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

Re: Suggest + "not do" - verb pattern

YoungCalifornian — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:33:12 GMT

Tanit
But I'm stuck with a sentence where "to do" is replaced by "not to do":

    a1) I suggest not doing X.                         (I reckon this is fine)
    a2) I suggest not to do X.                          (???)
    b1) I suggest [that] Y shouldn't do X.         (I reckon this is fine)
    b2) I suggest [that] Y [not do | don't] X.      (this sounds terribly bad!)

Your questions stem from the use of the mandative subjunctive, which arises in turn from the use of the verb "to suggest." However, you've complicated things by using the complicated predicate "to do X" in your sentences' subordinate clauses. I'm assuming that "Y" always represents a personal pronoun (or proper noun), but "X" could be either a demonstrative pronoun (or regular noun in certain cases) or a verb depending on your meaning.

a1) This construction is fine if "X" is a demonstrative pronoun, but incorrect if represents a verb.

a2) This construction is incorrect. If "X" is a demonstrative pronoun, the verb "to do" must be changed from the infinitive to the subjunctive and a personal pronoun added so that the sentence reads I suggest Y not do X. This makes the subordinate clause a content clause, which means that the word "that" could be added as you've done in example b2). The sentence will not work at all if "X" is a verb.

b1) While this construction is not grammatically incorrect, it can sound too passive when "suggest" and "should" are in close proximity. Anyway, that's assuming that "X" is once again a demonstrative pronoun. This construction will not work if "X" is a verb.

b2) It may not seem like it, but switching between "not do" or "don't" (i.e. "do not" ) dramatically changes this sentence. They cannot be used interchangably in this context. As I mentioned above, the "not do" construction works fine if "X" is a demonstrative pronoun. However, if "X" is a (subjunctive) verb then "do not" or "don't" (or does not/doesn't for singular third person pronouns) must be used.

I apologize if this sounds complicated, but it's a result of using an auxiliary verb in your example predicates. If you replace "to do X" with a simpler verb it would probably be clearer. Basically, your two options are to follow the verb "to suggest" with either a gerund or the subjunctive. Either way, the word "not" would precede the dependent verb should you choose to make it negative. Looking ahead, I've used the verb "to interview" in an example of each construction.

Gerund: I suggest (not) interviewing...
Subjunctive: I suggest (that) he (not) interview...

Here's the sentence I'm trying to write (it's for a research paper):

1. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested not interviewing any member of the scientific committee."
2. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested not to interview any member of the scientific committee."
3. "Issues of availability, together with constraints on time and scope of the research, suggested that no member of the scientific committee should be interviewed."

I'd go for no. 1 (no. 3 seems to carry a different meaning ... or am I wrong?), but I am not sure about that. What do you think?
I'm also trying (with little, if any, success) to work out the general pattern.

Both the first and third examples work. The first is the gerund construction, the third is the subjunctive construction. The second is incorrect. However, despite being technically correct, both the first and third examples still sound awkward. Ultimately, I think this is because it sounds strange for "issues" to suggest something directly. Typically they would suggest something to someone. For instance, I think that "Issues of availability... suggest not interviewing any member of the scientific committee to me" or "Issues of availability... suggest to me that no member of the scientific committee should be interviewed" both sound better.

Re: Grammar rules - check for correctness - a kind teacher please :)

Angle1 — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:23:55 GMT

Some another issues to discuss

I saw your old friend, him whom you pointed out at the last meeting

Him whom >> whom

Objective pronoun is redundand, we need only relative pronou

I really donÂ´t know if there is a mistake in this sentence
She flouts her mink coat whenever she goes with us so that we will think she is very wealthy

They threated him like he was their own son

Like >>> as if we have a verb in a comparative sentence, we must use as instead of like

He was >> he were - we need a subjunctive here, but I cannot explain why

Many a box of bananas have been sent to Europe

Many a box + has / many boxes + have

What kind of these structures is commonly used

The two last comeptitors, who had to lose or gain the most were affected deeply

Who had to lose or gain the most >> who had the most to lose or gain

How to explain it? Is this

Were affected deeply >> were deeply affected â the adverb determines the adjective

His serious thoughts were bent irrevocable

Bent irrevocable >> bent irrevocably â But how to explain it??

I think that is everything what I need to to discuss

If you want to discuss only few examples, no problem - I would be glad if you would do anything. Thank you very much for your help

Re: Can I change from "If I were him" to "Were I him"? I thought it was a little awkward...

Mister Micawber — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:55:42 GMT

.
Yes, I think so, but I am muddled by my preference for If I were he, Were I he -- as long as you wish to use the more formal subjunctive, I would use the seemingly more formal nominative pronoun. Informal: If I was him...

Re: Verb Recommend+Infinitive forms

Yankee — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 03:45:35 GMT

I thought I'd already posted a reply in this thread. Hmmm, I must have forgotten to hit the 'post' button. At any rate, my reaction was exactly the same as CJ's. However, I've heard a rumor from a handful of Brits that the infinitve version is sometimes used in the UK. I have no idea how widespread it might be, however.

My East Coast (US) preferences for the word recommend would be 'recommend+what is being recommended' -OR- 'recommend+that+pronoun/noun+subjunctive':

- I recommended the ABC Hotel to him. (or possibly: I recommended staying at the ABC Hotel.)
- I recommended that he stay at the ABC Hotel.

Re: He insisted on my/me singing a song.

Anonymous — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:58:23 GMT

Hoa Thai wrote:
Goodman wrote:

You asked: Why canât I find insist on somebody doing something usage in any dictionaries?

Hi Goodman,

That was exactly what I asked.

Is 'She insisted on John speaking for us all' correct? I thought the dictionaries suggest that we should say, "She insisted that John spoke for us all' instead.

EDIT: The reason I raised the question is to point out the difference between 'insist on me singing' and 'insist on my singing'. In other words, 'me' is a pronoun that can stand on its on, while 'my' must accompany / pair with another word / phrase. In that sense, the 'somebody' goes well with 'me', not 'my'. 'My singining' should be considered as the 'doing' instead.

Hi Hao,

I think the confusion lies in the word "insist".

She insists that (not "on") you take the trip to China for the contract signing meeting (subjunctive) = She insists on your (not you) talking the trip to China for the contract signing meeting. Meaning is the same but structures are not.

Re: We insist that he uphold the law

Tanit — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:42:36 GMT

Anonymous wrote:
Obviously, there is a difference in meaning between "We insist that he uphold the law" and "We insist that he upholds the law" (the first is stating more of a command and the other stating a belief about the situation), but I cannot figure out exactly why the first one is correct, or how to describe to a non-native speaker exactly why you use the plural form of uphold in the first example despite the singular pronoun. Aside from being the direct object of insist, what kind of phrase/clause is "that he uphold(s) the law" in each case?

Hi,

"Uphold" is not "the plural form" ... it's present subjunctive.
I was taught that verbs such as demand, insist, suggest etc. call for the subjunctive.

You might want to check this page from the BBC website, as well as some old threads in this forum:
http://www.englishforums.com/English/YesterdayJaneInsistedOrder/vjkrr/Post.htm
http://www.englishforums.com/English/ImperativeVsSubjunctive/djbrc/Post.htm
http://www.englishforums.com/English/Subjunctive/gmkc/Post.htm

If your non-native speakers' first language comes from Latin, they will probably find English subjunctive easier than that in their language

Re: wish clauses

Goodman — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:40:33 GMT

Yoong Liat wrote:
Hi Goodman

You wrote: subjunctive after wish. Yet another traditional rule requires you to use were rather than was in a contrary-to-fact statement that follows the verb wish: I wish I were (not was) lighter on my feet. Many writers continue to insist on this rule, but the indicative was in such clauses can be found in the works of many well-known writers.

The discussion is on whether to use 'was' or 'were' in "I wish it was not raining so heavily.' I know that 'was' is correctly used in the sentence. However, 'were' is more correct. Why should you insist on talking about 'subjunctive'? If an authority on English tells you by example sentences that 'was' is informal and 'were' is formal in such sentences, I think that's good enough.

Traditional rule requires you to use were. English is evolving. What is traditional may not the only correct version now, and in certain cases, is considered wrong nowadays.

Many writers continue to insist on this rule, but the indicative was in such clauses can be found in the works of many well-known writers. Exactly! If well-known writers use 'was', why do you insist that 'was' is wrong.

'The reason .... is because', according to grammar and English usage books is wrong. However, the best writers and speakers use the phrase. Can we say they are wrong? To me, they are not.

In case, you miss reading my earlier post citing another English authority, I reproduce below what I had written earlier.

The following is quoted from Collins Cobuild English Usage, another well-known English authority.

When the subject of the 'that'-clause is a singular pronoun such as "I" or 'he' or a single noun group, you can use either 'was' or 'were' after it. (NOTICE 'WAS' IS MENTIONED FIRST). This use of 'were' is rather formal.

Sometimes I wish I was back in Africa.
I often wish I were really wealthy.

He wished it was time for Lamin to return.
My sister occasionally wished that she were a boy.

I hope you now understand that you shouldn't insist that 'was' is wrong. You may say 'was' is correct but 'were' is more correct.

Best wishes

Liat,

As far as I am concerned, if you chose to ignore the rules of English, this warped discussion is going nowhere and may as well be considered over. Believe in what you please. It really doesn't matter. What was frustrating with the discussion was that you seemed to disregard the subjunctive rules. In the world I live it, if we are not bound by rules, we will be living in chaos. In English...well, it's evident! I wish you luck!

Re: wish clauses

Yoong Liat — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:22:14 GMT

Hi Goodman

You wrote: subjunctive after wish. Yet another traditional rule requires you to use were rather than was in a contrary-to-fact statement that follows the verb wish: I wish I were (not was) lighter on my feet. Many writers continue to insist on this rule, but the indicative was in such clauses can be found in the works of many well-known writers.

The discussion is on whether to use 'was' or 'were' in "I wish it was not raining so heavily.' I know that 'was' is correctly used in the sentence. However, 'were' is more correct. Why should you insist on talking about 'subjunctive'? If an authority on English tells you by example sentences that 'was' is informal and 'were' is formal in such sentences, I think that's good enough.

Traditional rule requires you to use were. English is evolving. What is traditional may not the only correct version now, and in certain cases, is considered wrong nowadays.

Many writers continue to insist on this rule, but the indicative was in such clauses can be found in the works of many well-known writers. Exactly! If well-known writers use 'was', why do you insist that 'was' is wrong.

'The reason .... is because', according to grammar and English usage books is wrong. However, the best writers and speakers use the phrase. Can we say they are wrong? To me, they are not.

In case, you miss reading my earlier post citing another English authority, I reproduce below what I had written earlier.

The following is quoted from Collins Cobuild English Usage, another well-known English authority.

When the subject of the 'that'-clause is a singular pronoun such as "I" or 'he' or a single noun group, you can use either 'was' or 'were' after it. (NOTICE 'WAS' IS MENTIONED FIRST). This use of 'were' is rather formal.

Sometimes I wish I was back in Africa.
I often wish I were really wealthy.

He wished it was time for Lamin to return.
My sister occasionally wished that she were a boy.

I hope you now understand that you shouldn't insist that 'was' is wrong. You may say 'was' is correct but 'were' is more correct.

Best wishes

Re: if i was/were

Jaqwabbit — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:58:38 GMT

Hello.

The use of the plural verb were with a singular subject such as he or I is allowed when employing what we call the subjunctive mood. This refers to wishful thinking or something that is unlikely to happen.

Consider the two correct sentences below:

(1) If he was able to jump out of the plane before it crashed, then we will not find his body here.

Here, the speaker was still not aware whether the person was able to jump out of the plane or not. Notice how was was used together with will.

(2) If he were able to jump out of the plane before it crashed, then he would have survived.

Here, the speaker already knew that the person was not able to jump out of the plane, and he was only stating a condition based on wishful thinking. Notice how was was used together with would.

The same case applies to the pronoun I.

If I were you, I would...

The subjunctive mood here was necessary, as switching identities is indeed unlikely.

Hope this helps.

Re: I'm anxious that nobody should be hurt.

Marius Hancu — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 14:14:17 GMT

It's fine.

What do you suggest instead?

It means, in rough indicatives (which isn't the same, but just to talk about the pronoun and the situation):

I do not want that someone/somebody is/becomes hurt.

Using the correct subjunctive:

I do not want that someone/somebody be hurt.

You can use only a negation in English, thus nobody.
The author choses to negate in the pronoun, not in the verb, here.