Register  Login  Active Topics  Maps  

Indicative vs Subjunctive in English

  Tags: Grammar | English
 Language Learning Forum : Specific Languages Post Reply
24 messages over 3 pages: 13  Next >>
Serpent
Octoglot
Senior Member
Russian Federation
serpent-849.livejour
Joined 6407 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 9 of 24
28 September 2014 at 5:38pm | IP Logged 
Medulin wrote:
We recommended she book her flight earlier (subjunctive).

L2 learners of English never get this right, preferring obsolete Briticisms like:
We recommended her to book her flight earlier.

I don't think it's a preference for obsolete forms, just a transfer of L1 structures or other English structures. TBH before this thread I didn't even realize that this was the subjunctive - we were just taught this as a weird exception. Maybe this mistake is more common among the native speakers of Slavic languages?
1 person has voted this message useful



Medulin
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Croatia
Joined 4478 days ago

1199 posts - 2192 votes 
Speaks: Croatian*, English, Spanish, Portuguese
Studies: Norwegian, Hindi, Nepali

 
 Message 10 of 24
29 September 2014 at 2:17am | IP Logged 
Nah, I've heard Germans and speakers of Dutch use this construction too: ''I recommend you to put out the cigarette since it's not allowed to smoke here.''
(idiomatic English: I recommend (that) you put out the cigarette since smoking isn't allowed here'')

Edited by Medulin on 29 September 2014 at 2:25am

2 persons have voted this message useful



Hampie
Diglot
Senior Member
Sweden
Joined 6469 days ago

625 posts - 1009 votes 
Speaks: Swedish*, English
Studies: Latin, German, Mandarin

 
 Message 11 of 24
29 September 2014 at 10:34pm | IP Logged 
My English teacher in highschool insisted that it did not exist and started to explain to me what conjunctions were
instead. She had the most beautiful hand on the white boars though, better any any of my other teachers ever.
Nevertheless, there seems to be a lot of people who have no idea this exists – and the morphology of it is pretty
darn weak. Even the now almost entirely dead Swedish subjunctive has more morphology!
1 person has voted this message useful



Slayertplsko
Heptaglot
Newbie
Slovakia
Joined 4643 days ago

24 posts - 29 votes
Speaks: Slovak*, Czech, FrenchB2, EnglishC2, German, Italian, Spanish

 
 Message 12 of 24
08 October 2014 at 11:50am | IP Logged 
emk wrote:


English has an entirely separate verb form, which CGotEL calls the "irrealis", and
which many ESL teachers irritatingly call the "past subjunctive", even though it has
absolutely no relation whatsoever with the "demand that" subjunctive we're discussing
above. This only affects the verb "to be", and only in the middle-to-formal register:

If he were ready on time, we could go to a movie.



I'm going to disagree with you on this point. The subjunctive mood is used for many
more things than demands that someone do something. Even in French, as you surely know,
it has many more uses that have nothing to do with demands (Vive le roi! or Bien que je
lui aie tout donné, elle....). And then there is the plus-que-parfait du subjonctif. In
German it's called Konjunktiv and its present forms are used very frequently in writing
when quoting or paraphrasing what someone else said. Just open any newspaper and you'll
see tons of it. But German also has a past form of subjunctive and it's alive and well
in conditional sentences and probably elsewhere, too. And this is exactly the same
thing as the English 'were'. It's just that in English it's the only surviving instance
of past subjunctive.
1 person has voted this message useful





emk
Diglot
Moderator
United States
Joined 5342 days ago

2615 posts - 8806 votes 
Speaks: English*, FrenchB2
Studies: Spanish, Ancient Egyptian
Personal Language Map

 
 Message 13 of 24
08 October 2014 at 1:44pm | IP Logged 
Slayertplsko wrote:
emk wrote:
English has an entirely separate verb form, which CGotEL calls the "irrealis", and
which many ESL teachers irritatingly call the "past subjunctive", even though it has
absolutely no relation whatsoever with the "demand that" subjunctive we're discussing
above. This only affects the verb "to be", and only in the middle-to-formal register:

If he were ready on time, we could go to a movie.

I'm going to disagree with you on this point. The subjunctive mood is used for many
more things than demands that someone do something.

My apologies for not being clearer, but I think you've misunderstood my post rather completely. When I spoke of the "'demand that' subjunctive", I was speaking of a specific inflected form that occurs in many different contexts. It's this one:

Quote:
I be, you be, he be…
I do, you do, he do…

This form very nearly obligatory (in most standard dialects) with ask that, demand that, be essential that, and a long list of other contexts. And happily enough, this form works almost exactly like the French subjunctive, although the list of affected contexts is much larger in French:

Quote:
It's essential that he be ___.
Il est essentiel qu'il soit ___.

But linguistically speaking, this form has nothing at all to do with this other rather odd construction in English:

Quote:
If I were president…
Si j'étais le president…

The oddness here is that standard English prefers were over was. The only verb affected by this oddity is "to be", and it really isn't grammatically analogous to the form we discussed above. For a full linguistic analysis of what's going on, I recommend the CGotEL. For a shorter rant by one the same authors, try this blog post.

However, if you force things a bit, English does permit something which looks sort of like the French passé du subjonctif:

Quote:
?For him to have committed the offence, it was essential that he have transmitted HIV to (his partner) with an intent to transmit it.

The author of this sentence is convinced that English has a present perfect subjunctive that works like the French passé du subjonctif.

But there's still no relationship between this form, and the form we see in "If I were ___": The two forms affect entirely different contexts, and there's no simple present/past relationship between them. I mean, sure, you can call them both "subjunctive" if you want, or call them "weebles" and "frombles". But regardless of what you call them, these two forms have almost nothing to do with each other, grammatically speaking.

Edited by emk on 08 October 2014 at 3:06pm

2 persons have voted this message useful



Slayertplsko
Heptaglot
Newbie
Slovakia
Joined 4643 days ago

24 posts - 29 votes
Speaks: Slovak*, Czech, FrenchB2, EnglishC2, German, Italian, Spanish

 
 Message 14 of 24
08 October 2014 at 3:14pm | IP Logged 
emk wrote:

But linguistically speaking, this form has nothing at all to do with this other
rather odd construction in English:

Quote:
If I were president…
Si j'étais le president…

The oddness here is that standard English prefers were over was. The only
verb affected by this oddity is "to be", and it really isn't grammatically analogous to
the form we discussed above.


That's true, it's different. But couldn't it be said that subjunctive simply serves
many functions in a language? To me, the English past subjunctive form doesn't sound
strange at all. It's the same thing in German where it's inflected more.

Take the verb sein 'to be'
In present subjunctive (Konjunktiv I) it goes ich sei, du seist, er/sie/es sei, wir
seien, ihr seiet, sie/Sie seien. Notice the (to me at least) interesting similarity
with English in that the subjunctive resembles the infinitive quite a lot and this is
true for every German verb (the German indicative is: bin, bist, ist, sind, seid, sind,
i.e. very irregular). But since English no longer has any present tense endings,
barring the 3rd per. sg. -s, in English the infinitive and subjunctive of this and
every other verb are the same.
In past subjunctive (Konjunktiv II) it goes ich wäre, du wärst, er/sie/es wäre, wir
wären, ihr wärt, sie/Sie wären. Does it resemble the English ''if I were you'' quite a
lot? I think it does. The indicative is not much different in this case (war, warst,
war, waren, wart, waren).

I've read the blog article about subjunctive but the author doesn't give any
explanation for why it should be wrong to call the 'were' form past subjunctive. He
just called those doing it clueless, which doesn't really help.

