0
Paco2004 Posted 21 years ago
Linguistics Studies
Subjunctive mood in English
Hello
This is a garbage-like posting written by a poor English learner who has been and still now is agonized by subjunctive things which supposedly underlie English collocations.
My way of understanding English grammar
The English language uses two moods (indicative/subjunctive) and two tenses (present/past). Accordingly, all English verbs including modals and auxiliary verbs have four inflective forms beside finite forms (-ed, -ing). The four are;
(1) indicative: present / past
(2) subjunctive: present / past
For example, 'can', 'have', 'be', and 'smoke' inflect the ways like:
(1) indicative: can / could
(2) subjunctive: can / could
(1) indicative: have, has / had
(2) subjunctive: have / had
(1) indicative: am, are, is / was, were
(2) subjunctive: be / were
(1) indicative: smoke, smokes / smoked
(2) subjunctive: smoke / smoked
We have to understand that tense and time are things a little different. The time is a concept to section the time flow in universe. There are three times: past, present, and future. This concept of time, especially that of 'future' is the one that can be owned only by the modern world where many people feel rather sure they can live next year. Contrary to this, the tense is a concept owned by the people who lived in the remote past and created languages. In such remote past, I think, people must have been unable to be sure they could live in 'future', even tomorrow, because their living environment was so harsh. So 'future' wouldn't matter a lot to them. It is why many languages including English basically lack verbal forms for future. Anyway 'future tense' is not a real tense built in the English language. The future tense is something like an extension of the present tense and therefore it should be expressed only with help of the modal verb 'will'. So, we could say, basically, English has only two tenses, present and past.
Mood is a convenience contrived by the old people to differentiate their speech into fact-statements and thought-statements. The indicative mood is the one for fact-statements and the subjunctive for thought-statements. In our modern world people can know many things proved to be facts owing to education and science, and therefore, our speech is more abundant with indicative sentences to compare with subjunctive sentences. But in the old days, people could not confirm many things they know to be fact. And so, I suppose, they would speak a lot in collocations like "Methink + subjunctive mood". It seems nowadays native speakers are getting uncosciousness that they are using the subjunctive mood in their collocations. But still, I feel, it would be better for us (ESL) to know the subjunctive mood underlies many of current English collocations, especially those using modals.
Now this posting is coming to what I really would like to say. I was taught and even now many Japanese students are being taught that the protases in English imaginary conditionals are expressed by 'past tense' (for imaginary present) and 'past perfect tense' (for imaginary past). And teachers told us that, exceptionally in the case the verb is 'be', we should use a special word, 'were'. But I think this way of understanding would get the thing more complicated. I think we (at least me) had better understand that the finite verbs in the thought-statements in English are all in subjunctive forms.
(EX) If I had been a diligent student, I would be able to speak English better. ['had' and 'would' are subjunctives]
(EX) I wish I were a bird. I wish I could fly like a bird. ['could' is subjunctive]
(EX) (I wish) I could kill him. ['could' is subjunctive] I could swim when I was young. ['could' is indicative]
paco
This is a garbage-like posting written by a poor English learner who has been and still now is agonized by subjunctive things which supposedly underlie English collocations.
My way of understanding English grammar
The English language uses two moods (indicative/subjunctive) and two tenses (present/past). Accordingly, all English verbs including modals and auxiliary verbs have four inflective forms beside finite forms (-ed, -ing). The four are;
(1) indicative: present / past
(2) subjunctive: present / past
For example, 'can', 'have', 'be', and 'smoke' inflect the ways like:
(1) indicative: can / could
(2) subjunctive: can / could
(1) indicative: have, has / had
(2) subjunctive: have / had
(1) indicative: am, are, is / was, were
(2) subjunctive: be / were
(1) indicative: smoke, smokes / smoked
(2) subjunctive: smoke / smoked
We have to understand that tense and time are things a little different. The time is a concept to section the time flow in universe. There are three times: past, present, and future. This concept of time, especially that of 'future' is the one that can be owned only by the modern world where many people feel rather sure they can live next year. Contrary to this, the tense is a concept owned by the people who lived in the remote past and created languages. In such remote past, I think, people must have been unable to be sure they could live in 'future', even tomorrow, because their living environment was so harsh. So 'future' wouldn't matter a lot to them. It is why many languages including English basically lack verbal forms for future. Anyway 'future tense' is not a real tense built in the English language. The future tense is something like an extension of the present tense and therefore it should be expressed only with help of the modal verb 'will'. So, we could say, basically, English has only two tenses, present and past.
Mood is a convenience contrived by the old people to differentiate their speech into fact-statements and thought-statements. The indicative mood is the one for fact-statements and the subjunctive for thought-statements. In our modern world people can know many things proved to be facts owing to education and science, and therefore, our speech is more abundant with indicative sentences to compare with subjunctive sentences. But in the old days, people could not confirm many things they know to be fact. And so, I suppose, they would speak a lot in collocations like "Methink + subjunctive mood". It seems nowadays native speakers are getting uncosciousness that they are using the subjunctive mood in their collocations. But still, I feel, it would be better for us (ESL) to know the subjunctive mood underlies many of current English collocations, especially those using modals.
Now this posting is coming to what I really would like to say. I was taught and even now many Japanese students are being taught that the protases in English imaginary conditionals are expressed by 'past tense' (for imaginary present) and 'past perfect tense' (for imaginary past). And teachers told us that, exceptionally in the case the verb is 'be', we should use a special word, 'were'. But I think this way of understanding would get the thing more complicated. I think we (at least me) had better understand that the finite verbs in the thought-statements in English are all in subjunctive forms.
(EX)
(EX)
(EX)
paco
Top answer
Paco, Whatever works for you, use it! My division is a little different from yours, probably because of my experience with Romance languages, the 'daughters' of Latin. Instead of fact-statements and thought-statements I think of "that which is actual" and "that which is envisioned", but the idea is the same.
- Paco, Whatever works for you, use it!
- My division is a little different from yours, probably because of my experience with Romance languages, the 'daughters' of Latin.
- Instead of fact-statements and thought-statements I think of "that which is actual" and "that which is envisioned", but the idea is the same.
- To that I add "that which is anticipated" (the futures - see below).
- I think of the future with "will" as a modality more than a tense -- but I think of it as the "future of the present": I say I will go.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
15 Answers
0
Paco,
Whatever works for you, use it! My division is a little different from yours, probably because of my experience with Romance languages, the 'daughters' of Latin.
Instead of fact-statements and thought-statements I think of "that which is actual" and "that which is envisioned", but the idea is the same. To that I add "that which is anticipated" (the futures - see below)
Whatever works for you, use it! My division is a little different from yours, probably because of my experience with Romance languages, the 'daughters' of Latin.
Instead of fact-statements and thought-statements I think of "that which is actual" and "that which is envisioned", but the idea is the same. To that I add "that which is anticipated" (the futures - see below)
00
Hello Jim
Thank you for your kind comments. To me every modal is difficult to grasp its exact meanings.
As for 'will'/'would', I think they are also used as 'indicative' and 'subjunctive'.
(1) neutral future (be about to: be destined to) [indicative:will/would]
She will come tomorrow.
She said she would come tomorrow.
(2) habitual
Thank you for your kind comments. To me every modal is difficult to grasp its exact meanings.
As for 'will'/'would', I think they are also used as 'indicative' and 'subjunctive'.
(1) neutral future (be about to: be destined to) [indicative:will/would]
She will come tomorrow.
She said she would come tomorrow.
(2) habitual
00
Paco,
I just wanted to acknowledge that I saw your post. I'll need more time to think about it and will answer later.
Jim
I just wanted to acknowledge that I saw your post. I'll need more time to think about it and will answer later.
Jim
00
Hello
What is *** to me about the use of the subjunctive mood are rules of "time one-step advanced than tense" and "time-freedom from the main clause tense"
1. time one-step advanced than tense
Subjunctive's semantic time is one-step advanced than the syntactic tense.
They are demanding Iraq be liberated. be : [time/future]=[tense/present]+1
I wish
What is *** to me about the use of the subjunctive mood are rules of "time one-step advanced than tense" and "time-freedom from the main clause tense"
1. time one-step advanced than tense
Subjunctive's semantic time is one-step advanced than the syntactic tense.
They are demanding Iraq be liberated. be : [time/future]=[tense/present]+1
I wish
00
Hi, Paco,
As I said above, I don't think of "will" and "would" as subjunctive in any way.
Independent of that, this "rude" vs. "polite" observation of yours doesn't work for my way of speaking English.
As I said above, I don't think of "will" and "would" as subjunctive in any way.
Independent of that, this "rude" vs. "polite" observation of yours doesn't work for my way of speaking English.
[pres subj : rude / past subj : polite]
Won't you come with us? Wouldn't you come with us?
I will go with you. I would (like t
00
Hello CJ
Thank you for the reply. I feel I still didn't get the exact senses of will/would used in your speach. Every auxiliary verbs (modals) are diificult for me to grasp its sense. "Will/would" are above all the ones most difficult. You native speakers (and some ESL) could acquire those senses without reasoning them in the brain. But in my case, my brain can't store anything I didn't
Thank you for the reply. I feel I still didn't get the exact senses of will/would used in your speach. Every auxiliary verbs (modals) are diificult for me to grasp its sense. "Will/would" are above all the ones most difficult. You native speakers (and some ESL) could acquire those senses without reasoning them in the brain. But in my case, my brain can't store anything I didn't
00
Paco,
Don't be ridiculous! You are very very far from being the worst learner of English in the world! I think you're doing fine -- excellent, in fact! There's nothing wrong with recognizing the areas where you have the most difficulty. That's how you know what to work on next.
I'd say keep up the good work. No need to sigh!
Jim
Don't be ridiculous! You are very very far from being the worst learner of English in the world! I think you're doing fine -- excellent, in fact! There's nothing wrong with recognizing the areas where you have the most difficulty. That's how you know what to work on next.
I'd say keep up the good work. No need to sigh!
Jim
00
Hello CJ
Thank you for your compliment. But I'm really too ignorant about modals. It may be because I learned English to read and write engineering articles. In engineering documents they rarely use modals like 'would' or 'might'.
By the way I am now reading an article titled as [url="
Thank you for your compliment. But I'm really too ignorant about modals. It may be because I learned English to read and write engineering articles. In engineering documents they rarely use modals like 'would' or 'might'.
By the way I am now reading an article titled as [url="
00
From http://www.sole.leidenuniv.nl/content_docs/ConsoleXII2003pdfs/vlachou-2003.pdf ---
More precisely, in (23), the modality is epistemic or, as Condoravdi points out, “the possibility is in view of the epistemic state of the speaker”. In (24), the modality is m
More precisely, in (23), the modality is epistemic or, as Condoravdi points out, “the possibility is in view of the epistemic state of the speaker”. In (24), the modality is m
00
CJ
Thank you a lot for the explanation. I down-loaded the two pdfs but I haven't read them yet. As I'm not familiar with linguistic terms, I'm afraid those articles would be quite hard to read through.
But reading the article I found and your message, I noticed my first thought about English modals is wrong. What I deemed as "subjunctive modals" seems mostly to belong to epist
Thank you a lot for the explanation. I down-loaded the two pdfs but I haven't read them yet. As I'm not familiar with linguistic terms, I'm afraid those articles would be quite hard to read through.
But reading the article I found and your message, I noticed my first thought about English modals is wrong. What I deemed as "subjunctive modals" seems mostly to belong to epist
0
Related Questions