was astonished that should/bare/past

Question

Hello, everyone!I have a question about the use of the modal verbs in that clauses when with the that clause we explain the reasons for our certain emotion. Could you take a look at the sentences below? 1. I was astonished that the child should perform so brilliantly.2. I was astonished that the child perform so brilliantly.3. I was astonished that the child had perform/ performed so brilliantly.Are all of them possible? If they are, which is most fittable in informal situations and in formal situations?  In my English classes of my back country lead by non-native teachers and tests, #1 pattern is condsidered the most general form in English. But, from a native speaker, I have heard the pattern #1 sounds a bit old-fashioned to him. So, I got the question what is their differnces in native speakers' using them.Many thanks in advance!

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

youngbutsthe reasons for ~~our~~ a certain emotion

1. I was astonished that the child should perform so brilliantly. OK. Also, that the child should have performed so brilliantly.
2. I was astonished that the child perform so brilliantly. No. You need 'performs'. The speaker here assumes that the child still performs brilliantly now as at the time of the astonishment in the past.
3a. I was astonished that the child had perform so brilliantly. No. The past perfect requires the past participle.
3b. I was astonished that the child had performed so brilliantly. OK.

CJ

Henry74 · Answer

Hi,

I have a couple of questions on this, if I may.

1) Performed should also be possible, correct?

CalifJim2. I was astonished that the child perform so brilliantly. No. You need 'performs'. The speaker here assumes that the child still performs brilliantly now as at the time of the astonishment in the past.

2) I understand that perform doesn't work, but I don't understand why performs works. 'I was astonished' has no bearing on the present.
In a similar thread that I opened a few hours ago I had the sentence
a) The whole family was astonished that she should have married so young.
Can you say
b) The whole family was astonished that she has married so young ? Shouldn't it be [...] that she had married so young?

Thank you.
H.

Youngbuts · Answer

StartFragment>
Thank you for your answer.

Is the case that I can omit 'shoud' in that clasues limited to such cases that relate to mandatory meaning like below?

He insists that she come
He insists that she should come.

Many thanks again!

Youngbuts · Answer

Hi, Henry74.

I guess 'she has married so young' and 'he performs so brilliantly' have a different degree of factuality. The first one is an event that have to happen in a certain time. But the latter could be interpreted as traits that belong to the child, which could be a permanant fact or trouth regardless of time.

I guess 'I was astonished that the boy performs so brilliantly at that night.' is wrong, because the phrase at that night makes this sentence an event that happened at a certain night in the past. But if I say 'I was astonished that the boy performs so brilliantly.', this implies, I think, that the brilliance of the boy's performance was true in the past and still is true by now, and probalbly would be true in the future. I think the degree of fact expressed by the present tense refers to a statement as being a permant truth, and this can be allowed only for the statements that are related to the subject's traits, not for the event statements. I guess marriage is difficult to be interpretated as a trait of human, but performance abillity could be.

Anyway, does the reason that 'he insists that she (should) come' is possible relate to the verb insist in the main clause?

CalifJim · Answer

Henry74a couple of questions on this ...Performed should also be possible, correct?

Correct. I was astonished that the child performed so brilliantly. (at that time, when I observed it)

Henry74I don't understand why performs works.

As I said in my previous post, this phrasing suggests that the speaker believes that the child continues to perform brilliantly (i.e., continues up to the present moment to be able to perform as brilliantly, and therefore as astonishingly.) According to the speaker, the child can still astonish with his brilliant playing even though the original astonishment was in the past.

Nevertheless, you are correct to see this as an unusual thing to say.

Henry74In a similar thread that I opened a few hours ago I had the sentence
a) The whole family was astonished that she should have married so young.
Can you say
b) The whole family was astonished that she has married so young ? Shouldn't it be [...] that she had married so young?

Whereas performing brilliantly can be thought of as an action that can be done habitually or regularly, the action of getting married is not so easily seen that way. For this reason, your sentence b creates a sort of cognitive dissonance not felt in the 'brilliant performance' example. You are correct that this one should be ... had married so young. A possible variant, however, is:

The whole family was astonished that she is so young and already married.

As in the example above, the speaker is suggesting that she is still young and married even though the original astonishment occurred in the past. Again — a less usual thing to say.
_________________

The examples we are discussing here can be put into the category of "immediate reports". In other words, the past in question is usually a very recent past.

A: I'm very tired.
B (to C): What did he say?
C: He said (that) he's very tired.

1. The ten-year-old child Julianna sits at the piano and plays brilliantly in a music competition.
2. Listener A, a judge in this competition, leaves the room to discuss her performance with another judge in the next room.
3. A: I just listened to Julianna, and I was astonished that she plays so brilliantly. (There is an assumption that the child can regularly astonish others with her brilliant playing, that brilliant playing is some sort of inherent quality of the child that the child can call up whenever the situation requires it.)

You can make your own scenario in a similar vein to illustrate the example of the young, married woman.

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

youngbutsI can omit 'should' in that clauses ... that relate to mandatory meaning like below?

Yes. 'should' is optional in those cases.

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

youngbutsI guess 'she has married so young' and 'he performs so brilliantly' have a different degree of factuality.

You express it differently, but I believe you are seeing a similar distinction between the two cases.

I would say that 'has married' is 'eventive', and 'performs brilliantly' is 'durative'.

youngbutsdoes the reason ... he insists that she (should) come' ... relate to the verb insist ... ?

Yes. A few verbs follow this same pattern, for example, insist, demand, suggest, recommend.

CJ

Youngbuts · Answer

Thank you very much. Now I completely understand it.^^

CalifJim · Answer

youngbutsNow I completely understand it.

Well, that puts you a step ahead of me!

CJ

Henry74 · Answer

CalifJimThe examples we are discussing here can be put into the category of "immediate reports". .A: I'm very tired. B (to C): What did he say? C: He said (that) he's very tired.

OK. That makes sense. I get it now.
In fact, I had been meaning to ask about an exchange like that one. I'm happy that our languages work in a similar way in that respect.

- Why did they leave so early? [About a group of guests who left the wedding reception earlier in the day.]
- They were shocked that she has married so young.

That seems to work, doesn't it? [Allowing for a certain amount of back-story to make it a likely utterance.]

Thank you.
Happy New Year!

H.

was astonished that should/bare/past

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions