should

Question

As to the use of 'should' in that-clause, it is generally known that the bare infinitive without 'should' is just the variant form.

e.g. They have proposed that Jim (should) move to their London
office.

And I found that the form without 'should' is called the present subjunctive.

So far, I've thought that-clause with 'should' is treated the same as the present subjunctive, which means the two of them are interchangeable.

But, the sentences below got me downrightly confused with my previous thought.

e.g.
A. Ms Wiles announced that all claims for travel expenses should
be in US dollars.

B. Ms Wiles agreed that the company should sponsor the
European chess leaguefor the next three years.

C. Ms Wiles declared that the company's office should remain in
London.

D. Mr Row reported that the Delaware Bridge project should be
completed by July next year.

E. Mr.Lyson felt that business in Japan should be expanded.

All above five sentences do not permit the omission of 'should' so that present subjunctive is impossible.
So why is that?
Why does those five sentences not allow the bare infinitive to come into use?

And is there some difference between that-clause with should and
the present subjunctive?

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

It is a matter of the verb. For the subjunctive to appear (as an alternative to putative 'should'), you need verbs of willing or intention (demand, suggest, ask, insist, etc.) in the main clause, where yours seem to be simply reporting verbs. The putative 'should' is primarily a BrE device, and I don't know whether your 'should's are included in that term.

CalifJim · Answer

cho7712All above five sentences do not permit the omission of 'should' so that present subjunctive is impossible.So why is that?

As Mr. M. says, they have the wrong kind of verb for "evaluative" should. Therefore, the should that you see there is not "evaluative" should, but "advice" should. Thus,

Ms Wiles announced that all claims for travel expenses should be in US dollars.
~Ms Wiles announced that it would be [advisable / a good idea] for all claims for travel expenses to be in US dollars.

"advice" should can't be omitted the way "evaluative" should can be.

CJ

Fivejedjon · Answer

cho7712As to the use of 'should' in that-clause, it is generally known that the bare infinitive without 'should' is just the variant form. [...] + bare infinitivecho7712And I found that the form without 'should' is called the present subjunctive.

It just happens that the present subjunctive form of all verbs, including BE, has the same form as the bare infinitive.

All above five sentences do not permit the omission of 'should' so that present subjunctive is impossible.So why is that?

1. I propose that James be offered a pernanent post.
2, I propose that James should be offered a permanent post.

3. I said that James should be promoted.
4. ~~I said that James be promoted.~~

#1, with the present subjunctive, and #2, with should + bare infinitive, convey effectively the same meaning. There is no sense of obligation implied by should. Some speakers of British English would use is instead of be.

#3 is the reporting of the statement "James should be promoted", in which should does suggest a sense of obligation, similar to that suggested by ought to. With this sense, should + bare infinitive cannot be replaced by the present subjunctive. It is also not possible to use is in place of be.

ps. Mr Micawber and CalifJim submitted their posts while I was writing mine. I agree with what they wrote.

Cho7712 · Answer

Thank you all for your answers,
So it can be concluded that 'should' is roughly divided into putative(or evaluative) should and advice(or obligatory)should. And what is concerned with the present subjunctive is the former 'should', which also depends on the meaning of the main verb.
Do I get your points right?

Mister Micawber · Answer

Yes, I think that's what we were all saying.

should

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions