0
Paris zhao Posted 14 years ago
Grammar
totally confused: subjunctive mood
A few days ago, I posed a question about subjunctive mood here, and got some kind answers. I thought I understood the subject well. But now I realized maybe I don't. The following text was taken from a 19 century grammar book:
" EvEN so our eyes wnit upon the Lord our God, until he have
mercy upon us."-Psalm cxxiii. 2.
The end or purpose of waiting is, that the Lord may
have mercy upon us ; that mercy not being extended to
us na yet. If, in this case, 've should say has mercy
upon us, instead of have mercy upon us, the meaning
would be altered. If ltas be used, the sentence would
mean that our eyes are in the lwbit of waiting upon
the Lord until he has mercy upon us, when they cease
to wait upon him ; but if have be used, then the sentence
menns, as it does her·e, that our eyes continue to
wait upon the Lord our God, until, at some future
period, he sltall be pleased to ltave mercy upon us. The
subjunctive mood is here clearly and legitimately required."
My question is: The author says "if has be used, the sentence would ...", But in my opinion, he should say "if has were used, the sentence would..." Of course, I must miss some essential point in terms of the choice between "be" and "were" in this context. Could you help me?
Thank you.
" EvEN so our eyes wnit upon the Lord our God, until he have
mercy upon us."-Psalm cxxiii. 2.
The end or purpose of waiting is, that the Lord may
have mercy upon us ; that mercy not being extended to
us na yet. If, in this case, 've should say has mercy
upon us, instead of have mercy upon us, the meaning
would be altered. If ltas be used, the sentence would
mean that our eyes are in the lwbit of waiting upon
the Lord until he has mercy upon us, when they cease
to wait upon him ; but if have be used, then the sentence
menns, as it does her·e, that our eyes continue to
wait upon the Lord our God, until, at some future
period, he sltall be pleased to ltave mercy upon us. The
subjunctive mood is here clearly and legitimately required."
My question is: The author says "if has be used, the sentence would ...", But in my opinion, he should say "if has were used, the sentence would..." Of course, I must miss some essential point in terms of the choice between "be" and "were" in this context. Could you help me?
Thank you.
Top answer
paris zhao The following text was taken from a 19 century grammar book: Some of our members seem to take the position that since these forms are now labeled as "archaic," we have no business discussing them here. We generally work with modern Standard English. " You may have some difficulty in finding someone to help you with this.
- paris zhao The following text was taken from a 19 century grammar book: Some of our members seem to take the position that since these forms are now labeled as "archaic," we have no business discussing them here.
- We generally work with modern Standard English.
- " You may have some difficulty in finding someone to help you with this.
- Clearly, both versions are subjunctive, passive, and conditional.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
9 Answers
0
paris zhaoThe following text was taken from a 19 century grammar book:Some of our members seem to take the position that since these forms are now labeled as "archaic," we have no business discussing them here. We generally work with modern Standard English.
paris zhaoThe author says "if has be used, the sentence
00
Hi Paris;
If you read older English grammar texts, you will surely be confused, because the language has changed dramatically, especially in the area of subjunctive mood, residual inflections such as "whom", and the past of strong verbs (learned versus learnt, shined versus shone, hanged versus hung).
These old forms are disappearing.
But for an academic, these old grammar
If you read older English grammar texts, you will surely be confused, because the language has changed dramatically, especially in the area of subjunctive mood, residual inflections such as "whom", and the past of strong verbs (learned versus learnt, shined versus shone, hanged versus hung).
These old forms are disappearing.
But for an academic, these old grammar
00
Yes. But what's your opinion on the choice butween the quoted "be" and "were"? Why does the author use "be" and "would" to construct a sentence expressing contrary-to-fact situation? Has English grammar changed that way with respect to the use of subjunctive "were"?
Thank you in advance.
Thank you in advance.
00
Both his use of "be" and the distinction he makes between "have" and "has" belong to a bygone age. I have no instinct for either, but I am sure they were correct in his day.
00
0
The difference is that "be" is present subjunctive, while "were" is past subjunctive.
Think of this in the indicative mood, which is how most people would structure the sentence today:
If too much salt is added to the soup, it will not taste good.
If too much salt was added to the soup, it will not taste good.
In the second case (using teh past
Think of this in the indicative mood, which is how most people would structure the sentence today:
If too much salt is added to the soup, it will not taste good.
If too much salt was added to the soup, it will not taste good.
In the second case (using teh past
00
Hi: Thanks for the answer. That is to say, "be" seems to refer to no specific situation, it just indicates a mental situation with no time reference; while "were" means some hypothetical situation in the past. Is that correct? Or maybe I don't express myself rightly. Anyway, I think you're right. Thank you very much.
00
paris zhao "be" seems to refer to no specific situation, it just indicates a mental situation with no time reference;I can't agree with this, and I don't believe it's what GreenWhiteBlue said.
"Be" is as much present as "were" is past.
We have a very common expression, "The powers that be." It's both old and current. It's probably n
00
Agree! And in this case, "be" is a present form of subjunctive, "were" past form. Thank you!
0
Related Questions