Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Benji]

Great idea!

"If I WERE you, I would

Save The Subjunctive!" 

I'm sorry to break the news but Beyonce already has this covered.

[Scarpia]

Great idea!

"If I WERE you, I would

Save The Subjunctive!" 

In English, I don't find the subjunctive worth saving.   "I was there," "you were there," but "if I were there."  It is not a recognizable tense in English, we're just supposed to pick up that the apparently mis-conjugated verb means "subjunctive."  It makes sense in Latinate languages that have a real subjunctive tense.  If, 100 years from now, it were forgotten, that would be fine, in my opinion.

(Donning flame-proof suit.)

[karlhenning]

Be that as it may, the subjunctive will continue to exist in the literature. There are limits to the "tidying" process of English grammar over time. ("The eons are closing!")

[Scarpia]

Be that as it may, the subjunctive will continue to exist in the literature. There are limits to the "tidying" process of English grammar over time. ("The eons are closing!")

Thou art absolutely correct.

[karlhenning]

I durst not suggest otherwise.

[Cato]

In English, I don't find the subjunctive worth saving.   "I was there," "you were there," but "if I were there."  It is not a recognizable tense in English, we're just supposed to pick up that the apparently mis-conjugated verb means "subjunctive."  It makes sense in Latinate languages that have a real subjunctive tense.  If, 100 years from now, it were forgotten, that would be fine, in my opinion.

(Donning flame-proof suit.)

Indeed!   

The subjunctive is a most recognizable "mood" in English: "were" in "If he were here right now..." is obviously Present Subjunctive Singular, NOT a Past Indicative Plural, which it normally is.

"If I knew where he is staying in London, I would call his hotel."

"Knew" in the if-clause is NOT a Past Indicative, but a Present Subjunctive.

Also:
The subjunctive "were" is not Latinate, but related to German's subjunctive  "wäre."

[Cato]

Addendum: the importance of the subjunctive is something to be considered.

The subjunctive allows us to think of potential events which will not happen, or did not happen.  It allows us to postulate.

"If he were at the theater, he would be sleeping through the play."
(Subjunctive Contrary-to-Fact Condition Present Tense: he is not at the theater, but you assume he would be bored and sleeping if he were there.)

"If he was at the theater, he slept through the play."

(A Past True Condition: you do not know if he was at the theater or not last night:  the odds are 50/50.  But you are positive that he slept through the play, if he was there.)

Exactly how you think about potential pasts, presents, and futures without the subjunctive is obscure: "would" (a subjunctive form) is used quite often in English!  Keeping the distinctions clear allows for clarity of thought.

[Scarpia]

Addendum: the importance of the subjunctive is something to be considered.

The subjunctive allows us to think of potential events which will not happen, or did not happen.  It allows us to postulate.

"If he were at the theater, he would be sleeping through the play."
(Subjunctive Contrary-to-Fact Condition Present Tense: he is not at the theater, but you assume he would be bored and sleeping if he were there.)

"If he was at the theater, he slept through the play."

(A Past True Condition: you do not know if he was at the theater or not last night:  the odds are 50/50.  But you are positive that he slept through the play, if he was there.)

Exactly how you think about potential pasts, presents, and futures without the subjunctive is obscure: "would" (a subjunctive form) is used quite often in English!  Keeping the distinctions clear allows for clarity of thought.

I'm not saying there is no need for the subjunctive.  It's too bad English doesn't have one, and that any verb tense more complicated than a simple present or future tense consists of obscure combinations of nominally incompatible verb tenses. 

For your example "If he were at the theater, he would be sleeping through the play." one could say "If he had come to the theater, he would be sleeping through the play."   The same meaning, no?

[greg]

I just saw a pamphlet with notes about the Florida Gators explaining about the turf they use and the construction of the stadium.
I forgot the sentence, but it was basically two sentences separated by a comma. What happen to the semi-colon? 
Oh, well. 

[Cato]

I'm not saying there is no need for the subjunctive.  It's too bad English doesn't have one, and that any verb tense more complicated than a simple present or future tense consists of obscure combinations of nominally incompatible verb tenses. 

For your example "If he were at the theater, he would be sleeping through the play." one could say "If he had come to the theater, he would be sleeping through the play."   The same meaning, no?

No, not quite the same meaning because of the mixed times.  "Had come" in your example is in fact Past Subjunctive with a Present Subjunctive in the result clause.  It means therefore if he had arrived (much earlier) at the theater, he would right now be there sleeping.

"If he had come to the theater, he would have slept through the play" postulates a completely past event, which never happened, with however no extension into the present.

[Sonata33]

I love hypercorrections, and I am not leaving this thread disappointed. 

[Chosen Barley]

Re:  "If he were at the theater, he would be sleeping through the play."

Why not just say, "If he were at the theater, he would sleep through the play"?

Doesn't this all hinge on just what precisely is going on here?  We have to know who is discussing what, and why. 

Is the speaker talking about a person's general behaviour, or about a specific attendance at the theater? 

In the 1st instance, he goes to the theater involuntarily, and hates it; in the 2nd, he may love going to the theater, but in this case he arrived there in a debilitated condition and would definitely sleep through the play.

Anyway, back to discussion of 'was' and 'were'.  I think some of you are confusing subjunctive with conditional.  'Taint the same. 

"If I were you I would save the subjunctive" was posted on the previous page.  But as I see it - and apparently there is much discussion & disagreement about this in the World of Grammar - that is not the subjunctive.  The subjunctive version is:  Were I you, I would save the subjunctive.

Whether you be in agreement or not to  my viewpoint, I welcome your input.

Even if you don't agree with me, I welcome your input.

[Cato]

Re:  "If he were at the theater, he would be sleeping through the play."

Why not just say, "If he were at the theater, he would sleep through the play"?


Is the speaker talking about a person's general behaviour, or about a specific attendance at the theater? 

In the 1st instance, he goes to the theater involuntarily, and hates it; in the 2nd, he may love going to the theater, but in this case he arrived there in a debilitated condition and would definitely sleep through the play.

Anyway, back to discussion of 'was' and 'were'.  I think some of you are confusing subjunctive with conditional.  'Taint the same. 

"If I were you I would save the subjunctive" was posted on the previous page.  But as I see it - and apparently there is much discussion & disagreement about this in the World of Grammar - that is not the subjunctive.  The subjunctive version is:  Were I you, I would save the subjunctive.

Whether you be in agreement or not to  my viewpoint, I welcome your input.

Even if you don't agree with me, I welcome your input.

0:)  Thank you!  Some foreign language grammar books avoid using the word "subjunctive" and have replaced it with the word "conditional" to emphasize that the (subjunctive) forms are used in conditions contrary-to-fact.


"...would sleep" and "would be sleeping" are different only in that the latter is progressive.  One might need more context to determine which might sound better.


"Were I you" = "If I were you..." : only the word "if" is dropped.  Both are conditions using the subjunctive.   German has the same rule: subjunctive verb first if the word "if" is not used.

[Cato]

Prepare for a REAL GRUMBLE!   

The following has been annoying me for a very long time: tonight I happen to have heard the crime against sensible pronunciation while my computer was ready!

There are national ads in America for realtors: "Call a realtor!  Don't sell your house on your own!"

The problem is the absolutely bizarre pronunciation of "realtor" heard in the ad.

One hears: Ree-Awl-TORE !!! 

Since when is the suffix -tor pronounced TORE???

Aviator?  Who says aviaTORE?

Prosecutor?  ProsecuTORE?

To be sure, there are people who say "ree-la-tor" and switch the middle letters around.  I find that better than saying -TORE at the end of the word.

There!  The grumble is over!      And I feel fine!   0:)

[Cato]

Prepare for a REAL GRUMBLE!   

The following has been annoying me for a very long time: tonight I happen to have heard the crime against sensible pronunciation while my computer was ready!

There are national ads in America for realtors: "Call a realtor!  Don't sell your house on your own!"

The problem is the absolutely bizarre pronunciation of "realtor" heard in the ad.

One hears: Ree-Awl-TORE !!! 

Since when is the suffix -tor pronounced TORE???

Aviator?  Who says aviaTORE?

Prosecutor?  ProsecuTORE?

To be sure, there are people who say "ree-la-tor" and switch the middle letters around.  I find that better than saying -TORE at the end of the word.

There!  The grumble is over!      And I feel fine!   0:)

Merriam-Webster offers this:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?realto01.wav=Realtor%27

[DavidRoss]

Dude!  It's Jackie Chan!

[Cato]

Dude!  It's Jackie Chan!

Truly difficult to mispronounce that! 

However, I do have a few students who could "mispronunciate" it quite easily!   0:) 

[greg]

Truly difficult to mispronounce that! 

However, I do have a few students who could "mispronunciate" it quite easily!   0:)

Well, at least our pronunciation. The original might involve a use of a tone, and I wonder if the "a" is even pronounced the same way... 

[Cato]

Well, at least our pronunciation. The original might involve a use of a tone, and I wonder if the "a" is even pronounced the same way... 

Probably true: my daughter studied Chinese for some years, and I recall there being (at least on the beginning level I listened to) 4 pronunciations of "A," and the usual "Apple" pronunciation was not one of them.

[karlhenning]

Aye, that's a most Anglo-Saxon use of the vowel A.

Just the thought of the A's in Anglo-Saxon being pronounced as in father, grateth.