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

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: Suggest + "not do" - verb pattern

CalifJim — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:34:30 GMT

For suggest as give advice:

I [suggest / advise] (that) he do something. (affirmative pattern)

I [suggest / advise] (that) he not do something. (negative pattern)

But suggest also means bring to mind, and this is the meaning in your example sentences, so the grammatical structures for 'advisory' suggest don't apply. Issues of availability cannot give advice! So all you need is a that clause or a noun -- without any of those subjunctives!

Issues of availability ... suggested that members of the scientific committee might not need to be interviewed.

Issues of availability ... suggested a course of action in which members of the scientific community would not need to be interviewed.

Issues of availability ... suggested a research methodology by which interviews with members of the scientific community could be avoided.

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: would prefer

CalifJim — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:21:55 GMT

Subjunctive.

to be:

Present affirmative:

I be / you be / he, she, it be / we be / you be / they be

Present negative:

I not be / you not be / he, she, it not be / we not be / you not be / they not be

Past affirmative (negative):

I were (not) / you were (not) / he, she, it were (not) / we were (not) / you were (not) / they were (not)

to come:

Present affirmative:

I come / you come / he, she, it come / we come / you come / they come

Present negative:

I not come / you not come / he, she, it not come / we not come / you not come / they not come

Past affirmative:

I came / you came / he, she, it came / we came / you came / they came

Past negative:

I didn't come / you didn't come / he, she, it didn't come / we didn't come / you didn't come / they didn't come

_______

You can use any subjunctive after would rather or would prefer.

I would [rather / prefer] (that) he [go / not go / went / didn't go] to meet Mr. Brown.

I would [rather / prefer] (that) my husband [come / not come / came / did not come] with me for a holiday.

The Pentagon would [rather / prefer] (that) the plan [be / not be / were / were not] considered together with war funding.

He would [rather / prefer] (that) she [stop / stopped] calling him "Pacman".

___

I have no scientific evidence for it, but I believe the present subjunctive tenses occur more often with prefer, and the past subjunctive tenses occur more often with rather. Nevertheless, you will hear these in various combinations almost indiscriminately.

Use of the subjunctive after "would rather"

MarvinTheMartian — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:49:51 GMT

I seem to have noticed that, when the object is not a person, "would rather" is often followed by the subjunctive mood instead of the simple past or the pluperfect. For instance, we say "I'd rather you joined me", but I rarely see: "I'd rather the meeting was canceled". Am I right in thinking that it would be better in this case to say: "I'd rather the meeting be canceled". How about the following sentences?

- "I'd rather the appointment be rescheduled."

- "I'd rather the meeting take place (or would take place) tomorrow"

- "If there's going to be a crisis, I'd rather it happen now than later."

Supposing that I'm right, what happens in the negative form? Should one say: "I'd rather the meeting didn't take place" or "I'd rather the meeting not take place (or wouldn't take place)"?

Re: What's the meaning of this sentence?

Anonymous — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:09:04 GMT

I think NO. It is a subjunctive tense form--which simply means hypothetical. For example: If it rains tomorrow, I should wear a hat, does not mean it will or won't rain. While your senence has the feel of the negative, it does not state it.

mr steve

Re: She likes to act as if she were the boss.

Anonymous — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:30:12 GMT

Hello Agnliholic. The use of the subjunctive ("as if she were") adds emphasis to one of the meanings of "act" (theater, stage = pretend). So yes, it could be pretend in the sentence with the following consequences: the reader could easily imagine "pretend compliance" with the commands of our pretending manager. In other words the sentence would be viewed as a negative evaluation of the worker's effectiveness. Other results: In some work cultures bosses get to raise their voices at and sometimes discipline their workers. Are these the devices (raised voice and meting out of discipline) which our "actor" is employing to "pretend"? Does the worker delegate the work efficiently? Efficient delegation is an "act" that a successful manager would employ. We could go on all day with possible "acts." Hope this helped.

Re: imperative vs. subjunctive

Yankee — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 05:41:53 GMT

Hi Anon

Your negative subjunctive looks good to me.

Re: is 'if' omitted here?

SimpleHearted — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:11:58 GMT

Loojka wrote:

Both can be correct, depending on what you're trying to say.
I would give anything that she 'asked' me to. - I would give anything that she wanted me to.
I would give anything if she asked me to. (condition emphasized) I would not give anything, unless she asked me to.

This explanation of mine seems a bit confusing to me now

Quite confusing it really is, I agree (no hard feelings, of course ), but I must also object that your explanation isn't quite correct either!

I was long ago taught that, if I were to express a so called "subjunctive condition" (i.e. the one with "implied negative"), I should always use should/would in the principal clause, and the simple past tense in the conditional (if) clause.

So, the meaning of:
I would give anything if she asked me to. (the one and only correct form!)
is:
"I would really like to give her anything she could possibly want! The sole 'problemo' is that she doesn't ask me to give it to her!"

On the other hand, the sentence:
I would give anything that she asked me to.
is IMHO grammatically impossible and totally incorrect! It could only mean:
I will give her anything (that) she asks for!
but, then, it should be written exactly like that!

Re: requisite for a subjunctive structure

CalifJim — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:10:15 GMT

I do see your point, though. You have a situation with two features that are problematic: a negative condition and a mixed conditional. That is, the if clause has a not and is in past time, and the main clause is in present time. These didn't for hadn't substitutes are more likely to occur in these patterns. I think. (I'll have to think about it some more.)

CJ