"would that" + subjunctive

Question

Dear teachers,

Would you please explain this sturcture to me? What does "would that" mean exactly and why does it need the subjunctive?

My mother would know what to do. Oh, would that she WERE here with us now !

All the best,
Hela

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

Oh, I wish that she were here with us now!

Extremely, extremely old, old expression. Absolutely laughable in 2006! Tilt your head back and lift your arm, placing the back of your hand gracefully against your forehead and speak dramatically when you say "Would that ...".

CJ

Hela · Answer

Thank you Jim <img class='emoticon' style='Width:19px;Height:19px;' data-delaysrc='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/2.gif' src='https://uat-englishforward-forums-backend.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Emoticons/2.gif' alt='Emotion: big smile'/>

Anonymous · Answer

HelaWould you please explain this sturcture to me? What does "would that" mean exactly and why does it need the subjunctive?

My mother would know what to do. Oh, would that she WERE here with us now !

I am also from Calif, but I disagree with Jim. This construction, although not extremely common, is a form of hypothetical. It is not the case, but there is a desire that this were the case. In hypothetical constructions such as this, the subjunctive is appropriate. Nowadays, many people have no idea what the subjunctive is, and replace it with the inappropriate, but increasingly common, past tense.

Pinenut · Answer

Anonymous
HelaWould you please explain this sturcture to me? What does "would that" mean exactly and why does it need the subjunctive?

My mother would know what to do. Oh, would that she WERE here with us now !
I am also from Calif, but I disagree with Jim. This construction, although not extremely common, is a form of hypothetical. It is not the case, but there is a desire that this were the case. In hypothetical constructions such as this, the subjunctive is appropriate. Nowadays, many people have no idea what the subjunctive is, and replace it with the inappropriate, but increasingly common, past tense.

Probably both of you are right. I found the following text by googling 'would that'. Some people do use the phrase now.

Coulter: "Would that it were so! ... That the American military were targeting journalists."

Echoing posts from members of right-wing online forum FreeRepublic.com and her own previous statements, Ann Coulter again wished violence upon journalists.

From the February 7 edition of CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer:

LAWRENCE KUDLOW (host): We got a couple of seconds before the break when you guys are all going to come back, but, Ann, I just want to give you first whack at this. http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/jordan.eason.html, top news executive at CNN -- I mean, to me, this is absolutely incredible -- this guy says at a big conference in Davos that the U.S. military is deliberately targeting and assassinating American journalists. Huh? He still has a job, huh? You got a take on that?

COULTER: Would that it were so!

KUDLOW: Would what were so?

COULTER: That the American military were targeting journalists.

KUDLOW: Oh, no! Don't go there.

CalifJim · Answer

Ann Coulter is known for saying outrageous things. (Note how Larry K felt obliged to restrain her from continuing her line of thought.) It's no surprise she chose this over-dramatic wording to express herself. Consider also that the thought she is expressing is equally outrageous (as usual). Such people deliberately try to attract attention to themselves not only by expressing outlandish thoughts but also by dressing them in exotic grammatical garb.

Believe me, "would that" is not used in ordinary conversations. It is reserved for situations in which we wish to be funny and/or pompous in our use of language. It's difficult to know which of the two Ms. Coulter was aiming at.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

CalifJimAnn Coulter is known for saying outrageous things. (Note how Larry K felt obliged to restrain her from continuing her line of thought.) It's no surprise she chose this over-dramatic wording to express herself. Consider also that the thought she is expressing is equally outrageous (as usual). Such people deliberately try to attract attention to themselves not only by expressing outlandish thoughts but also by dressing them in exotic grammatical garb.

Believe me, "would that" is not used in ordinary conversations.

The fact that this is not in daily use does not make it less natural or correct. I notice that Kudlow in the interview did not understand it either.

CalifJim · Answer

I think a great deal of what makes an expression "natural" is its frequency of use, although I agree that this is not the entire picture with regard to "naturalness".
No one said it was incorrect.
I think the excerpt shows quite clearly that Kudlow did understand it. He was able to ask a question, appropriately substituting within that expression where necessary grammatically.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

CalifJimI think the excerpt shows quite clearly that Kudlow did understand it. He was able to ask a question, appropriately substituting within that expression where necessary grammatically.

I don't follow your reasoning.

COULTER: Would that it were so!

KUDLOW: Would what were so?

Kudlow's statement is not only not grammatically correct, but it deletes the meaning from the cited statement.

CalifJim · Answer

Kudlow left out the optional "that". Maybe that is a cause for confusion. Coulter's remark is grammatical, and Kudlow's question is also grammatical.

-- Would that it were so! (I wish that it were so!)
-- Would (that) what were so? (You wish that what were so?, i.e., What is the it that you wish to be so?)

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

CalifJimKudlow left out the optional "that". Maybe that is a cause for confusion. Coulter's remark is grammatical, and Kudlow's question is also grammatical.

-- Would that it were so! (I wish that it were so!)
-- Would (that) what were so? (You wish that what were so?, i.e., What is the it that you wish to be so?)

I do not consider Kudlow's remark to be grammatical. At best, it is a mistaken slip of the tongue. In my opinion, this is not a time that 'that' is optional. Do you really think that this is an example of when the word 'that' can be freely deleted with no loss of meaning? Have you ever heard this construction with the 'that' omitted?

"would that" + subjunctive

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions