Pleased

Question

I am happy to dance with you.
I am happy to be dancing with you.

In which case am I dancing right now, and in which case is it possible that we are not dancing right now but are supposed to dance with eachother later?

MountainHiker · Accepted Answer

<> dancing now.

<> You might say this if you have just agreed to dance with someone and are on the way to the dance floor.

But if you plan to dance later...you might say....

I would be happy to dance with you. (I think that is a subjunctive sentence.)

I am not dancing with you NOW, but I *** be happy to dance with you later.

Hope that helps.

Miriam · Answer

Hello

You can use either sentence at the moment when you are actually dancing. The second, however, is more specific.

"I am happy to be dancing with you" cannot be used to refer to the future.
And I'm not sure "I am happy to dance with you" can refer to the future either.

If you wish to refer to the future, the following may be useful:
A. "I will be happy to dance with you (at the party next Saturday)."
B. "I would be happy to dance with you (at the party next Saturday)."

In "A", the person you are talking to may or may not have already agreed to dance with you.
"B" is more a request or an invitation (the tense used in the prefect conditional, this is not an sentence in the subjunctive mood).

Miriam

Taiwandave · Answer

Miriam: what's the perfect conditional, and how does it differ from and relate to the subjunctive mood? It seems that sentences beginning in the subjunctive mood have a perfect conditional "tail", as in:

If I were you I would be happy to dance with him.

I'm also curious about any possible tie-in to the perfect infinitive, as in a sentence like:

If you had been there you would have been happy to dance with him.

I'm sure a lot of readers would love to see this topic explained clearly -- thanks!

MountainHiker · Answer

taiwandave,

I would be happy to dance with you. (I think that is a subjunctive sentence.)

I think Miriam is correct in that it is not a subjunctive.

But if we use your sentence,

If I were you I would be happy to dance with him.

then I believe it is a subjunctive.

Looking at [url="http://grammar.englishclub.com/verbs-subjunctive.htm"]English grammar website[/url] we note that....

We use subjunctives mainly when talking about events that are not certain to happen. For example, we use the subjunctive when talking about events that somebody:

* wants to happen
* hopes will happen
* imagines happening

Look at these examples:

* The President requests that you be present at the meeting.
* It is vital that you be present at the meeting.
* If you were at the meeting, the President would be happy.

Taiwandave · Answer

I don't doubt that Miriam is correct. I was asking her for more information because I'd never heard of the perfect conditional and I would like to learn about it.

MountainHiker · Answer

taiwandave,

You might want to look [url="http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/IF6.cfm"]here[/url] or [url="http://www.xtec.es/~vfeliu/gram/et.htm"]here[/url] or [url="http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/conditional-perfect.html"]here[/url] for starters. I am sure Miriam can provide a more complete description.

Quoting from the last reference:

It is used in the 3rd Conditional to talk about imaginary situations in the past: eg: If she'd seen the advert, she would have applied for the job.

Miriam · Answer

Hello, Dave

would + base form of verb = simple conditional

would + have + past participle = perfect conditional

I don't know those by any other names, but of course it is probable that there may be authors who may give those different names.
In my mother tongue, the "conditional" used to be considered a "mood" some time ago, but later on the two tenses were made part of the "indicative" mood. Long ago, it was also called "modo potencial" ~~which is a name I still like~~ because the two forms at the beginning of this post (rather, their Spanish equivalents) were/are used to refer to some the "potentiality" of the occurrence of a certain event.
In this topic in particular, there is no difference between Spanish and English. In English, both tenses are also used to refer to the "potentiality" of a certain event, state or action.

The conditionals (the verb forms, not the 3 types of conditional sentences) are different from the subjuntive both in form and in meaning. It is true, however, that they are used "together" in certain constructions such as conditional sentences Types II and III:
"If she did not love you, she would not have married you."
"She would have come if you had asked her."

Also your example:
"If I were you I would be happy to dance with him."

All three sentences contain a verb in the "subjunctive" mood (in the if-clause), and a "conditional".
In my examples, the subjunctive is "unmarked": you see the forms we use for the simple past and the past perfect. In your example, the subjunctive is "marked" by the use of "were" (instead of "was") for the first person singular.

So, the subjunctive mood and the conditional may occur together, but also, they may not:
There is only the subjunctive in "I wish you were here".

The "perfect infinitive" does not take "would". Here are a few examples:
"I am glad to have been of help."
"We were supposed to have met at the cinema at 7."
"She should have called earlier."
"She can't have rung Harry because the phone was out of order."

There is a difference between these two sentences, other than the difference in meaning:
1. "She would have told you the truth."
2. "She should have told you the truth."
In #1, the "perfect conditional" is used; in #2, should + the perfect infinitive. Even when both forms look pretty much alike, they are different.

In English, I have learned, you sometimes use the same constructions to convey different meanings. That happens, for example, with the subjunctive.
In "I had enough money, so I bought a new house" and "If I had enough money I'd buy a new house", had is used differently. In #1 it is the simple past of the verb to have both in form and meaning. In #2, even when the form is the same as that of the simple past, the meaning is not, and it is used for want of a form that belongs to the subjunctive mood. That's why this case is called "unmarked" subjunctive; there is nothing in the verb form itself that will tell you it is not to be understood as the simple past. The difference is provided by the context.

In your example:
"If you had been there you would have been happy to dance with him"
"had been" is used as unmarked subjunctive, and "would have been" is a perfect conditional, not a perfect infinitive. Compare your sentence to the following:
"If I were you, I would be happy to have danced with him", in which the perfect infinitive is used (this sentence is different from yours in meaning).

Sometimes I'm a bit long-winded. Please tell me if this is what you asked and, if it is, let me know if the explanation is clear enough.

Regards,

Miriam

Taiwandave · Answer

Miriam,

It is posts like this one that make this forum really worthwhile for users like myself. Thank you. Fascinating information and all new to me. Incidentally, I'd noticed you using the term "marked subjunctive" somewhere else and at the time didn't think to ask what it meant. In future I'll be sure not to waste any learning opportunities.

I plan to read the post several more times and after that will let you know if I have any questions.

By the way, you are not at all long-winded. The level of detail you deliver is the very thing that makes your explanations so good. It is pleasure reading about grammar when it's explained so clearly. You really ought to give serious consideration to writing a high-level grammar book at some point.

DA.

Miriam · Answer

Dave,

Thank you very much. I am truly glad to have been of help.
I really appreciate your compliments and think they also apply to other people who often contribute clear and accurate information to these forums.
Thank you also for saying I am not long-winded, I cannot help thinking I am, sometimes. It is my pleasure to respond to grammar questions and to work with English grammar in general. I, too, continue studying and learning.
Now, a book... that will have to wait. I do not even think of writing a book at the moment. I know I posted something about writing a grammar book not long ago; it has always been a dream and I would love to do it. I know today much more than I did 15 or 20 years ago but, at the same time, I have so much to learn before I can consider that possibility seriously. Meanwhile, I am content with both teaching and studying.

Thank you again,

Miriam

Taiwandave · Answer

Miriam,

What I perceive to be lacking in the market today is a very detailed grammar book that is aimed at both high-level ESL students and native speakers who want to learn about their own language. The grammar I've learned was mostly from ESL books, but I was never able to find a good one, and I had to piece my knowledge together from various sources.

What you know now is probably already enough. But more important is your ability to explain concepts thoroughly and clearly. These two qualities are rarely seen together. Some writers are clear but not thorough. Others are thorough but far from clear.

If writing a book is one of your eventual goals, the effort you are spending answering questions on this forum isn't going to waste. It's excellent practice that will serve you well. The very fact that you find yourself drawn to do such a thing as answer questions in your spare time strongly suggests that a book is in your destiny.

DA.

Pleased

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions