I wish I was/were there

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
   Share on Facebook  
MrPedantic  #297340  Fri, 24 Nov 06 10:55 PM

The "were" form is often wrongly called a past subjunctive, but of course "it were done" is not a past tense of "it be done".

I wouldn't agree with this writer. Past tense forms that turn up in e.g. conditionals are the descendants of Old/Middle English past subjunctive forms.

MrP

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004
Veteran Member (11,852)
Proficient SpeakerSystemAdministrator
...opella forensis / adducit febris...
Anonymous  #297352  Fri, 24 Nov 06 11:35 PM
You're right, but that's irrelevant to how they function in Modern English. In Modern English, "were" in "if I were" does not behave the same as "be" in "I demand that it be done."
  
Alienvoord  #297355  Fri, 24 Nov 06 11:37 PM
The above post is me.
  
Top 200 Contributor
Joined on Tue, Jul 25 2006
Toronto
Full Member (315)
I'm a Canadian English speaker
MrPedantic  #297356  Fri, 24 Nov 06 11:39 PM

Sorry, Anon, I don't understand what you mean by "behave in the same way", or why that's relevant (if it's true).

Can you be more explicit?

MrP

  
Alienvoord  #297365  Sat, 25 Nov 06 12:02 AM
There are two reasons why some linguists call "were" in "if I were" the irrealis instead of the past subjunctive.

1
It doesn't function like the subjunctive:

I demand that it be done.

"be" here is the subjunctive. You can put any verb in the subjunctive:

I demand that it cease.

But if you substitute "were" with another verb, the simple past form is used:

I wish I were in New York.
I wish I went to New York more often.


Many sources say that "went" here is the past subjunctive. But why invent a grammatical category where none exists? "went" is identical to the simple past. It doesn't have a past tense meaning, but grammatically it is the simple past.

Now "were" in "I wish I were in New York" is not the simple past, it is a different form altogether - the irrealis. It only occurs with "be" - for all other verbs, the simple past is used instead.

2
"were" is not the past tense of "be": "it were done" is not the past tense of "it be done". In fact, there is no past subjunctive in English.
  
MrPedantic  #297370  Sat, 25 Nov 06 12:23 AM

"It doesn't function like the subjunctive."

Interesting.

Perhaps "to be" is an irregular verb...

...Cf. "I cook, he cooks, they cook"; "I am, he is, they are."

It's formed differently from other verbs in the simple present; so why shouldn't it be formed differently in the past subjunctive?

MrP

  
Alienvoord  #297375  Sat, 25 Nov 06 12:32 AM
Then it would be the only verb with a past subjunctive form. And it would still not function like the subjunctive - actually maybe I should say it doesn't have the same distribution as the subjunctive.

That is, we have
I demand that it be done

but if we put this into the past tense, we don't get
*I demanded that it were done

"were" is used after "if" or "wish"
and the subjunctive is used in subordinate clauses to express necessity.

I'm not too fussed what we call it, but I think it's interesting to see how it behaves differently from the subjunctive.
  
MrPedantic  #297381  Sat, 25 Nov 06 12:49 AM

But isn't that simply because the mandatory subjunctive uses the present subjunctive, and not the past subjunctive?

"Past" and "present" are in any case slightly misleading terms, in this context:

1. He demanded that he report back as soon as possible.

2. He recommends that it be done as soon as possible.

"Present" subjunctive in both cases; though the "reporting back" in #1 may well have already occurred, at the time of speaking, while the "doing" in #2 most probably hasn't.

MrP

  
Alienvoord  #297392  Sat, 25 Nov 06 01:27 AM
 MrPedantic wrote:

But isn't that simply because the mandatory subjunctive uses the present subjunctive, and not the past subjunctive?



Then where's the past subjunctive? Is there such a thing?
  
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
AddThis Feed Button RSS Feed: ESL Linguistics Discussion Forum
© 2008 MediaCET Ltd.
Terms and Conditions