Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Ken B]

Hm.

I'm sure it's a matter of definition, but no source I've found considers the "modal auxiliary + infinitive" construction to be subjunctive. In fact, the former is often explicitly presented as an alternative to the latter:

https://books.google.com/books?id=0P5O5rHzKdYC&pg=PA107
https://books.google.com/books?id=pqEgAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA51
https://books.google.com/books?id=ryasAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA118
https://books.google.com/books?id=77a-RZUsgHkC&pg=PA14-IA20

But your confidence has me curious, Cato—were you taught otherwise?

Hmm. 

I looked only at the p51 link, but it is exactly on point, and supports Cato's postion. Suggest that he study, demand that she sing.

Also, the infinitive in English is a squirmy beast, not really the same as in Latin or German, but is usually considered to include "to". Otherwise split infinitives are not possible after all. Cato did not present a modal plus infinitive construction. That would be "suggest that he should to study. "

Formal grammar is little taught in English class in school (for native speakers), and I wish we had had more,  but Cato's understanding matches what I was taught many moons ago.

[aquablob]

No, Ken. All four of those links explicitly differentiate modal+infinitive from subjunctive. As did Fowler, by the way: http://www.ceafinney.com/subjunctive/excerpts.html#Fowler1926

The infinitive need not include "to," as its use after auxiliaries proves.

[aquablob]

Oh, I see the confusion here, Ken. Look back at Cato's post on the subjunctive. I was questioning the "would" and "should" examples he gave.

[Ken B]

No, Ken. All four of those links explicitly differentiate modal+infinitive from subjunctive. As did Fowler, by the way: http://www.ceafinney.com/subjunctive/excerpts.html#Fowler1926

The infinitive need not include "to," as its use after auxiliaries proves.

So where is the modal in "suggest that he study"?

Fowler's stipulation. In fact his wording, "the subjunctives here to be considered 1) exclude those" means that those ARE subjunctives. He is not saying "those" are not subjunctives. He is saying he is excluding "those" from the following remarks. If I wanted to insult all Americans except those from Ohio or with red hair I might begin "The Americans here to be considered 1) exclude those from Ohio". I have not denied Ohioans are Americans.

[Ken B]

Oh, I see the confusion here, Ken. Look back at Cato's post on the subjunctive. I was questioning the "would" and "should" examples he gave.

Well, I think, as does Fowler imply  that those are subjunctive too. See previous comment.  But if you mean simply that the modal-less subjunctive is fading, then yes it is.

[aquablob]

There's no auxiliary in "suggest that he study"—that's subjunctive. We agree on that.

But, according to every grammar I can find, there's no subjunctive in "suggest that he should study"—that's modal auxiliary + infinitive.

And I think you're mistaken about what Fowler is saying there. From The King's English:

We have purposely refrained until now from invoking the subjunctive, because the word is almost meaningless to Englishmen, the thing having so nearly perished. But on this instance it must be remarked that when conjunctions like lest, which could once or still can take a subjunctive (as lest he die), use a compound form instead, they use the Sh. forms [should or shall] for all persons.

[Cato]

There's no auxiliary in "suggest that he study"—that's subjunctive. We agree on that.

But, according to every grammar I can find, there's no subjunctive in "suggest that he should study"—that's modal auxiliary + infinitive.

And I think you're mistaken about what Fowler is saying there. From The King's English:

Modals are part of the Subjunctive: the mood deals with things that are not real, that are possibilities, or never happened.  e.g. "It should rain today" is not a guarantee or description of any reality.

My Random House Dictionary says "should" is indeed Subjunctive.

What we have are people redefining things that should (note the Subjunctive) be left alone (Fact: they are NOT being left alone).

[aquablob]

Modals are part of the Subjunctive: the mood deals with things that are not real, that are possibilities, or never happened.  e.g. "It should rain today" is not a guarantee or description of any reality.

My Random House Dictionary says "should" is indeed Subjunctive.

What we have are people redefining things that should (note the Subjunctive) be left alone (Fact: they are NOT being left alone).

Thanks for the Random House info. They do seem to be in the minority, though, as every source I've checked (including old ones like Fowler) indicates otherwise. In any case, the subjunctive certainly isn't dead!

[North Star]

In any case, the subjunctive certainly isn't dead!

Indeed not - and it doesn't even smell funny.

[Cato]

Thanks for the Random House info. They do seem to be in the minority, though, as every source I've checked (including old ones like Fowler) indicates otherwise. In any case, the subjunctive certainly isn't dead!

Indeed not - and it doesn't even smell funny.

Amen, Brothers!   0:)   

[aquablob]

But out of curiosity, Cato: is your Random House information the same as the usage note that appears in Dictionary.com's entry for should? It reads, in part:

Because the main function of should in modern American English is to express duty, necessity, etc. (You should get your flu shot before winter comes), its use for other purposes, as to form a subjunctive, can produce ambiguity, at least initially: "I should get my flu shot if I were you."

I ask because I think the subjunctive they refer to in that last sample sentence isn't get, but rather were—and so the situation isn't parallel to the modal-auxiliary examples you originally gave.

And just to complicate things: there's a preference in recent scholarship to define that kind of were as "irrealis" (i.e., not subjunctive at all). See https://books.google.com/books?id=qlxDqB4ldx4C&pg=PA58

[Ken B]

Modals are part of the Subjunctive: the mood deals with things that are not real, that are possibilities, or never happened.  e.g. "It should rain today" is not a guarantee or description of any reality.

My Random House Dictionary says "should" is indeed Subjunctive.

What we have are people redefining things that should (note the Subjunctive) be left alone (Fact: they are NOT being left alone).

I should think so. Older readers will recognize that sentence as subjunctive. It is clearer in counterfactuals: I should not have thought it of Cato to misspell "theatre" but I would have thought it of Joe Biden, as less careful writer. Note the would/should difference.  English commonly uses modals as part of the subjunctive declension; the mood is still subjunctive and indicated by the declension. 

Modals in English are a squishy mess overall. They cannot be consistently declined through all tenses but are incomplete; they are irregular; they are pressed into service for many purposes. Their redeeming charm lies in the perplexity they cause the French. "Confusion to the French" as Hornblower would say.

[Karl Henning]

Lest the subjunctive smell funny . . . .

[aquablob]

Well, the important thing is that we're all competent users of modals and subjunctives in practice, right? So some of you subscribe to, er, idiosyncratic definitions. No biggie. Certainly doesn't bother me...

[Ken B]

Well, the important thing is that we're all competent users of modals and subjunctives in practice, right? So some of you subscribe to, er, idiosyncratic definitions. No biggie. Certainly doesn't bother me...

I should think be surprised if we could not. 

Note that I am not suggesting I have a moral obligation to think not, indicating the modal is being used as part of a larger construction, in this case the subjunctive form ...

[aquablob]

So be it.

[Ken B]

Sent by my better half. (I made a couple modest changes)

.. When fish are in schools, they sometimes take debate.

.. A thief who stole a calendar got twelve months.

.. When the smog lifts in Los Angeles U.C.L.A.

.. The batteries were given out free of charge.

.. A dentist and a manicurist married. They fought tooth and nail.

.. A will is a dead giveaway.

.. With her marriage, she got a new name and a dress.

.. A boiled egg is hard to beat.

.. When you've seen one shopping center you've seen a mall.

.. Police were summoned to a daycare center where a three-year-old was resisting a rest.

.. Did you hear about the fellow whose entire left side was cut off? He's all right now.

.. A bicycle can't stand alone; it's just two tired.

.. When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds.

.. The guy who fell onto an upholstery machine is now fully recovered.

.. He had a photographic memory which was never developed.

.. When she saw her first strands of grey hair she thought she'd dye.

.. Acupuncture is a jab well done. That's the point of it.

.. Those who get too big for their britches will be exposed in the end.

[Cato]

Wocka Wocka!

Worthy of Fozzie Bear at least !   

I do believe some of those were told by the troops at Valley Forge!   

[Cato]

Our school has been collecting "good deeds" for Saint Valentine's Day.  If a homeroom has 100 good deeds, which the students have written down on paper hearts, then they can wear regular clothes, rather than the school uniform.

Some interesting good deeds grammatically and in other ways:

"I helped a friend who fell up."   

Apparently our school is subject to occasional waves of anti-gravity!

I helped farther Christians food so he could go. 

I believe this is supposed to be: "I helped (with) Father Christian's food, so he could go."  (Still rather obscure!)

Not to be forgotten:

I brought Sundays to the elderly!

And here I thought Father Time did that!   

[Ken B]

Cato

regular clothes, rather than the school uniform

I thought uniforms were regular clothes.



reg·u·lar
ˈreɡyələr/
adjective
1.
arranged in or constituting a constant or definite pattern, especially with the same space between individual instances.