My theory on this is that the subjunctive (called conjunctive in some languages, e.g.
German or Italian) has several functions, but to express it in the most general terms
possible (based on my knowledge of English, German and French), it always implies some
uncertainty. This implication of uncertainty means that it can well serve these
purposes:
1, indirect speech (the present subjunctive in German), since it's not clear if it's
true, but someone claims it to be. Wikipedia says that in German you can use even past
subjunctive in this case to cast even more doubt on the reported past statement, but
I've never encountered it.
2, demands in those that/que clauses(the present subjunctive in French and English) -
again, it's uncertain
3, wishes and such (in all three - Vive le roi!, Thy will be done., Deine Wille
geschehe.)
4, in conditional sentences (in all three, but most prominently in German) - the past
forms of subjunctive are used to express the unlikeliness of the outcome. The 'were'
construction in English, the imparfait and plus-que-parfait du subjonctif are used in
novels in both clauses instead of imparfait and plus-que-parfait d'inficatif and
conditionnel and conditionnel passé. In German the use of Konjunktiv II in these cases
is very common.

So I think that English is influenced by both the West Germanic subjunctive as well as
the French/Romance subjunctive and combines the two. I agree, however, that the
definitions are quite messy. Like why call it subjunctive and not conditional, etc.

emk wrote:

However, if you force things a bit, English does permit
zaburonis-jailterm-appeal-rejected/story-fnihsrf2-1226885507 329?
nk=a02ce45f5d18e5233babe878119edfd6">something
which looks sort of like the French
passé du subjonctif:

Quote:
?For him to have committed the offence, it was essential that he have
transmitted
HIV to (his partner) with an intent to transmit it.

The author of this sentence is convinced that English has a present perfect subjunctive
that works like the French passé du subjonctif.


Very interesting. Legal talk, it seems.
1 person has voted this message useful



tarvos
Super Polyglot
Winner TAC 2012
Senior Member
China
likeapolyglot.wordpr
Joined 4517 days ago

5310 posts - 9399 votes 
Speaks: Dutch*, English, Swedish, French, Russian, German, Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Afrikaans
Studies: Greek, Modern Hebrew, Spanish, Portuguese, Czech, Korean, Esperanto, Finnish

 
 Message 15 of 24
08 October 2014 at 5:58pm | IP Logged 
And this is why Dutch (which has a conjunctive form, theoretically), never uses it
anymore! :D
2 persons have voted this message useful



daegga
Tetraglot
Senior Member
Austria
lang-8.com/553301
Joined 4331 days ago

1076 posts - 1792 votes 
Speaks: German*, EnglishC2, Swedish, Norwegian
Studies: Danish, French, Finnish, Icelandic

 
 Message 16 of 24
08 October 2014 at 7:14pm | IP Logged 
Slayertplsko wrote:

1, indirect speech (the present subjunctive in German), since it's not clear if it's
true, but someone claims it to be. Wikipedia says that in German you can use even past
subjunctive in this case to cast even more doubt on the reported past statement, but
I've never encountered it.


Er sagt, er sei gern in Berlin. --> Either he claims that he is in Berlin and he likes
it there, or he claims that he has been in Berlin and usually liked it there.
Er sagt, er wäre gern in Berlin. --> He is not in Berlin right now, but he claims he
would like to be there.

The subordinate clause wouldn't change if the main verb was "sagte" btw. (unlike
Scandinavian languages for example).
It's not so much about the degree of doubt, but rather what he really said, ie. either
a wish/hope or a statement.
In spoken German, Konjunktiv I is practically not used anymore (not sure if that is
true for all regions), depending on the situation you could render it as indicative or
Konjunktiv II. You see this often in written texts too nowadays. Maybe someday, it will
be like in English.

Edited by daegga on 08 October 2014 at 7:15pm



1 person has voted this message useful



This discussion contains 24 messages over 3 pages: << Prev 13  Next >>


Post ReplyPost New Topic Printable version Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page was generated in 0.3613 seconds.


DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved
No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization.