Mood extension to a 'that' subordinate clause

Question

I have been bugged by a particular aspect of English that I can't seem to get a good reference for an explanation. Basically, should the mood of a higher up clause always be extended to a 'that' dependent clause?

(NOTE: I use a terminology for moods that is non-standard, so I have added the canonical terms for the moods. Also, I use the term "proposition" not as a part of speech, but as a "logical proposition".)

Here's some examples:

imperative -> Go stand in the line that HAS / HAVE the fewest waiting.

mandative (subjunctive present) -> I decree the prisoner be put in a cell that HAS / HAVE no window.

irrealis optative (subjunctive past) -> I wish I were the type of man who HAD / HAS / WOULD HAVE a lot of money.

irrealis hypothetical (subjunctive past) -> If were a man who HAD / HAS / WOULD HAVE a lot of money, I would have a big house and a Ferrari.

irrealis resulant (conditional) mood -> If I were rich, I would want a car that WOULD GO / GOES / WENT fast.

It seems to me that for the imperative & mandative example, the mood is not extended, mainly because the action of state of being of the predicate argument that has the 'that' subordinate clause is still in the realis mood - which unless it itself is being given a directive (i.e., an imperative or mandative command itself), would simply be the regular indicative mood. None of the 2 examples here sound even remotely normal to me to extend the mood.

However, it seems that for the irrealis mood - in any of its forms - once the "mold has been set" and the overall action is within some sort of unreal situation, then anything referencing a predicate argument of that action is itself unreal, and hence would use an irrealis mood. But then the question becomes which exact irrealis mood. Iis the dependent clause itself a result of the irrealis proposition, and thus always irrealis resultant (i.e., conditional)? Or perhaps, the mood swings in the opposite direction and is always considered a proposition? Or perhaps just by the very fact that it is dependent, it loses all sense of irreality, and reverts back to realis (indicative)? I can't say definitely whether any of these 3 cases apply, as I find it quite rare that this is encountered (and even if it were encountered, that it would be done properly!)

So I would welcome any comments, what I really would like is a reference to some article by a very competent English linguist who discusses this broadly and in depth. Especially as an English teacher to foreign speakers, I find myself personally embarrassed by not being sure myself!

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

swampwizshould the mood of a higher up clause always be extended to a 'that' dependent clause?

I find that it is impossible to find the answer to this question with respect to any language! Not that I've done all the possible research on the subject. In any case I don't have any reference to send you to.

swampwizIt seems to me that for the imperative & mandative example, the mood is not extended

That's how it seems to me as well.
________________

As for the other examples, here is how I hear them:

I wish I were the type of man who HAD a lot of money.
If (I) were a man who HAD a lot of money, I would have a big house and a Ferrari.
If I were rich, I would want a car that WENT/GOES fast.

The relative clause in the first two examples refers to characteristics of the imagined entity, the "unreal" man. So I would not switch to HAS in those because I'm still describing the imagined thing. I think it sounds inconsistent, for example, to say If I were (i.e., I'm not, so I don't have) and then who has (I do have), even though I suppose there are counterarguments.

In the third example the relative clause refers to the object of the superordinate clause (car), so I would accept either the imaginary car (or the still-to-be-found car) that WENT fast or the real car (one I definitely have in mind) that GOES fast, or the real car (tense shifted to match "would") that WENT fast. You can see that two of these possibilities are conflated in the single choice WENT. Personally, I would go for the tense-shifted real car, even though you couldn't be sure that's what I meant by saying WENT.

All your suggestions with WOULD are out the question for me. They seem completely wrong.

Edit: On second thought, maybe WOULD GO in the last example doesn't strike me as so wrong as the others do.

CJ

Swampwiz · Answer

Thanks for giving my question a shot! You see - that last one is REALLY TRICKY! I think after reviewing your response, I am confident that the only real question here is what to do for that last one (i.e., irrealis hypothetical resultant, aka conditional). (I was pretty confident that the others are as you have confirmed.)

***

If I were rich, I would want a car that GOES fast.

Here the car could be considered as a generic car, not THE car that would only exist if the conditional proposition were true.

***

If I were rich, I would want a car that WENT fast.

Here the existence of the car is considered as part of the hypothetical proposition, which would be like saying

If I were rich and there were a car that went fast, I would want that car.

Somehow this doesn't seem to apply here.

***

If I were rich, I would want a car that WOULD GO fast.

Here the existence of the car is considered as a result of the hypothetical proposition - possibly it would be like saying

There is a car such that if I were rich, it would go fast, and I would want it.

This seems awkward to me, but I think I am not accurate in coming up with the equivalent sentence. Perhaps this doesn't seem to apply here either.

***

I guess in general it all depends on whether the existence of the superordinate predicate argument (i.e., I am allowing for the possibility that the subject could have a relative clause) having the relative clause is:

- not a part of, nor dependent on, the hypothetical proposition -> INDICIATIVE

- part of the hypothetical proposition -> IRREALIS HYPOTHETICAL PROPOSITION (SUBJUNCTIVE PAST)

- dependent on the hypothetical proposition -> HYPOTHETICAL RESULTANT (CONDITIONAL)

Mood extension to a 'that' subordinate clause

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions