I wish I was/were there

Share on Facebook

MrPedantic

#297397 Sat, 25 Nov 06 01:48 AM

Even though the form of the past subjunctive is the same as the form of the simple past, you can distinguish the two by their function:

1. He went to London.

2. If he went to London, he would...

The "went" in #2 has nothing to do with the past in terms of time. (Though you might say that the "wents" in #1 and #2 have "distance" or "remoteness" in common.)

I would also say that tense is largely irrelevant, in the subjunctive mood. How can we talk about "pastness", in the context of the potential or the unreal? The subjunctive inhabits "no-time".

In German, for instance, one of the roles of the present subjunctive is indirect speech, while the past subjunctive is used for contrary-to-fact statements. They are the "present" and "past" subjunctives not by virtue of their relationship to each other, but by their respective morphological relationships with the present and past indicative.

MrP

MrPedantic

Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004

Veteran Member (11,852)

...opella forensis / adducit febris...

Tenses, Subjunctives, Simple past, Direct speech, Indirect speech

Alienvoord

#297772 Sun, 26 Nov 06 04:27 PM

MrPedantic wrote:
Even though the form of the past subjunctive is the same as the form of the simple past, you can distinguish the two by their function:

1. He went to London.

2. If he went to London, he would...

Are we not talking about grammatical categories? These verb forms are exactly the same. Why are we inventing a grammmatical category where none exists? Why not just say that the form in 2 is the simple past?

In German, the past subjunctive has a different morphology, so we know it's a separate verb form.

Also, the form in two is used after "if" and "wish", while the present subjunctive is used after "that" clauses. Different environments.

I know many books say that 2 is the "past subjunctive" for historical reasons, but it doesn't seem like English actually has a past tense version of the subjunctive.

Alienvoord

Joined on Tue, Jul 25 2006

Toronto

Full Member (315)

I'm a Canadian English speaker

Verbs, Tenses, Past tenses, Subjunctives, Clauses, Morphology, Simple past

J Lewis

#297798 Sun, 26 Nov 06 06:09 PM

Alienvoord said, a few posts ago, that there is no past subjunctive in English.
Very interesting, because I had a discussion with Slava Chetin (a Russian who unfortunately doesn't seem to participate any more) who claimed that the subjunctive existed only in the past! His view was that a costruction such as I ask that this be done is an abbreviation of I ask that this should be done, "should" being the past subjunctive of "shall". While this is conceivable in many cases it is not universal and in the end I convinced him that the present subjunctive does exist in English. But now I see the claim that the past subjunctive doesn't exist in English!

This debate is getting more and more complicated and I'm not going to get involved, but I threw this in for the interest (or further confusion) of those who are involved.

J Lewis

Joined on Tue, Sep 5 2006

Italy

Regular Member (518)

Subjunctives, Abbreviations

MrPedantic

#297886 Sun, 26 Nov 06 11:08 PM

<...Why are we inventing a grammmatical category where none exists? Why not just say that the form in 2 is the simple past?...>

Many "grammatical categories" in English depend on function, rather than form.

In teaching English, for instance, it makes sense to talk of "you" as both the objective and subjective form (or "go" as the first person singular, the third person plural, etc.) because students may speak languages where "you" does have several different forms.

MrP

MrPedantic

Plurals, Simple past, Teaching English

Alienvoord

#297973 Mon, 27 Nov 06 05:44 AM

It totally makes sense to treat them like that for students, but that doesn't mean that it's the way English actually works.

You could still be right, though. I know the Cambridge Grammar went for the simplest explanation, and concluded that the same verb form used two different ways was one form with two different meanings.

What I am sure of, though, is that what is called the "past subjunctive" isn't used in the same environment as the present subjunctive. So whatever it is, it's not the subjunctive mood.

Alienvoord

Verbs, Grammar, Subjunctives

MrPedantic

#298294 Mon, 27 Nov 06 11:24 PM

Well, I must admit, I tend to think of grammatical terms as Euclidean labels, rather than Einsteinian descriptions.

But take this account of the subjunctive:

Definition
	Subjunctive mood is a mood that typically signals irrealis meanings, such as
	potentiality uncertainty prediction obligation, and desire.

http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsSubjunctiveMood.htm

You wouldn't say that what we call the "past subjunctive" accorded with this description?

MrP

MrPedantic

Subjunctives

Alienvoord

#298324 Tue, 28 Nov 06 01:05 AM

I guess if "potentiality" means contrafactual, then yes it does.

As I said, it doesn't really matter what it's called, but I'd prefer not to call it the subjunctive because it behaves differently than the present subjunctive. It's not found in the same environment as the present subjunctive.

Alienvoord

Subjunctives

MrPedantic

#298629 Tue, 28 Nov 06 09:30 PM

Is your reasoning something like this, AV:

1. The simple present is found in the same environments as the simple past (e.g. "he is fat", "he was fat").

2. The present subjunctive is not found in the same environments as the past subjunctive (e.g. "I recommend that the cook be severely chastised", "If the cook were severely chastised, he might spit in the soup").

3. Therefore the past subjunctive is not a true subjunctive.

MrP

MrPedantic