". Not the same.

When the eruption took place, I was in Rio. (not subjunctive)

 

[Raymott]

You need to address the arguments , Mike. Ideally, you should say why my arguments are invalid, and then propose arguments for the past tense.
It can't be the past tense because the following is not grammatical: "If it were possible to go near when one of the volcanic eruptions TOOK place (last week), we would see a grand sight." That is, the rest of the sentence doesn't make sense if the eruption took place in the past, which it must do if 'took' is past tense.

It's true that "if an eruption took place" is not "when an eruption took place". But you have to show why this is relevant.
"If I were there when an eruption took place ..." Do you have an argument for why only 'were' is subjunctive? It seems to me that both verbs are in the same tense. Giving an unrelated sentence in which 'took' is in the past tense is no argument, since the form 'took' is used for both the past indicative tense and the subjunctive.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Ray, I state my position the way I state it. There is nothing I MUST do. I disagree with your assertion, and I believe I have explained it. The subjunctive mood does not carry over to imbedded relative clauses. I don't know of anybody who thinks that.

 

[Raymott]

There is nothing I MUST do.

I didn't say there was, did I? You're not constrained to do anything. If you think you've given your best shot, then good luck to you.

 

[MikeNewYork]

And I wish you the same.