The Subjunctive Mood (3)

Question

Hello,Is this a grammatically correct subjunctive sentence?If I were you, I would buy this computer.If I were you and I would buy this computer are two separate clauses? Is the first (If I were you) a dependent clause and the second (I would buy this computer) an independent clause. Am I right?Is the subjunctive mood used these days in English? or is it deprecated?

Ozzourti · Accepted Answer

Zoltán KirályIf I were you, I would buy this computer.

Yes, the sentence is correct.

Zoltán KirályIf I were you and I would buy this computer are two separate clauses? Is the first (If I were you) a dependent clause and the second (I would buy this computer) an independent clause. Am I right?

I agree.

Zoltán KirályIs the subjunctive mood used these days in English?

Yes, I think it's still alive and well. "If I were you" is very common.

CalifJim · Answer

Zoltán KirályIs the subjunctive mood used these days in English?

It is has been used less and less in the last few hundred years, but it is still used by many speakers in a few grammatical contexts.

Some grammarians aren't even using the term "subjunctive" anymore. They call the use of "were" instead of "was" after "if" the irrealis mood, and they call the use of the plain verb form (no -s ending) in clauses dependent on verbs like "demand" and "insist" the mandative form. These two constructions are about all that is left of the subjunctive in modern English. Many speakers do not make the substitution of "were" for "was", and many tend to use the simple present instead of the mandative form, so those speakers no longer use any of the traditional "subjunctive" forms at all.

CJ

RandomGuy · Answer

CalifJimSome grammarians aren't even using the term "subjunctive" anymore. They call the use of "were" instead of "was" after "if" the irrealis mood, and they call the use of the plain verb form (no -s ending) in clauses dependent on verbs like "demand" and "insist" the mandative form

Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey Pullum use ‘irrealis’ for were with 1st or 3rd person singular subjects, but they still apply ‘subjunctive’ to content clauses headed by a plain form verb (not to the verb itself), or ‘subjunctive mandative’.

CalifJim · Answer

Aspara GusRodney Huddleston and Geoffrey Pullum use ‘irrealis’ for were with 1st or 3rd person singular subjects

Bless their hearts.

Aspara Gusthey still apply ‘subjunctive’ to content clauses headed by a plain form verb (not to the verb itself), or ‘subjunctive mandative’

Let us all therefore prostrate ourselves humbly before their majesties, beat our *******, confess our terminological trespasses, and beg forgiveness, unworthy though we be.
______________

Silliness aside, one assumes then that the verb form is not 'subjunctive' in their view, but 'plain'. That leaves no subjunctive verb forms at all (not the verb itself, as you say, but verb forms) in the English language. All that remains is the irrealis verb form (one form, namely, were) and plain verb forms (formerly known as bare infinitives or base forms).

It won't be long, I predict, before even the term 'subjunctive' or 'subjunctive mandative' becomes simply 'mandative'. Why keep the word 'subjunctive' at all?

CJ

RandomGuy · Answer

CalifJimLet us all therefore prostrate ourselves humbly before their majesties, beat our *******, confess our terminological trespasses, and beg forgiveness, unworthy though we be.

I have to say—this made me laugh pretty hard.

CalifJimSilliness aside, one assumes then that the verb form is not 'subjunctive' in their view, but 'plain'. That leaves no subjunctive verb forms at all (not the verb itself, as you say, but verb forms) in the English language. All that remains is the irrealis verb form (one form, namely, were) and plain verb forms (formerly known as bare infinitives or base forms).
It won't be long, I predict, before even the term 'subjunctive' or 'subjunctive mandative' becomes simply 'mandative'. Why keep the word 'subjunctive' at all?

They keep ‘subjunctive‘ around to distinguish mandatives with a plain form from two other types of mandative: the should-mandative (He demands that the facility should remain open) and the covert mandative (He demands that the facility remains open).

CalifJim · Answer

Aspara Gustwo other types of mandative: the should-mandative (He demands that the facility should remain open) and the covert mandative (He demands that the facility remains open).

Lord, have mercy! That makes look "mandative" look like a term for the semantics, not the syntax. "should" is a modal verb, for heaven's sake. And for my money, a covert mandative is simply an ungrammatical sentence.

(I wasn't sure how you'd take my 'blasphemy', but I'm glad you enjoyed it.

)

CJ

RandomGuy · Answer

CalifJimThat makes look "mandative" look like a term for the semantics, not the syntax.

Well, the term ‘mandative’ is just based on the mand part of demand and mandatory, words that license content clauses with a distinct meaning from that of ordinary content clauses. If we’re talking purely syntax, then that the facility remain/remains/should remain open is a declarative content clause.

CalifJimAnd for my money, a covert mandative is simply an ungrammatical sentence

Not in BrE it isn’t.

CalifJim · Answer

Aspara GusNot in BrE it isn’t.

Time for another revolutionary war?

(Yes, I knew that already. It's true no matter how unbelievable it may be.)

Aspara GusIf we’re talking purely syntax, then that the facility remain/remains/should remain open is a declarative content clause.

You're not going deep enough in that analysis. Surely there is something syntactical to say about those three choices in themselves, independent of the terminology that applies to the whole clause.

CJ

RandomGuy · Answer

CalifJimSurely there is something syntactical to say about those three choices in themselves, independent of the terminology that applies to the whole clause.

Nothing other than the obvious, as far as I can tell: one is headed by a plain form and two by a primary form.

Thomas Tompion · Answer

Hello Zoltán Király,

Yes, it's fine. In if-clauses for impossible conditions - like my being you - it's standard.

In possible, but not actually fulfilled conditions - like my being in Paris - you have the possibility of either the indicative, to indicate that my being in Paris occurs frequently, or the subjunctive, to indicate that my being in Paris is very unusual.

Thus a sadistic boss might have a choice between these two:

If I were to sack you, you would have to leave immediately - here the sacking sounds unlikely.
If I was to sack you, you would have to leave immediately - here the sacking sounds much more probable.

I should add that I speak British English. Many Americans I know regard the form with the indicative - ie. the second of these sentences - as illiterate and incorrect.

As to the general view of speakers of British English about the subjunctive, we sometimes hear people say that the pure subjunctive - not dependent on modal auxiliaries - is on the decline. There is, however, a considerable weight of scholarly opinion in favour of the view that in British English the pure subjunctive is on the increase, as a result of transatlantic influence.

The Subjunctive Mood (3)

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions