0
Hela Posted 21 years ago
Grammar
In case
Dear teachers,
Would you please tell me if we always need the subjunctive after "in case". Which of the following sentences are correct? Do they have the same meaning?
1) a) Take an umbrella in case it RAINS. (indicative ?)
b) Take an umbrella in case it SHOULD RAIN. (hypothetical occurrence = subjunctive ?)
c) Take an umbrella in case it RAINED. (correct ?)
2) a) Let’s stay at home in case Granny SHOULD DECIDE to come.
(hypothetical = subjunctive ?)
b) I took my violin in case I SHOULD HAVE a chance to play.
Thank you very much for your help.
Hela
Would you please tell me if we always need the subjunctive after "in case". Which of the following sentences are correct? Do they have the same meaning?
1) a) Take an umbrella in case it RAINS. (indicative ?)
b) Take an umbrella in case it SHOULD RAIN. (hypothetical occurrence = subjunctive ?)
c) Take an umbrella in case it RAINED. (correct ?)
2) a) Let’s stay at home in case Granny SHOULD DECIDE to come.
(hypothetical = subjunctive ?)
b) I took my violin in case I SHOULD HAVE a chance to play.
Thank you very much for your help.
Hela
Top answer
We've done this before, Hela-- none of your sentences is subjunctive: I. There are two forms of the subjunctive, called present and past . -- The present subjunctive in all persons is 'be' for the verb 'to be', and the base form for all other verbs.
- We've done this before, Hela-- none of your sentences is subjunctive: I.
- There are two forms of the subjunctive, called present and past .
- -- The present subjunctive in all persons is 'be' for the verb 'to be', and the base form for all other verbs.
- Thus: ---- They demand (that) I be quiet.
- ---- They demanded (that) I be quiet.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
23 Answers
0
We've done this before, Hela-- none of your sentences is subjunctive:
I. There are two forms of the subjunctive, called present and past.
-- The present subjunctive in all persons is 'be' for the verb 'to be', and the base form for all other verbs. Thus:
---- They demand (that) I be quiet.
---- They demanded (that) I be qui
I. There are two forms of the subjunctive, called present and past.
-- The present subjunctive in all persons is 'be' for the verb 'to be', and the base form for all other verbs. Thus:
---- They demand (that) I be quiet.
---- They demanded (that) I be qui
00
Hello MM
Please help me to confirm my understanding about the "should" conditional you mentioned.
(indicative) "Take an umbrella in case it rains." ....says Speaker A
(shoud con.) "Take an umbrella in case it should rain.".....says Speaker B
Let:
Pi(R)=the likelihood of raining the speaker A is supposing.
Ps(R)=the like
Please help me to confirm my understanding about the "should" conditional you mentioned.
(indicative) "Take an umbrella in case it rains." ....says Speaker A
(shoud con.) "Take an umbrella in case it should rain.".....says Speaker B
Let:
Pi(R)=the likelihood of raining the speaker A is supposing.
Ps(R)=the like
00
Hi Paco,
I am curious too-- can you quantify your L1 in this way? English stubbornly resists such mathematics, as it relies far too much on nonverbal cues and context. There are a few exceptions, such as the adverbs of frequency, which grammarians love to show off in a neat, ordered range from 'never' to 'always'-- but assigning percentages to them is an exercise in futility.
I am curious too-- can you quantify your L1 in this way? English stubbornly resists such mathematics, as it relies far too much on nonverbal cues and context. There are a few exceptions, such as the adverbs of frequency, which grammarians love to show off in a neat, ordered range from 'never' to 'always'-- but assigning percentages to them is an exercise in futility.
00
Hello MM again!
Oh sorry. I had no intention to rack you by math expressions. But we use an idiomatic adverbial phrase "at a likelihood of one per ten million" (man ga ichi ni) to say our expectation about any future event when we think the likelihood is much lower than normal. And I was told in school we had to translate the "should" conditional sentence into Japanese using the
Oh sorry. I had no intention to rack you by math expressions. But we use an idiomatic adverbial phrase "at a likelihood of one per ten million" (man ga ichi ni) to say our expectation about any future event when we think the likelihood is much lower than normal. And I was told in school we had to translate the "should" conditional sentence into Japanese using the
00
Our equivalent of man ga ichi ni is pretty much the same: 'She is so ugly that she has only a one-in-a-million chance of getting married'.
The simple 'if it should' is not nearly so extreme, it just reflects the unknown future.
The simple 'if it should' is not nearly so extreme, it just reflects the unknown future.
00
Hello Mr M!
I'm sorry to trouble you but I'm still sticking to "should conditional".
What is the difference in meaning or in speaker's attitude among the following four?
(1) If it rains tomorrow, the picnic will be ruined.
(2) If it should rain tomorrow
The simple 'if it should' is not nearly so extreme, it just reflects the unknown future.
I'm sorry to trouble you but I'm still sticking to "should conditional".
What is the difference in meaning or in speaker's attitude among the following four?
(1) If it rains tomorrow, the picnic will be ruined.
(2) If it should rain tomorrow
00
No trouble; that's why we are all here: to talk about these things. I will stick to your question, though--
'What is the difference in meaning or in speaker's attitude among the following four?'
Pragmatically (i.e. within the presumed context-- two acquaintances readying their themoses and insect repellent), no difference. The speaker doesn't know whether it will rain (who d
'What is the difference in meaning or in speaker's attitude among the following four?'
Pragmatically (i.e. within the presumed context-- two acquaintances readying their themoses and insect repellent), no difference. The speaker doesn't know whether it will rain (who d
00
Mr M
Thank you for the reply.
I'm afraid the previous example would be inadequate in the context to contrast the four constructs.
(1) If that kind of tsunami comes to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will be devastated.
(2) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will be devastated.
(3) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorr
Thank you for the reply.
I'm afraid the previous example would be inadequate in the context to contrast the four constructs.
(1) If that kind of tsunami comes to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will be devastated.
(2) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will be devastated.
(3) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorr
00
Hmm, interesting-- these seem even more identical than the first set, Paco. I think it is because the situation presented is more realistic (are tsunamis more realistic than picnics?)-- well, more immediate to my knowledge and consideration, so that I as listener do not analyze the speaker's grammar at all. I and speaker both have a very high awareness of tsunamis and their probabilities of occu
00
I'm afraid the previous example would be inadequate in the context to contrast the four constructs.
(1) If that kind of tsunami comes to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will be devastated.
(2) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will be devastated.
(3) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo would be devastated.
(4) If t
(1) If that kind of tsunami comes to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will be devastated.
(2) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo will be devastated.
(3) If that kind of tsunami should come to Japan tomorrow, Tokyo would be devastated.
(4) If t
0
Related Questions