|
 |
Indicative vs Subjunctive in English | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages |  | |
 emk Diglot Moderator United States Joined 5538 days ago 2615 posts - 8806 votes  Speaks: English*, FrenchB2 Studies: Spanish, Ancient Egyptian Personal Language Map | Message 17 of 24 08 October 2014 at 7:44pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
Yeah, Pullman can get a little ranty on his blog. Let me find you a better explanation. But first, some background. Modern linguistics is really pretty good at analyzing grammatical constructions, even if you limit yourself to the commonly-accepted basics of the field (and stay away well from esoteric things like government and binding theory). But until recently, a few language-specific academic communities have been mostly ignoring modern linguistics. For example, traditional Egyptology has some weird interpretations of Egyptian grammar that have been heavily modified—and simplified—using modern linguistic theory. (See Loprieno's excellent book for an example of how this is changing.) But Egyptologists aren't the only people who spent much of the past century ignoring linguistics. Something very similar has happened with English grammar instruction: Awkward, out-of-date explanations have hung around since the 1800s without being updated or corrected. There's a big gap between what researchers know, and what typically gets taught. Dr. Pullman, when he's not ranting on blogs, has actually spent a lot of time trying to make linguistic research accessible to a more general audience. In particular, he's the co-author of the remarkable The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, an 1800-page tome that summarizes what linguists know about English grammar. To get a feel for this book, see the two free sample chapters, particularly chapter 2. One of the things I really like about this book is that it backs up its analyses with plenty of examples and counter-examples. OK, with that background in mind, here's a short excerpt from CGotEL's analysis of the English subjunctive (there's a lot more in the book). This is dense, and it relies on terminology explained in earlier chapters:
Yeah, it's pretty heavy going in places. :-) For people who don't have the rest of chapter 3, let me try to unpack it a bit: "Synchronic" This means, roughly, "in the current language as it exists today." The opposite is "diachronic", which involves looking at how the language has evolved over time. In other words, at some point in the evolution of English, it's perfectly possible that "If I were" was a past subjunctive form, but the authors are concerned with English as it actually exists today. "Direct contrast" If we want to claim that English has two verb forms named "Present X" and "Past X", we need to be able to set up contrasting sentences which differ only in tense. Let's show how this works by first establishing the difference between English's "Subjunctive" and the rare "Perfect subjunctive":
These two sentences differ only in aspect: The first is the ordinary subjunctive, and the second is clearly a perfect subjunctive. It's rare, and some people will think it sounds weird, but we've just shown that it exists. Now, CGotEL claims that no such contrast exists in modern English between the subjunctive and the "past subjunctive." The closest you can get are their examples [34i] and [34ii]. But there are problems here: [34i] is increasingly limited to poetic fixed phrases such as "If that be so." And whatever differs between [34i] and [34ii], it's nothing as simple as "present" versus "past." CGotEL claims these forms differ in "modality", but explaining what it means by that would require more typing. So there's really only one place where we can set up a contrast between "I be" and "I were". That contrast feels somewhat forced: The "If that be" form is archaic, and we can't extend it to other verbs: *"If he run away, I will chase him". Ugh, no. And even when we do establish the contrast, it clearly differs in a property other than tense. TL;DR: The term "past subjunctive" does not refer to an actual past tense of the subjunctive, at least not in modern English. It's an independent verb form which behaves very differently. 3 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Retinend Triglot Senior Member SpainRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 4314 days ago 283 posts - 557 votes Speaks: English*, German, Spanish Studies: Arabic (Written), French | Message 18 of 24 12 October 2014 at 10:27am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
Perhaps this is why German uses the tense free terms, Konjunktiv I and II.
The problem with this is that in every case a German learner is always going to say, "okay, these form do a different job and look slightly different to the present and past verb forms, but Konjunktiv I is always going to look like the present form, and Konjunktiv II is always going to look like the past form (more or less) ...so I should remember this." The argument that a term like "present subjunctive" is misleading, since it´s not fulfilling any "present" frame of mind is slightly undermined by the general looseness of English tense such as "I am going tomorrow" (talking about the future with present continuous), or "she will play her guitar all night!" (talking about the present with the future simple). I personally think the best terminology is one that reminds you of the guideline and sticks in the head: for me, Konjunktiv I and II are less useful for me as a learner than if they were called "Präteritumkonjunktiv" and "Präsenskonjunktiv." I would say the same for the naming of the conditional tenses as "0 1 2 3." Not very helpful compared with the more layman-friendly "factual/ unreal/ hypothetical/ future conditional." I must admit that I now need to revise exactly which corresponds with which number. Lastly I feel like some waves of change have had the effect of causing confusion for the learner. If a student of English picks up an older grammar, she might encounter "pluperfect" or "present progressive" or "simple present" instead of "past perfect" "present continuous" or "present simple." It's a small problem, but what exactly has been gained by imposing disagreements between different generations by adopting slightly new terms? The work of busybodies, I suspect. Out of interest: are such terminological changes of fashion through history similar for other languages' treatment of grammar? Or has the terminology largely stuck since whenever grammar books were first published? 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| tritone Senior Member United States reflectionsinpo Joined 6126 days ago 246 posts - 385 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish, Portuguese, French | Message 19 of 24 16 October 2014 at 9:03am | IP Logged | ||||||||
Both examples are correct, they just mean totally different things. In the fist example he's stating something he believes, and in the second he's making a command. Also "should" is not necessary, and it sounds better without.
That sounds horrible to me. This might be a north-american thing.
...reccommend to her sounds equally bad. "reccomend that she", is the only possibility to my ears. Edited by tritone on 16 October 2014 at 9:48am 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| tritone Senior Member United States reflectionsinpo Joined 6126 days ago 246 posts - 385 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish, Portuguese, French | Message 20 of 24 16 October 2014 at 9:32am | IP Logged | ||||||||
Ironically, it's the people who have never heard of it (native speakers), that use it the most. It has limited usage, but where it is used, it's strongly preferred - at least around these parts. Lots of things can only be said with the subjunctive, and the indicative would either change the meaning, be flattly ungramatical/sound horrible, or at worst be unitelligible. Edited by tritone on 16 October 2014 at 9:34am 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6603 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish | Message 21 of 24 24 October 2014 at 8:44pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
What does the slangy "be like" subjunctive imply?
1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| kanewai Triglot Senior Member United States justpaste.it/kanewai Joined 4895 days ago 1386 posts - 3054 votes Speaks: English*, French, Marshallese Studies: Italian, Spanish | Message 22 of 24 24 October 2014 at 9:32pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
The "be" here is an aspect, not a mood (such as the indicative and subjunctive). It's mostly Black English (the latest proper term is African American Vernacular English). The wikipedia page Habitual Be explains it in more depth. A quick summary: "He be like" in American slang is present tense, habitual aspect, indicative mood, active voice. The standard breakdown we're taught in school* is: tenses: present and past aspects: simple, progressive, perfect, perfect-progressive moods: indicative, subjunctive, imperative voices: active and passive Standard English doesn't have the habitual aspect per se, or at least not in the same way - we see it a lot more in creoles and pidgins. * And actually, we weren't taught the subjunctive either; I never heard of it until I started studying Latin and our professor had to re-educate us on basic English grammar. Edited by kanewai on 24 October 2014 at 9:44pm 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| emk Diglot Moderator United States Joined 5538 days ago 2615 posts - 8806 votes Speaks: English*, FrenchB2 Studies: Spanish, Ancient Egyptian Personal Language Map | Message 23 of 24 24 October 2014 at 9:42pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
I don't think it's a subjunctive, actually. :-) In this case, it may be related to the verb tense and aspect system of African American Vernacular English. Most varieties of American Vernacular English (not just AAVE) use can use "like" to introduce quotations, at least among anyone under the age of 45 or so: "So I'm like, 'I'm not touching that.'" Combine that with present-tense "be" in AAVE, and you have "be like". 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6603 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish | Message 24 of 24 24 October 2014 at 10:06pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
Ah okay, I didn't recognize the normal "I'm like" thing :)
So is it kinda like the present tense of the habitual "would"? 1 person has voted this message useful |
If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login. If you are not already registered you must first register
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
