[Grammar] As if you didn't know

[kadioguy]

Yes, though there's certainly a place for that once the OP has their answer. Some discussion among the teachers and other responders is certainly useful and enjoyable.

What do "a place" and "that" in "there's certainly a place for that" mean? And does "the OP has their answer" mean "the OP has he's or she's answer" or "the OP has teachers/examiners' answer" (mentioned in Piscean's reply)?

Could you please tell me more, or in a easier way?

 

[YAMATO2201]

"the OP has he's or she's answer"

"the OP has his/her answer"

 

[Raymott]

What do "a place" and "that" in "there's certainly a place for that" mean? And does "the OP has their answer" mean "the OP has he's or she's answer" or "the OP has teachers/examiners' answer" (mentioned in Piscean's reply)?

Could you please tell me more, or in a easier way?

This was meant to be part of the discussion between teachers after the OP (you) had your answer.

It means: "There is certainly justification for discussions among teachers after the OP has received his or her answer to his or her original post. (The OP's answer, in this case, means the answer that the OP (you) wanted.) Such discussion between teachers at the end of an OP's post is often irrelevant to the OP and his or her question (as in this case), and the discussion is typically conducted at the level of a native speaker without regard to making it understandable to the learner."

You'll have to ask Piscean for a translation of his post.

 

[kadioguy]

This was meant to be part of the discussion between teachers after the OP (you) had your answer.

It means: "There is certainly justification for discussions among teachers after the OP has received his or her answer to his or her original post. (The OP's answer, in this case, means the answer that the OP (you) wanted.) Such discussion between teachers at the end of an OP's post is often irrelevant to the OP and his or her question (as in this case), and the discussion is typically conducted at the level of a native speaker without regard to making it understandable to the learner."

Thank you for your kind reply.

You'll have to ask Piscean for a translation of his post.

I think I can almost fully understand what he said in post #21, with the help of dictionaries (... and Google translator), except for the term "an amateur grammarian". How could a grammarian be "amateur"? Doesn't "a grammarian" mean someone who studies the grammar of a language and writes books about it or teaches it?

 

[kadioguy]

I did provide a link to a wikipedia article on the meaning of amateur, kadioguy.

Yes, I did see that link.

It says:

... Amateurism can be seen in both a negative and positive light. Since amateurs often do not have formal training, some amateur work may be considered sub-par. ... On the other hand, an amateur may be in a position to approach a subject with an open mind (as a result of the lack of formal training) and in a financially disinterested manner. An amateur who dabbles in a field out of interest rather than as a profession, or who possesses a general but superficial interest in any art or a branch of knowledge, is often referred to as a dilettante.

I asked that question because I wondered whether the description above fitted you (or fitted grammarians). Now with your explanation, the question has got answered. Thanks!

 

[Raymott]

I find it unhelpful to think of there being a subjunctive mood in modern BrE.

I know you do. But many true things are unhelpful and vice versa. I've been meaning to look into this topic. Do you have a reference which explains why the usage of this "past tense form" to denote contrary to fact situations is not subjunctive? I have Quirk and Swann, and access to a university library. If there is good evidence that this "past tense form" functions in a way that differs from the subjunctive forms of other languages, then I might change my mind.
Which aspect of subjunctivity does the "past tense form" not cover? Are they different things, or is it just that you don't like the term because BrE tends to prefer the indicative?

 

[jutfrank]

As modern BrE has lost virtually all marks of a subjunctive mood, can it not be said to have lost the mood?

But is it not precisely the use of the second/past/distanced form of the verb (in 'if' clauses, for example) which creates the subjunctive mood? Surely the irrealis-ness (irreality?) of the mood comes from the unusual form of the verb, no?

 

[jutfrank]

I'm not sure I understand you completely, Piscean.

Do you mean to say that in utterances where the indicative and subjunctive forms are identical the mood therefore does not exist? Does a subjunctive use of a verb require a form distinct from the indicative form to count as subjunctive?


(By the way, I do also very much like the explanation of tense as distance.)

 

[Raymott]

(By the way, I do also very much like the explanation of tense as distance.)

So the subjunctive mood is a distancing? That sounds fair.

 

[jutfrank]

So the subjunctive mood is a distancing? That sounds fair.

I now think it's probably better to say that the verb form creates the distancing, which determines the modality, if not the mood. So with two differently expressed but identical thoughts,

If I were you, I wouldn't do that.
If I was you, I wouldn't do that.

only the first uses the subjunctive form but the modality (the irrealis meaning) is obviously the same in both, which is the effect of the distancing in both. Whether the 'mood' is the same in both depends on whether there is a distinction between mood (purely morphological?) and modality (semantic).