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

Re: as if

richard_s — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 04:16:55 GMT

When speaking very properly, 'as if' should be followed by the subjunctive 'were' (I.e. the second conditional). Â Most people, however, use a finite verb instead (i.e. 'are').

Re: The mood of the interjection " me!"

richard_s — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:08:03 GMT

In that case it is in the imperative, not the subjunctive. Â The imperative is for orders and instructions and so forth; you can tell it is in the imperative because it has no subject. Â The subjunctive is either used when reporting orders (E.g. He asked that I do it) or in conditionals (E.g. If I were rich....)

Re: conditional: no difference?

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:16:12 GMT

Hi, I think it would be reasonable to assume all that you said.

Would you say the meaning is the more or less the same but no. 2 is more formal but conveys the notion of being doubtful or hypothetical (and that is the about the all the difference between the two) and a person can choose to say no. 1 and 2 depending on how he/she is viewing the situation, eg, whether as doubtful or realistically possible?

If I were (was) a millionnaire, I would buy a house.

Would you say these are reasonable?

If I doubt I would ever be a millionnaire, then I would better use 'were'.
If I thought being a millionnaire is hypothetical, not just doubtful, then I should use 'were' and make it the subjunctive.
If I thought being a millionnaire is realistic, tehn I would better use 'was' since no doubt or hypothetical nature is involved.

Re: conditional: no difference?

Clive — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:46:38 GMT

Hi,

Would you buy the argument that the use of the subjunctive shows the speaker has had a reasonably high level of education, chooses his words carefully, and has some awareness of the subtleties of the English language?

Best wishes, Clive

Re: the grammar behind " , be it ..."

Avangi — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:51:31 GMT

You're right about the meaning. Since it's subjunctive, the ear (brain) takes it as conditional without a qualifying conjunction. You could say, "whether it be house or island."

- A.

Re: subjunctive mood

Huevos — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:24:19 GMT

This is just a negative of a standard type 2 conditional. I would sell it to you if it shot straight. This construct is used where fulfilment of the if clause is improbable or impossible, but still current. By the way it is not past tense, its imperfect subjunctive, although the two are identical in form.

Re: Some very basic grammar questions

CalifJim — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:40:49 GMT

They are all correct.

For lengthier discussions with lots of examples of the use of the past perfect tense after before,

see Re: before past perfect tense , past tense and Re: Past Simple or Past Perfect.

This is a common pattern for expressing "interruptive relationships" between actions. (Leaving university "interrupts" the normal course of events which would have led to exams; the sacking "interrupts" the normal course of events which would have led to an explanation of the behavior.) The main clause contains the "interrupting" action. The before clause contains the "interrupted" action. Because the interrupted action has not taken place, the past perfect may be considered a way of expressing a counterfactual, that is, it may be considered a subjunctive with family resemblances to the if clause of the third conditional, thus: if I had taken the final exam or if he had had a chance to explain.

Re: would have had

CalifJim — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:23:38 GMT

Kooyeen
You never taught me those conditionals!

Maybe I thought you were better off not knowing. Or maybe you didn't ask.

Kooyeen
use the simple past instead of the subjunctive formed with the past perfect, in informal and casual English?

No. While it's true that people do often use the indicative for the subjunctive, that is not at issue here.

These are truly indicative all the way through. There is nothing subjunctive about them. The simple past in the if-clause is truly past in time, not a present hypothesis. Usually both clauses are in the past.

If you got there at 6, you were way too early. I'll bet no one was there.

If it was not OK with him for me to take the books, he certainly didn't show it.

If the suspect was at the Blue Gardenia at 8:00, he wasn't in the vicinity of the crime. Someone else must be the criminal.

The teacher was impossible to please. If you said "grammatical", he showed it was ungrammatical. If you said "ungrammatical", he proved it was grammatical. You couldn't win. If you took the course, you probably hated it as much as I did.

There's one thing you can be sure of: If a hurricane passed through that area, there was damage. No doubt about it.

It was well known in our town: If Brian was invited to a party, he got drunk, and if he got drunk, there was trouble.

Do you remember how Barney got so fat that year? If it was in the fridge, he ate it, no matter what "it" was!

Less formally, many of the main clauses above could have been said with "would have" with hardly any change in meaning, e.g., If it was in the fridge, he would have eaten it. Or even just "would": If it was in the fridge, he would eat it. (These use the "would of habit".)

_____

If he saw the bridge through the fog, it would have been a miracle.
I'd take the above example as the backshifted version of...
If he sees the bridge through the fog, it would be a miracle.
...and so "saw" should be taken as a simple past tense with the same meaning as the subjunctive "had seen". If he saw the bridge (but I don't think he did), it would have been a miracle!

Yes. Your backshift interpretation seems right to me. But I don't see this as necessarily subjunctive. It comes off as a sort of borderline case to my ear.

PS. ... would have baked you a cake is the usual expression!

Re: would have had

Kooyeen — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:51:58 GMT

CalifJim
If he saw the bridge through the fog, it would have been a miracle.
I think these patterns are "mixed" because they are not true hypotheticals.
They are closer to purely past indicative statements like
If I was tired, it was understandable. (I had worked hard all day.)

Interesting! You never taught me those conditionals!
Does that mean that in English (like in Italian), it is possible to use the simple past instead of the subjunctive formed with the past perfect, in informal and casual English? The only example I know it's kind of common is substituting "knew" for "had known", for example "If I knew you would come, I would have baked you a pie!", instead of "If I had known..."
So, from your example, I understand that happens with other verbs too, right?

If he saw the bridge through the fog, it would have been a miracle.
I'd take the above example as the backshifted version of...
If he sees the bridge through the fog, it would be a miracle.
...and so "saw" should be taken as a simple past tense with the same meaning as the subjunctive "had seen". If he saw the bridge (but I don't think he did), it would have been a miracle!

Am I right? Can you tell me more? Thanks.

Re: have/has/were

Mister Micawber — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 05:28:46 GMT

.
1-- Were is the SUBJUNCTIVE form of the verb, here used in a mixed conditional sentence (more crefully written, it should read If I were there, I would do that.

2-- Your sentence is wrong. It should read: Doesn't Vincent have any homework? The singular '-s' is in 'doesn't'.
.