Search results for 'tag:Simple present tag:Subjunctives' matching tags 'Simple present' and 'Subjunctives'

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: without 'will' ?

Mister Micawber — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 07:21:56 GMT

We welcome your opinions, Marcelinx, but it is dangerous to try to compare your native language so closely with English-- they do not work the same way. Nor is your logic very careful.

Well, I certainly hope he helps you.

There is nothing subjunctive about this. The form of the subjunctive verb-- as you said-- is the same for all persons: I help, you help, he help.

Hope (and it may have been my comments that Kooyeen refers to) indeed is among the verbs that commonly take the present simple indicative for future reference in preference to the 'will' future. Other verbs are see, assume, suppose and a few more (I suppose the train is on time). In addition, there are many more verbs for which the future can be cast as simple present indicative in the subordinate clause.

The use of the subjunctive in true unreal clauses (I wish I were King) is slowly being superseded by the indicative equivalent (I wish I was King), to the extent that the subjunctive form is needed only on language examinations and English class essays. It is not a matter of who you are speaking to, certainly.

Re: without 'will' ?

Marcelinx — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 02:56:48 GMT

That doesn't soud like present simple to me. Present simple is used for opinions and beliefs, but "hope" expresses neither and opinion nor a belief. It expresses a WISH. And with a wish, you can only use one verb tense: Subjunctive. Most people don't know this verb tense, because it's very unusual and strange. Why? Because in this verb tense, you don't say he/she/it helps - you say he/she/it help. That's right. I'm a 100% sure the guy from Lost used subjunctive. And why did he say "helps" and not "help"? Because it would have been very formal, and they were in an informal situation, I guess.
So don't memorize hope = present simple, because it's not even true. And don't memorize hope = subjunctive. Memorizer this: WISH - subjunctive, because this way, you'll always know if the verb requires this verb tense.
It's very unusual that people in this community told Kooyeen and you that this is present simple when it's actually subjunctive. Even so, you shouldn't use subjunctive with your friends - it's very formal. Just use simple present, but remember it is incorrect, because it isn't used for a wish.
Well, I certainly hope he help you.
Regarding to "will help you"... That's incorrect too... It would be a lot easier if you were brazilian or spanish because this way I could explain why to you with a translation. Well, if anyone here is spanish or brazilian, I'll give you a very believable and convinceable explanation of why you use subjunctive and not future simple or present simple:

OjalÃ¡ Ã©l muera. CIERTO presente del subjuntivo
OjalÃ¡ Ã©l morirÃ¡. NO ESTÃ CIERTO futuro simple
OjalÃ¡ Ã©l more. NO ESTÃ CIERTO presente del indicativo

Lo que ocurre es que en inglÃ©s, el subjunctive es solo el presente del subjuntivo.

Tomara que ele morra. CERTO presente do subjuntivo
Tomara que ele morrerÃ¡. NÃO ESTÃ CERTO futuro do presente
Tomara que ele morre. NÃO ESTÃ CIERTO presente do indicativo

O que ocorre Ã© que em inglÃªs, o subjunctive Ã© sÃ³ o presente do subjuntivo.
______I hope this help____
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but first, google the word subjunctive before you say I'm lying.

Re: "Yesterday, Jane insisted that we order(ed) the toy."

Marius Hancu — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:06:45 GMT

----------
After a past indicative tense form the distinction of meaning between present and past tense forms usually disappears entirely:

She desired that he might come at once.

We demanded that the burden should be removed.

In recent literature and present colloquial usage, however, the tendency occasionally found in the early Modern English to break through our rigid sequence and employ the simple present subjunctive even after a past tense has grown stronger, since the simple present subjunctive with its implication of early and and immediate execution has become associated with the expression of will in general without reference to the tense of the principal verb:

I desire, demand or suggest, that action be postponed.

or

I desired, demanded or suggested, that action be postponed.

She insisted that he accept, and indeed, take her with him. (Edward Rice Burroughs, Tarzan of the Apes, Ch. I, 3).

He was glad his sisters had suggested that the Holtons be invited. (Meredith Nicholson, Otherwise Phyllis, Ch. X).

George O. Curme, A Grammar of the English Language, Vol. II, Syntax, p. 403
---------

Re: Subjunctive?

Kooyeen — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:11:49 GMT

Hi
in my opinion, it can be either subjunctive or indicative (simple past).

She's swiping at Rusty as though he's a fly. (indicative, simple present - He is not a fly - general statement)
She swiped at Rusty as though he was a fly. (indicative, simple past - He was not a fly - statement that refers to the past)

She's swiping at Rusty as though he was a fly. (subjunctive - He is not a fly - general statement)
She swiped at Rusty as though he was a fly. (subjunctive - He is not a fly - general statement)

So you could take it two ways. I think most native speakers take the verb in those structures as a simple past, the backshifted version of the simple present version.

