Search results for 'tag:Clauses tag:Subjunctives' matching tags 'Clauses' and 'Subjunctives'

Re: should have done

Marius Hancu — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:05:18 GMT

-------

if clausesâthe traditional rules. According to traditional rules, you use the subjunctive to describe an occurrence that you have presupposed to be contrary to fact

if I were ten years younger, if America were still a British Colony.

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html

---------

What is allowed under subjunctive mood is described in:

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

Some (but they are a small minority, mainly used in BrE) of those subjunctive mood forms contain should. Those are allowed under an if clause:

If I should go, then will you feed the hens? [should go is a future subjunctive

----------

We can use 'should' in 'if clauses' when we believe that the possibility of something happening is small.

If you should happen to see him before I do, can you tell him that I want to speak to him urgently?
If there should be a problem, just give me a call and I'll sort it out.
If anyone should ask where I am, say I'm in a meeting.

http://www.englishgrammarsecrets.com/should2/menu.phpl

--------

Re: would prefer

Mr Wordy — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:57:17 GMT

Analysing subjunctives is not my greatest strength, so I HOPE that the following explanation is roughly correct!

(I edited just after posting to correct a typo)

Tuongvan
Can I use WOULD PREFER the same way?i.e.Can I say" I would prefer he went to meet Mr Brown now." instead?

"I would prefer he..." is not a form of words that comes very naturally to me (I would usually say "I would prefer it if he went to meet Mr Brown now.") -- but others may differ. If you do use "I would prefer he...", then strictly speaking I think it should be "I would prefer he go to meet Mr Brown" (this is the subjunctive, see below). The problem is that this sounds rather old-fashioned and stilted (to me), and I'm guessing that this perceived awkwardness influences some people to write "I would prefer he went" instead.

Tuongvan
b/The Pentagon said it would prefer that the withdrawal plan and the education benefits not be considered with the war funding.
Why don't they say'it would prefer that the withdrawal plan and the education benefits would not be considered /were not considered with the war funding.'?

"not be considered" is the subjunctive form, which, to quote from Wikipedia, is "a verb mood that ... is typically used in dependent clauses to express wishes, commands, emotion, possibility, judgment, necessity, or statements that are contrary to fact at present." "Prefer" is one of the verbs that it is used with. Your example with "would not be considered" is unnatural. "were not considered" seems more plausible, and, to be honest, I'm not sure if it's technically correct or not. But anyway, with that form of words I think I would say "would prefer it if the withdrawal plan and the education benefits were not considered with the war funding".

Tuongvan
b/He would prefer she stop calling him "Pacman"
Why don't they say'He would prefer she stopped calling him "Pacman"?

Same reason as above: subjunctive.

Re: truth be told

CalifJim — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:07:09 GMT

Definitely old. Definitely subjunctive.

It's from the days when if clauses took the subjunctive:

(If the) truth be told

Modern: If the truth is told

Re: The Coca Cola company

Cool Breeze — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:56:54 GMT

MaverickK
The correct answer is D. But I still can not understand why is A incorrect?

I think you have encountered a grammar "expert" who has very strong opinions about correct usage and little understanding of anything or anyone who disagrees with him. I once met a British teacher of English, an Oxford University graduate, who thought this is the only way to do it was wrong. In his opinion only this is the only way of doing it was correct. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, of course.

Any good grammar book and/or grammar expert will tell you that after the verb demand both the present subjunctive and should are correct in a that clause:

He demanded that I gravel the sidewalk. He demanded that I should gravel the sidewalk.

Re: "I would be surprised..."

CalifJim — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:49:44 GMT

I was concentrating on the choice between were and was (subjunctive vs. indicative), and I neglected to address the choice between was/were and is (past vs. present).

New2grammar
Could you please 'defend' native speakers' tendency?

You're referring to the use of past throughout once the main clause introduces the past tense. Hmmm. Defend it? That's difficult. If you're right there looking at the boxes, I suppose is is just as good as was or were. The situation is in present time, after all. I suppose that when the native speaker matches the tenses throughout a sentence, it's a matter of habit, not always a matter of logic. The basic principle is that backshifting is always correct. Not backshifting is optional, and depends on the logic of the situation.

I'm not sure if that answers your question, because I'm not sure there's ever actually a 'defense' for how people use language.

Re: suggest+noun clause in the simple present tense?

Marius Hancu — Wed, 07 May 2008 00:44:26 GMT

The subjunctive mood forms:

should sell

and

sell

are the formal ones.

Sells is informal.

Re: suggest+noun clause in the simple present tense?

MrPedantic — Tue, 06 May 2008 07:00:02 GMT

I'm not familiar with the site; but the writer may well be of BrE origin.

(In BrE, you could use "sells", "should sell", or the subjunctive "sell". The last option has become more popular in the last two decades, in BrE, in contexts where "should sell" would once have been predominant.)

MrP

Re: were late / would be late

Kooyeen — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:09:09 GMT

Oh my, I'm so surprised! I would never have thought you said it yourself! By the way, you said "If I'd have known", and not "If I'd known" (which can't mean "If I would have known", because you would be leaving out a syllable...).
Anyway, I'll tell you the truth: I've always thought it was non-standard, same register as "ain't". Low register, only common in certain dialects. I don't remember a single grammar book saying it was acceptable. In fact, I only remember people criticizing it. Here are a few comments like the ones I've always heard:

Also in the midwest, I often heard, "If I would have . . . ., I would have . . . . ." Drove me nutz! (Avangi)
http://www.englishforums.com/English/CondtitionalTense/zndwv/post.htm#482524

The construction, actually any construction with 'would' in a hypothetical if-clause, is considered non-standard. (Jim)
http://www.englishforums.com/English/HadHaveHad/chrcq/post.htm#201527

To me, it evokes comical people from remote mountain regions or from city slums who are uneducated and have some accent that most listeners dislike. But maybe research would reveal it to enjoy a wider demographic distribution. To my ear, it's about as obtrusively wrong and amusing as 'them' for 'those'. It's definitely not acceptable for standard written usage. On the other hand, it's not the most awful mistake one can make. (Native from San Diego)
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=97201#3

Would have for had - In spoken English, there is a growing tendency to use would have in place of the subjunctive had in contrary-to-fact clauses, such as If she would have (instead of if she had) only listened to me, this would never have happened. But this usage is still widely considered an error in writing. Only 14 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the previously cited sentence, and a similar amountâbut 16 percentâaccepts it in the sentence I wish you would have told me about this sooner. (A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English)
http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html

On the other hand, some people seem to use it all the time, regardless of region or cultural influences, and so it's a common feature of informal English to them. One example:

Hmmm...never thought of that construction as a mountain dialect but normal everyday American! I never knew it was incorrect! (Native from the Midwest)
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=97201#5

That's why I was so surprised, considering you are a writer and knowing you use "correct" English most of the time. This can only mean two things now... I have to choose between:
1) I start to use it as well, feeling ashamed of not knowing is was so common.
2) I don't start to use it, and I start to tease you because it's not like you to speak bad English.

LOL, just kidding. Seriously, I don't know what to say. I think I'll consider the fact that people are actually more tolerant of it than I thought, so it's not that bad. But do you also use it in your writing? You know, just because I don't like prescriptive grammar, doesn't mean I don't want to know about it. In fact, prescriptive grammar is part of descriptive grammar.
I'll appreciate any opinions on this. Thanks.

Re: Had he lived

MrPedantic — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:38:44 GMT

Hello Rotter,

I would call the verb in the if-clause of your second sentence ("If he were...") subjunctive too. It would probably be more usual to say "he would be.." in the main clause.

Best wishes,

MrP

Re: open conditional

Anonymous — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 23:28:24 GMT

Thank you, Mr M.

I have seen the kind of structure like the one below with the 'did' or 'did not' in the 'if' clause as an example of the second conditional? Can it be the subjunctive too -- that is, a counterfactual or hypothetical? I think the subjunctive is the one that denotes both or either of countfactual and hypothetical situations? Am I correct?

I would do this for you if you did (or didn't) do this.

Here, in the thread named "Type 2 and type 3 of "If clause", does MrPedantic's explanation of no.1 ring the same to you (and your previous explanation)? I didn't pursue further with this with Marius in a thread that dealt the same general theme.

Hello CS

1. It would be nicer, if you did X.

2. It would have been nicer, if you had done X.

#1 is open: it relates to a course of action that the speaker thinks desirable, at any time.

#2 is closed: it relates to an imaginary course of action in the past, which the speaker thinks desirable, but which didn't in fact occur.

By the way, I don't think your tables work very well in our threads â they're a bit too big â so I've had to remove them. Sorry about that.

All the best,

MrP

What does he mean by 'open'?