Subjunctive

[Allen165]

"Article 81(3) entails an assessment of the pro- and anti-competitive effects of agreements and requires, for agreements to be exempt, that they are not unduly restrictive of competition."

I think "they are not unduly restrictive" is wrong and should read "that they not be unduly restrictive." The book I got that sentence from, however, was written by two Britons, and I've heard that the subjunctive is falling into disuse in the UK. My question, then, is whether a British teacher would accept such a construction as correct.

Thanks!

 

[bhaisahab]

"Article 81(3) entails an assessment of the pro- and anti-competitive effects of agreements and requires, for agreements to be exempt, that they are not unduly restrictive of competition."

I think "they are not unduly restrictive" is wrong and should read "that they not be unduly restrictive." The book I got that sentence from, however, was written by two Britons, and I've heard that the subjunctive is falling into disuse in the UK. My question, then, is whether a British teacher would accept such a construction as correct.

Thanks!

I would write "that they not be..."

 

[allenman]

Agree -- I would use the subjunctive in this case.
Ask any number of American students what the subjunctive is and tell me how many of them give you the right answer

Not a teacher

 

[probus]

I would write "that they not be..."

Yes, sahab bhai. So would I, and so would the threadstarter. But the question was: would you as a British teacher of English accept the other usage as correct?

 

[bhaisahab]

Yes, sahab bhai. So would I, and so would the threadstarter. But the question was: would you as a British teacher of English accept the other construction as correct?

It would be widely accepted as correct, whether I like it or not.

 

[albertino]

Again, a matter of UK vs US usage.:-D