If you are a professional singer, I'm Pavarotti.


I'm mulling over this sentence. I'd say this is grammatically wrong, but it doesn't sound bad. The purpose of the speaker to utter this sentence is to make fun of somebody, so it's obvious that someone is not a professional singer in true. It's more correct to say "If you were a professional singer, I would be Pavarotti." I think I could be wrong. Please comment. Thanks.



Pastel

"If you are a professional singer, I'm Pavarotti."

I didn't know my singing was so terrible! ~chuckles~

Your sentence is grammatically correct, and it makes perfect sense as well.
To me, it is also the best choice in the context you mentioned.

Your second sentence is also grammatically correct.
Strictly speaking, sentences of the type of "If you were a professional singer, I'd be Pavarotti" imply a "probable condition" (like your sentence about watering the flower). That is, there is a possibility -even when it might be a remote one- that the condition in the "if-clause" may become true. And, if that happens, then, most probably, what is stated in the main clause will be/become true too. So your sentence means that *if* I ever become a professional singer, you will be/become Luciano Pavarotti. But, you will never be/become Pavarotti in reality, regardless of the fact that I may or may not become a professional singer.
Figuratively, however, I think you can use this sentence with similar meaning to that of your first example.

This is my view of the slight difference of meaning between both: in your first example (the one in the simple present), since you are not Pavarotti, the condition stated in the "if-clause" has not been not met by the person you are talking to: they are not a professional singer and they've lied to you about it or, if they are, they don't have have what is required to be a professional singer, in your opinion.
Your second sentence may have the same meaning of your first one. But it may also have a different meaning: the person mentioned isn't perhaps a professional singer at the moment, but they're thinking of becoming one in the future, or they think they have a talent for becoming one. You still disagree with that person strongly.

That's the way I see it.

Miriam

Hi, Miriam.

I have a few questions. I would appreciate your comments on them when you have the time. (It's nothing urgent. I don't want to interrupt your dialog with Pastel.)

1. >

Did you really intend to include the verbs "wish", "order", and "urge"? They are the only ones in the list that my "native-speaker ear" doesn't seem to accept, especially "wish". Are these (below with the ??) considered acceptable? Are they considered formal? My ear may be rejecting them because they are used so seldom. Could that be?

I wish that he go. ?? I wish that he would go. ??
I demand that he go.
I order that he go. ?? I order him to go.
I suggest that he go.
I propose that she go.
I recommend that she go.
I urge that she go. ?? I urge her to go.
I insist that she go.

2. >

I find this essentially indistinguishable from the imperative. Are there any grammarians or linguists who explain this construction in terms of the imperative? Or a modified imperative?

3. "If I would have time, I would help you.">>

Fine and dandy for the Type II conditional.
And yet the variant of the Type III conditional:

If I had had time, I had helped you. (Again, English "equivalents" -- hubiera, hubiera)

is not considered a huge mistake. Am I right? If so,I find that strange, since it deviates from "If I had had time, I would have helped you." as much as "If I would have time, I would help you" deviates from "If I had (were to have) time, I would help you.". (One of the two clauses is in the "wrong mood/tense" in each case.) Isn't language a curious thing? !

4. (This was to Pastel.)
It is strange that you _____ say such a thing.
(1)would (2)should

2) is correct. Here, the construction with "should" indicates subjunctive mood.
I understand your reasoning for choosing "would", but in this case it wouldn't indicate willingness on the part of the speaker, and "should" doesn't indicate there is an order or strong suggestion involved. The choice in this sentence has to do with "form", and it is the form that will determine the meaning... if that makes sense?>>

I am amazed at what ESL students have to go through on these tests. I'm not sure native speakers could answer these questions the way the test makers would like! To me, both "would" and "should" are possible!

But my real purpose is to understand what you mean when you say that the construction with "should" "indicates subjunctive mood". You are distinguishing between "*is* the subjunctive mood (form)" and "*indicates* the subjunctive mood (meaning)", correct? So that in the following:

1) It is strange that you should be so insistent on this point.
2) It is strange for you to be so insistent on this point.
3) It is strange that you be so insistent on this point.

Only (3) "is" the subjunctive form (and meaning), whereas (1) and (2) are subjunctive in meaning, but indicated by (let's say) "pseudo-subjunctive" forms. I think we are in agreement on this, but not sure. Maybe you can confirm.

The curious part is that grammatically (as far as I know) (3) is only borderline correct, if at all, and both (1) and (2) are correct. So this is a case where the subjunctive is indicated by the meaning, but is incorrect as a form! Is such a thing really possible? This puts me in a quandary.

Please feel free to comment on this very peculiar case (peculiar to me, anyway!)

Jim

Hi, Jim

How are you? Thank you for keeping an eye on this thread.

I just love it so much because I have never seen any forum that explains all kinds of 'moods' clearly. If you have chance to browse other other language forums, you'll see learners set off firecrackers into the sky without any clear direction. I mean you can see almost every forum has 'subjunctive' subjects but none of them have fully explanation. In this thread, however, you've seen that Miriam had gathered all kinds of 'Moods' within one thread which is really amazing!!! Miriam is cool.


Here are my humble points of view regarding your previous question, this was to Pastel.

I am amazed at what ESL students have to go through on these tests. I'm not sure native speakers could answer these questions the way the test makers would like! To me, both "would" and "should" are possible! I have no idea whether other ESL learners study English as crazily as Pastel . I have said it before that as a language teacher, especially far from a native speaker like me :( , I have to prepare thoroughly in that students might knock me down anytime. I've noticed an interesting phenomenon that my students rarely have any other questions about 'Mood', except for 'Subjunctive'! For the one you discussed, it's a mandative subjunctive. Most of us just keep the rule in mind that always use 'should' in such a structure. Compare: It is strange that you _____ say such a thing. Answer: SHOULD!!!!! It is important that you ______ say some nice wors. Answer: SHOULD!!! For me, it is no doubt that the seocnd one is a mandative subjunctive. It suggest an idea that something must be done. Concerning my first sentence, don't you think it's a bit ambiguous? Is this how you see it? It is strange that you should say such a thing. ==> You haven't say such a thing yet. If you said it, that would be strange. It is strange that you would say such a thing. ==> You have said something earlier. And what you said is strange. I don't have to work today because it's a typhoon holiday! And thanks for your challenging post that makes me think. PASTEL Subjunctives, American English miriam  +  43331 Wed, 25 Aug 04 05:18 AM Hello, Jim I've been away from the boards lately. I'm not sure you're still interested in my response, but here it goes: 1. I'm afraid I can't tell how often verbs like "wish" are used in the mandative subjunctive. It seems they are used, though, according to my books. Here are a few examples: "We wish that he do what he pleases." "Thdey urged that she write and accept the post." ""The King ordered that the man be released." I don't know if the above forms are used often and in what contexts, or how formal they are (they sound too formal to me!). Perhaps your comment -as a native speaker- about the use of these verbs in the mandative subjunctive means that those verbs in particular are actually rare in this type of subjunctive? 2. There is a difference between the formulaic subjunctive and the imperative. I haven't heard of any grammarians who consider this type of subjunctive construction imperatives. Suppose you say: "God save the Queen". You are not using the imperative because you're not talking to God and commanding him to save the Queen. You're not telling him "hey, God, save the Queen, will you?" Rather, you're expressing a wish: "May God save the Queen". Let me know if this doesn't make any sense as an explanation? 3. Actually, the mistake made in Spanish in the second and third type of conditional sentences is the same: a subjunctive form is used instead of a conditional. The mistake is gross but, unfortunately, many people in my country use the wrong forms, even people with university education. Doctors and lawyers, for example, are among the worst. There are also many many people with university education who make horrible spelling mistakes. Do you speak Spanish? I'll post the sentences in Spanish for you: "If I had time, I would help you." "Si tuviera (subjunctive) tiempo, te ayudaría (conditional). --> Correct "Si tendría (conditional) tiempo, te ayudaría (conditional)." --> Incorrect "If I had had time, I would have helped you." "Si hubiera tenido tiempo (subjunctive), te habría ayudado (conditional)." --> Correct "Si habría tenido tiempo (conditional), te habría ayudado (conditional)." --> Incorrect "Si hubiera tenido (subjunctive) tiempo, te hubiera ayudado (subjunctive)." --> Incorrect Funnily, or sadly, enough, very few people "complain" because this errors are incredibly common; few people realise they are mistakes any more. In Spanish -at least in Argentina- some people will even get both clauses wrong: "Si habría tenido tiempo, te hubiera ayudado." (sooooooo incorrect) It gives me the creeps!! ~L~ Take care, Miriam miriam Verbs, Difference Between, Subjunctives, Universities, Constructions, American English, Clauses, Conditionals, Spelling CalifJim  +  43345 Wed, 25 Aug 04 06:26 AM Hi, Miriam! Thanks so much for your reply. Of course I'm still interested! 1. Sometimes when examples are given, certain forms begin to sound more acceptable. Strangely enough, only your example with "wish" still seems weird to me! The other two don't really sound that formal to me. I can imagine reading them in a newspaper from time to time. I need to revise my opinion slightly. 2. Well, God is a special case! -- as is the Queen, I suppose! But note that a command is still a command, even when we are extra polite and say "please". Please open the door, Oscar. Please save the Queen, God. Please live long, King. OK. Maybe I'm stretching it a bit with these paraphrases, but the form of the mandative subjunctive is the same as the form of the imperative. In fact, all present subjunctive forms are the same as the imperative. I don't find this unusual since subjunctive is so often associated with the idea of one person exerting his will upon another, whether gently or forcefully (urge vs. demand). 3. Whoooooo! I find this one astounding: Incorrect >> Ramsey, in A Textbook of Modern Spanish (revised by R. K. Spaulding) gives the sequence of tenses you cite as correct, and adds another section just after (in Section 24.16) stating: "A single exception to the principles stated with regard to the past tenses of the subjunctive is that the '-ra' form ... may take the place of the conditional in all types of conditional tenses." He gives the following example, both variants of which he considers correct: Si V. no hubiera acudido generosamente en mi ayuda, ya habria (or hubiera) muerto de hambre. Butt and Benjamin, in Grammar of Modern Spanish, write (Section 14.5.2) "The -ra subjunctive may be [used as] a stylistic variant for the conditional ... This is normal in all styles with the auxiliary 'haber : habria sido mejor / hubiera sido mejor' "it would have been better". And again at Section 16.1.1.b: "[The -ra form] regularly replaces the conditional of 'haber'." Since this isn't a Spanish Forum, I guess I'd better "cool it". Isn't it interesting how native speakers can end up with a totally different impression of their own language compared to those who "studied" it from books as an outsider? Best regards, Jim P.S. I read Spanish quite well and can understand nearly 95% of the television news. I can't say the same for my speaking ability, although I managed a trip through Spain without much trouble. Once I accidentally used flash in a museum where it was forbidden. I understood everything they said to me about how I should be thrown out for such an infraction, etc., etc., but I feigned incomprehension and an even worse American accent than I actually had, and they took pity on me and let me stay! (Be sure to remember that trick when you visit the U.S.) CalifJim Regards, Subjunctives, Grammar, American English, Conditionals, Tenses, Past Tenses, Accents, Auxiliaries, American Accents 1 2 3 4 5 6 Welcome to Englishforums.com, the world's largest EFL / TEFL social network. Places to start Introduce yourself Find new friends Chat! Upload photos Watch our videos Test your English Answer some questions Do you believe that Latin-based words are more formal? In another thread, someone... Two Amazing poems by D.L. Whited Longing She rises... When was the English language invented? Hi there! Anyone know... Students: Commonly faced problems Tips for getting fast... English Test How to Write a Letter Idioms Formal Letter Graduation Songs Who sings a certain song Join our Facebook group here. Become a fan of Englishforums! Follow us on Twitter! Browse Englishforums Search the site Search by tags RSS Feed See who is online now Help Frequently asked questions Guidelines, terms and conditions Terms of Service Moderators Administrators Site Status © MediaCet Ltd. 2009, v5.0.3598.39794. All content posted by our users is a contribution to the public domain, this does not include imported usenet posts.* For web related enquires please contact us on webmaster@mediacet.com, status updates are available at status.mediacet.com. *Usenet post removal: Use 'X-No-Archive'. You may not have understood that your posts would end up in the public domain. Please send proof of the poster's email, we will remove immediately.