Re: subjunctive or past conditional

MrPedantic — Tue, 08 May 2007 22:55:59 GMT

Let's go back to the original sentence:

1. He thought his mother would understand why he was living in Japan only if she saw his life there with her own eyes.

If we take this as a literal report, there are two possible "originals":

2. "My mother will understand why I am living in Japan only if she sees my life here with her own eyes."

3. "My mother would understand why I am/was living in Japan only if she saw my life here with her own eyes."

To expand a little on my previous answer: it may be possible to infer the "original" sentence from the context. However, if I say "I thought that if I did X, Y would happen", I don't intend to convey that I literally thought "If I do X, Y will happen": rather, the sentence represents a later rationalization of what was probably a hopelessly fuzzy synaptic frenzy. So you could even call the original sentence a literary device.

(That's why I opted for "indeterminate".)

Turning to the grammar:

If we ignore the changes in the person, to arrive at #1 from #2, we have to backshift "will", "to be", and "see". Sentence #2 is a standard "type 1" conditional: the simple present in the if-clause denotes "immediacy", a "real" condition, an "open" condition, etc. (There are various not-altogether-satisfactory and probably misleading labels for this construction.)

To arrive at #1 from #3, on the other hand, we only have to change the person. Sentence #3 is a standard "type 2" conditional: the past tense forms denote "distance", an "unreal" condition, "tentativeness", etc. (Again, there are various unsatisfactory labels for the construction.)

Some people would call the past tense form "saw" in #3 "backshifted", which is fair enough; to call it "indicative" seems a little misleading, though, as the mood is clearly subjunctive. We can see this if we consider a similar sentence:

4. "My mother would understand why I was living in Japan only if she were here herself."

So although "simple past" describes the form of the "saw" in #3, it doesn't describe its function.

(On the question of the "correctness" of #3, I wonder whether there's some confusion here with the disputed usage of "was" in place of subjunctive "were". That doesn't arise in our example, however.)

MrP

Re: subjunctive or past conditional

Kooyeen — Mon, 07 May 2007 18:54:17 GMT

Uh-oh! This is a difficult question! I lost a lot of time trying to understand how to use conditional sentences in reported speech, and in the end I didn't even understand completely! However, let's see if I can explain what I think:

He thought his mother would understand why he was living in Japan only if she saw his life there with her own eyes.
It could be, in direct speech:

He thought: "My mother would understand why I am living in Japan only if she saw my life there with her own eyes." - Here "would understand" is present conditional, "saw" is present subjunctive.
He thought: "My mother will understand why I am living in Japan only if she sees my life there with her own eyes." - I don't think this kind of sentence is very common, considering the most common contexts.

So, considering that the first interpretation is more likely in most contexts, "saw" is subjunctive. If you wanted to consider the second interpretation, then "saw" in the original sentence would be a simple past (backshifted version of the simple present).

The problem I still have is that I'm not 100% sure if when you say something like "He thought his mother would understand why he was living in Japan only if she saw his life there with her own eyes," the fact that his mother would understand is always still relevant now. In other words, if Moses (some time before Christ) thought: "My mother would understand why I am living in Japan only if she saw my life there with her own eyes," would you report that as:
He thought his mother would understand why he was living in Japan only if she saw his life there with her own eyes, or as
He thought his mother would have understood why he was living in Japan only if she had seen his life there with her own eyes?

Heh...

Re: What is the form of ''be''? Is it Pres tense form, Past tense form, or ...

Yoong Liat — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:57:11 GMT

Jackson6612 wrote:

I don't think so. Base is form of verb is also called simple Present tense form. Now check the definition again.

The definition of be on my dictionary is:

be verb past 1st & 3rd sing was; 2nd sing were; pl were; past subjunctive were; past part been; pres part being; pres 1st sing am ; 2nd sing are; 3rd sing is.

'Be' verbs consist of is, am, was, are, were, been and being.

So, if you were asked to fill in the blank with the correct form of the verb, the questions could be as follows:

I ____ hungry. I want to eat now. (be)

I ____ hungry this morning. I ate two plates of fried noodles for breakfast. (be)

I hope this helps.

Re: What is the form of ''be''? Is it Pres tense form, Past tense form, or ...

Jackson6612 — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:55:33 GMT

I don't think so. Base is form of verb is also called simple Present tense form. Now check the definition again.

The definition of be on my dictionary is:

be verb past 1st & 3rd sing was; 2nd sing were; pl were; past subjunctive were; past part been; pres part being; pres 1st sing am ; 2nd sing are; 3rd sing is.