MrPedantic, CalifJim: Past Subjunctive or Indicative

   Share on Facebook  
Anonymous  #502207  Fri, 18 Apr 08 11:48 AM
Hello:

<>Do you feel that:

They had placed a weapon in his hands. He smiled to himself at the thought of their faces when he explained the alternatives tomorrow.

[Tom Sharpe, Porterhouse Blue, p. 54]

is equivalent with:

They had placed a weapon in his hands. He smiled to himself at the thought of their faces when he would explain/would have explained the alternatives tomorrow.

or not?

And, as a result, do you feel that the explained in the original is an indicative or a past subjunctive, where the past subjunctive is practically identical with the past indicative, expect for be, where it is were:

==

Past subjunctive

I owned
he/she/it owned
we/you/they owned

Subjunctive mood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood

===== 

Thank you.  

  
Anonymous  #502221  Fri, 18 Apr 08 12:18 PM
 Wanted to say:

And, as a result, do you feel that the "explained" in the original is an indicative or a past subjunctive, where the past subjunctive is practically identical with the past indicative, except for "be", where it is "were":

  
Anonymous  #502415  Fri, 18 Apr 08 08:58 PM
 Up a bump ... Thanks.
  
CalifJim  #502420  Fri, 18 Apr 08 09:27 PM
 It certainly can't be indicative in meaning.  It combines a past tense (explained) with future time (tomorrow).  Clearly the reference is to something hypothetical -- something in the imagination of the character in the story regarding what was (hypothetically) going to happen the next day.  Your use of would in your paraphrase also seems to capture that same idea.

Whether you want to adopt the terminological system in which this is called subjunctive or whether you want to adopt a less Latin-based system in which this is called a use of the past tense to indicate irreality is up to you!  (I think the technical term is irrealis.  You might look it up with Google and see if it applies to this case.)

CJ 

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004
California
Forum Guru (14,827)
ModeratorProficient Speaker
"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche
MrPedantic  #502462  Sat, 19 Apr 08 12:43 AM
I would agree with CJ. It's "past indicative" in form, but "past subjunctive" in sense. (In older forms of English, there were some differences between them; but they have now converged.)

MrP
  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Wed, Oct 13 2004
Forum Guru (11,681)
Proficient SpeakerSystemAdministrator
...opella forensis / adducit febris...
Anonymous  #502490  Sat, 19 Apr 08 03:39 AM
 Thank you very much to both of you. 
  
AddThis Feed Button RSS Feed: MrPedantic,  CalifJim: Past Subjunctive or Indicative
© 2008 MediaCET Ltd.
Terms and Conditions