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

Re: submit or submits?

Cool Breeze — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:57:49 GMT

dave_amateur

In resisting calls that he submit to the will of the elites by folding his government supported by humbler folk,
he is showing courage in defending a key pillar.

my question here is why should it be submit instead of submits?

Submit is a present subjunctive in the above sentence. As there are so few inflections in English, the present subjunctive is identical in form with the present infinitive! The subjunctive is used because something is asked or required of "him."

Another example:

I demand that he show his passport.

It is also possible to say: I demand that he should show his passport.

Actually, I demand that he shows his passport isn't wrong either. (Sometimes it's very difficult to make a mistake in English!)

Re: Britney Spears

Cool Breeze — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:57:08 GMT

Thanks for your comment, GG. I find English tremendously fascinating just because of all these exceptions, irregularities and oddities. And because there are so few inflections and verb forms, even educated people sometimes disagree on correct usage in cases that seem very clear to me. (The subjunctive is a good example.) Then I read their posts and realize that if I look at the matter from a British or American standpoint, maybe my choice isn't the only one I should think right.

CB

Re: Subjunctive?

Cool Breeze — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:45:57 GMT

Your sentences are not very good English as they contain grammatical mistakes. If I understand you right, you are asking whether need not + infinitive is a subjunctive. No, it isn't. Need in the present tense can be made negative in two ways:

1. He need not go there.
2. He doesn't need/have to go there.

In the first sentence need is an indicative present tense even though there is no third person singular inflection (s). In the second sentence does is in the present tense and need is a plain/bare infinitive, or an infinitive without to.

In the past tense we normally say:
He didn't need/have to go there.

CB

Re: will/would

Cool Breeze — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 09:41:17 GMT

New2grammar wrote:
So you are saying the 'if' usage does not automatically make a sentence subjunctive? Can you give me a couple of examples in different contexts where 'if' is not subjunctive?

Certainly, New2grammar:

1. I showed him some pictures yesterday. If he liked a picture, he would nod.
2. I used to take long walks in the evenings in those days but if I was tired, I just watched television.

An average English verb has only four forms written as one word (ask, asks, asking, asked) and therefore the indicative and subjunctive are often the same. This makes it easy for a learner but can result in ambiguity sometimes. You will have noticed that even native speakers argue on these forums about the meanings of, say, will or shall in some sentences.

In English, context is often of paramount importance. In many other languages that have more inflections, the meaning is clear and unambiguous without context. I am best familiar with my native language, Finnish. Just to say something in the indicative in the present tense in all the six grammatical persons (I, you, he, we, you, they), 13 different forms of the verb are needed. Another 13 verb forms are needed for the past tense etc. Consequently the problem discussed in this thread couldn't arise in Finnish.

Cheers
CB

Re: Is this the subjunctive?

Pioussoul — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:40:33 GMT

Inchoateknowledge wrote:

do we drop the '-s' inflection in conditional mood? NO

quod erat demonstrandum

Mind you: it's a poem we're addressing, and it owns poetic liscense.

Re: Is this the subjunctive?

Inchoateknowledge — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:32:58 GMT

do we drop the '-s' inflection in conditional mood? NO

quod erat demonstrandum

Re: legal case

nona the brit — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:38:49 GMT

She has been suffering from mental disorder since she was born. No. 'post-partum' means after the birth of her children, not her own birth. She has a history of post-natal depression. She has been hospitalised for this but it doesn't necessarily mean many times. She might have only been in hospital once (but I agree that it does imply more than once).

her proposes that the consideration of her possible death penalty should be abandoned, provided she withdraw (subjunctive -- no 's' inflection in withdraw) the plea of insanity.The text says the seriousness of the murder should be mitigated in case Jane Doe claims she is sane.

You've not quite followed their meaning.

One possible sentence for murder is the death penalty. There are other penalties.

She will be tried with murder whatever her plea. Everyone gets to plea guilty or not guilty, or they can plea guilty but not really responsible for their actions due to insanity. If she pleads guilty but insane, she probably wouldn't be sentenced to death. The attorney does not believe that she is insane, but just making that plea to avoid the death penalty. therefore, he is saying 'we'll make a deal. You save us all the time and trouble of a long and expensive court case trying to decide if you are insane or not. If you just admit you are sane and guilty, I'll agree that you still won't be sentenced to death, just imprisonment.'

hospitalization, yet the . This 'yet' shows that the writer finds this unreasonable as he/she believes that the woman has a history of mental illness so quite possibly did commit the murders while insane, and should therefore be able to plead guity but insane. (and get a lesser punishment).

The text says the seriousness of the murder should be mitigated in case Jane Doe claims she is sane. No this is not what it means. They are not mitigating the seriousness of the murder itself, but saying that she should not be held as responsible for it as a sane person would. They know that the case will be treated less severely if she is found insane. If she agrees to remove her defence of insanity she will be treated less severely than if she had not tried to claim insanity in the first place (to encourage her to drop this claim). But it will still be more severely than if she were to stick to her plea of insanity and be found insane.

not: the seriousness of the murder should be mitigated in case Jane Doe claims she is sane (the in case part here doesn't make sense by the way, but I know what you mean).

but rather: the seriousness of the punishment should be mitigated to make Jane Doe admit she is sane.

legal case

Inchoateknowledge — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:19:06 GMT

"Andrea Yates, the Texas mother charged with the murder of her five children, has a documented history of postpartum depression and psychiatric hospitalization, yet the district attorney prosecuting her case recently offered to take a possible death penalty off the table if she would withdraw her insanity plea."

My interpretation:

Andrea Yates murdered all her 5 children. She has been suffering from mental disorder since she was born and , for this reason, has been in hospital many times.

The district attorney instituting the legal proceedings against her proposes that the consideration of her possible death penalty should be abandoned, provided she withdraw (subjunctive -- no 's' inflection in withdraw) the plea of insanity.

Is this not odd?

The text says the seriousness of the murder should be mitigated in case Jane Doe claims she is sane.

If she is sane, then she was fully aware of the seriousness of the crime she commited.

It is hardly any mitigating circuimstance.

What is you understanding of this?

Thanks

PS: Are there any grammatical mistakes in the blue part?

Re: subjunctive after adjectives

Inchoateknowledge — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:50:23 GMT

In those cases where subjunctive inflection is allowed, indicative inflection is allowed too.

Re: subjunctive past

Cool Breeze — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:34:22 GMT

Alienvoord wrote:
Does English even have a past subjunctive? It was agreed six months ago that the house, come what may, was to be decorated inside and out before the end of June. "was" is identical in form to the simple past. So why do some people call it the past subjunctive?

Hi Alienvoord

In traditional grammar, which is the only grammar I am acquainted with to some extent, there are three subjunctives in English.

The present subjunctive: Long live the Queen!
The past subjunctive: If I were rich, I would buy it. (In informal style: If I was rich, I would buy it.)
The past perfect subjunctive: If I had been rich, I would have bought it.

I am sure they are called other names by many grammarians, and to my mind labels are unimportant. There are so few inflections left in English that the indicative, subjunctive and even imperative are often the same in form! That's one of the reasons English grammar is so easy.

Cheers
CB