Talk:Subjunctive mood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Shorten and restructure languages?

I think that a lot of the information on individual languages needs to be trimmed. In particular, the conjugation tables strike me as excessive; and a lot of information that's common to multiple languages could be stated once instead of repeated everywhere. That said, most of this is encyclopedic, just not relevant to this article; so, we should make certain that information we delete from here exists in appropriate articles.

We can also restructure the page somewhat by doing more to group related languages. This will hopefully make it easier to avoid repetition: something true of, say, both German and Dutch could be included in a "Germanic languages" header section, and the details of each could be explained in appropriate subsections.

Thoughts?

Ruakh 19:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I just think it strange that there are a certain selection of languages. Maybe links to sub-articles about each language for itself? "Subjunctive in Spanish," "in German", etc. Having half a dozen or so strikes me as strange, because not just those languages use that tense, right? Mdesrosii 01:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously we can't include every single language, even if we do just provide links to sub-articles. The idea is to give information on a number of languages, so people come away from the article with both an understanding of the English subjunctive and a general understanding of subjunctives in other languages. Right now, the article is kind of a hodge-podge, not giving a good unifying explanation; rather, people need to read each language and draw their own conclusions; that needs to be improved. But neither adding every other world language, or removing all information to subpages, will solve the real problem. Ruakh 12:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "I wish I were an Oscar Meyer weiner."

Some mention of I wish I were an Oscar Meyer weiner? I'd do it myself if I could make sense of its broader relevance (did it affect anything linguistically in any noticeable way? I don't know). Koyaanis Qatsi 01:22, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Whether certain auxiliary verbs mark the subjunctive mood in English

A question, from someone who knows little about linguistics or grammar, but who learnt some French and has now attempted to find the subjunctive in English: don't words like could, should, might, may and would mark verbs as being in the subjunctive mood? And isn't this a relatively good way of starting to explain it to naïve Anglophones? -- pde 06:37, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, "could", "would", ... are called "conditional". According to this article, conditional and subjunctive are the same. But this seems wrong to me. It would mean that there exist two subjunctive forms for to be.

In German and Spanish, conditional (Konditional, potencial/condicional) and subjunctive (Konjunktiv, subjuntivo) have different conjugations.

--zeno 09:53, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As they do in French. But the grammatical contexts in which they are required or acceptable are the same. -- pde 12:32, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't think they are acceptable in the same places in French. It's possible that you can use a subjunctive instead of a conditional (don't know), but doing the opposite is non-standard, if not flat-out wrong. - 62.254.128.6 18:51, 20 February 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over certain claims about British English

I'm a speaker of British English, and I dispute the following:

They insisted that there should be a proper catering service involved. (American English: They insisted that a proper catering service be involved.)

"They insisted that there be a proper catering service involved." would be my natural inclination.

In British English, it is considered incorrect to use a negative subjunctive. The sentence He took heed that his boss not see him., while correct in American English, is incorrect in British, where it should be rendered thus: He took heed that his boss might not see him. (or lest his boss should see him).

The former is not "incorrect in British"! It is slightly less common, but nevertheless perfectly correct. One frequently hears announcements at railway stations (for example) in the form of "It is essential that passengers not leave their personal belongings on the train." and so forth. 80.255

Even if that form weren't common here in many parts of England (note: negative subjunctive!), how can it be "incorrect"? It's plain English. - 212.139.198.82 11:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed I doubt that the whole American-British distinction is nearly as clear-cut as the article claims. At most there may be a difference of tendencies. That example They insisted he went to chapel every day is not, I think, a sentence with a different meaning on each side of the Atlantic, but rather, a sentence which is ambiguous on both sides, though possibly the two speech communities might show a different tendency as to which of the two meanings strikes them first. --Doric Loon 17:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's ambiguous where I am, in the U.S.'s Upper Midwest: it very clearly means something like They refused to acknowledge that he might not be going to chapel every day. If I heard it, and later realized that the speaker meant They refused to let him skip chapel any day, I would assume the speaker had simply misspoken. (Most speakers here wouldn't be able to identify that he go as the subjunctive - if asked, maybe they'd think it was a use of the command form, or maybe they'd think they were simply wrong in saying it - but they would use it nonetheless. At least, so I think.) Ruakh 21:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I guess you're right. I just asked one of my friends here how she'd interpret it - without giving options - and she said it could mean two different things (giving the two meanings you'd expect). So, I guess there is ambiguity, even here. (But if she were the one speaking, and meant "insisted he go," she said that she'd say "insisted he had to go" or "insisted he should go," not "insisted he went.") Ruakh 23:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason I'm doubting is because I'm Scottish and the usage given here as American would be my preferred usage, though I am comfortable with both. But the subjunctive is just so cool (a scientific statement if ever there was one!), quite subjectively it feels stronger and richer than the unmarked options, and it certainly is not my impression that it is moribund in Britain. --Doric Loon 08:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formation of the subjunctive in English

The subjunctive is formed by taking the infinitive stem of the verb, not the 3rd person present. Hence 'be'. Also, I percieve 'I demand that Napoleon surrenders' as quite grammatical, and would use that construction. - 62.254.128.4 09:02, 16 October 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong. "I demand that Napoleon surrenders" in incorrect and bad grammar. The correct sentence is "I demand the Napoleon surrender." The problem is that the subjunctive is not properly taught in most English classes. Usually the people who have studied a foreign language are the ones who use the subjunctive tense properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.191.14 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 19:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your comment is nonsensical. Firstly, the person you're replying to wrote only that (s)he perceived that construction as grammatical. Unless you're in his head (I'm going to assume for simplicity that it's a guy), it's nonsensical to tell him that he doesn't in fact perceive that. Secondly, if the people who have studied a foreign language are indeed the ones who form the subjunctive the way you do — as in, most English speakers form it differently — then it's nonsensical to claim that "correct" English has rules independent of the actual language. Thirdly, the subjunctive is a mood, not a tense. —Ruakh_TALK 04:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A new section on the subjunctive in Portuguese

I created a section on the subjunctive in Portuguese. I based it on text and examples in the French and Spanish sections, mutatis mutandis. If anyone can think of any better examples, feel free to change them. EDIT: I couldn't think of a word equivalent to Haver impessoal, which is há, translatable as "there is" and "there are" in English. What is its infintive in English? In Spanish this would be haber, in French y avoir and in Italian esserci. --200.189.74.130 17:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

In English, the subject is essential to the meaning, so you'd use have to use either there to be or for there to be: "For there to be an answer, there must first be a question"; "I want there to be a separate web-site for each project." Ruakh 19:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Star Beast

The Star Beast in Robert A. Heinlein's novel stated to the protagonist:

"He's telling the truth".

Surprised, the protagonist asked

"How do you know that?"

The star beast then replied

"He spoke in the subjunctive."

In other words, the English language badly needs to retain the subjunctive mood! I fear for countries that are giving up its usage. How else might one state things that are not yet true and yet very much need to be discussed? What other mechanisms of language might there be to work things out? --Ancheta Wis 15:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English Subjunctive Overhaul

Folks, I think the English Subjunctive section could seriously do with a major overhaul. So I'm currently working on a version to make it a bit more succinct, comprehensible and flowing, and yet still try to retain as much info submitted by other users as I can. I'm having minor moral dilemma trying to work in the differences between British English and American English, primarily because although I appreciate there may be some slight differences, there are enough internal differences within British and American varieties themselves to warrant not raising this as a serious issue (on the basis that it could be misleading). Please see work-in-progress article at user:brianlacey/sandbox. I'd really appreciate any comments! Brian 17:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I do like the box. I would prefer, though, that the cultural references be kept (Fiddler on the Roof; Oscar Mayer, Marvell, &c.) if only because these references allow people to see the mood at work in quotations they might recognise. Smerdis of Tlön 19:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Smerdis (by the way, great name!), I'll definately be keeping those references - I don't want anyone to think I'm going to totally erase their input - I'm just doing a thorough reshuffle! Brian 21:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I don't know whether a crossreference to the Germanic section of Indo-European copula would help for historical aspects. See what you think. --Doric Loon 09:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've transfered my finished (as far as I'm concerned anyway!) version of the English Subjunctive from my sandbox to the article's page, and I'm praying that I haven't disgraced myself by angering anyone who was in the love with the way it used to be! Ruakh - I notice your comment at the top of this talkpage regarding using tables! However, because there are so few differences between the indicative and the subjunctive, I thought it would be easier for someone who didn't know anything about this subject to see them clearly laid out. Brian 20:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subjunctive in Dutch

The subjunctive in Dutch is in Dutch grammar texts always refered to as conjunctive. The Dutch name is 'aanvoegende wijs'. In contradiction with the article, there is only one such mood, and it is not like the ones in German (although no doubt there's a common ancestry). Also, 'used less commonly' is a rather huge understatement, as the conjunctive is used exclusively in fixed expressions ('leve de Koniningin' - 'long live the Queen'). Instead, Dutch uses forms of the verb 'zullen' ('shall') to express what German expresses with the subjunctive. Perhaps the form 'zou(den)' (from 'zullen') (and colloquial 'wou((d)en)' from willen?) originated as a subjunctive, any Neerlandicus that can write something about this? I would propose to remove the section on Dutch entirely, until someone can write something useful about it.

212.159.203.211 10:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)KH

As a native Dutch speaker, I second all your comments. Also, I must say, the phrase "is also used rather frequently" confused me on first reading, because I thought it to mean that this form is actually used. Maybe it it should rather say "usually". No Dutch person would either say or write something in subjunctive without a tongue in cheek, save the sporadic expression here and there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.93.92.62 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] English mention in section on Portuguese

On 6 April 2006, user Kwertii changed the beginning of this sentence:

Like English, Portuguese and Spanish use the imperfect subjunctive in hypotheticals after se and si ("if"), respectively. In such a case, the main clause is in the conditional mood.

Kwertii changed the opening wording to "Like archaic or formal English". I have undone Kwertii's change. Why?

1. The fact that not all English speakers always "use the imperfect subjunctive in hypotheticals" has already been mentioned earlier in the article.

2. It's not just archaic. Although she may have been a feminine third-person singular personal pronoun in the time of words that are now considered archaic, I wouldn't describe she as an archaic pronoun—because it's still in common use. The same goes for this usage.

3. It's not just formal. While it may come down to individual instances, individual persons, and specific constructions, it's not restricted to formal usage. There must be many, many speakers of English as a first language who, without ever giving a thought to being formal or trying to be formal—and even specificially wanting to be considered informal—, say such things as "If I were you" without even thinking about it.

That's all. President Lethe 04:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Ruakh 04:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "pluperfect subjunctive" does not have perfect aspect

Perfect aspect in English cannot usually go together with expressions denoting a specific time: "I have killed him" and "I killed him three hours ago" are both OK, but not *"I have killed him three hours ago." Nevertheless, you can say "I wish I had killed him three hours ago," with the "pluperfect subjunctive." This shows that the pluperfect subjunctive is a simple past tense, with no perfect aspect.--128.36.66.222 19:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)jpb

It's both. "They've done this before" and "They did this" are both OK, but not *"They did this before." Nevertheless, you can say "I wish they had done this before." This shows that the pluperfect subjunctive can have a present-perfect sense *or* a past-non-perfect one. Ruakh 21:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

But on the other hand we say that "She's gone to London" has perfect force, while "She went to London" does not, because the former expression implies that she is still in London, while the latter makes no reference to her present location. But if I say, "I wish she had gone to London" I do not imply that, in my wished-for scenario, she would still be in London, but merely that she would have gone at some time in the past; whether I wanted her to stay or to return afterwards, I did not specify in my wish. This would seem to suggest that the "pluperfect subjunctive" lacks perfect force, even though, as you point out, it can occur in the same places as truly perfect forms. For purposes of simple taxonomy at the introduction of the article, I think it would be less misleading to say that the "pluperfect subjunctive" is the past tense of the "past subjunctive", rather than its perfect aspect. Using the second term seems to suggest that the construction has perfect force.--128.36.66.222 04:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)jpb

The term "Pluperfect subjunctive" comes from comparative linguistics, it makes sense in Latin or German, and it is used in reference to English when certain parallels are being drawn. But normally, this term is not used in modern books on English grammar. We no longer use the term "pluperfect" either, but rather "past perfect". The point is, though, that to create a subjunctive force, "I wish" needs to be followed by a tense shift. If we are already talking in either the present perfect or the past simple, a tense shift leads to a subjunctive resembling a past perfect, which then can have either the perfective aspect or not. --Doric Loon 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Doric Loon. I agree that the term "pluperfect subjunctive" seems a little archaic but my problem wasn't with that term. The problem is in describing the "pluperfect subjunctive" as the "perfect aspect" of the "past subjunctive." If, as you and Ruakh seem to agree, the "pluperfect subjunctive" only occasionally behaves like regular perfect forms, and other times does not, then it is misleading to categorize it as "the perfect aspect" of the subjunctive -- it would be better just to say it is the "past tense" and leave the aspect, so to speak, unspecified in the description, just as it seems to be in the language itself. I found the current nomenclature confusing, and I am sure other readers would, too, so I'm for changing it. --Gheuf 03:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)jpb

I advise caution in extrapolating from a language like English, which barely has a subjunctive at all, to all languages. FilipeS 14:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't think anyone was; this discussion was about the section titled "The pluperfect subjunctive", within the section on English. Ruakh 16:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Spanish

The section on Portuguese has the following examples:

• English: "If I were (past subjunctive) king, I would end (conditional) hunger."
  • Spanish: Si fuera (imperfect subjunctive) rey, acabaría con (conditional) el hambre.
  • Portuguese: Se fosse (imperfect subjunctive) rei, acabaria com (conditional) a fome.

However, I'm not absolutely sure that the Spanish version is right. Should it be "Si era rey...", instead? Some help would be appreciated. FilipeS 17:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You might be thinking of French, which indeed uses the imperfect indicative for that; Spanish, however, uses the imperfect subjunctive. To quote from p. 454 of ¡Arriba!: Comunicación y Cultura, Third Edition, by Eduardo Zayas-Bazán and Susan M. Bacon (ISBN 0-13-08415-8):

When a si clause contains implausible or contrary-to-fact information, the imperfect subjunctive is used in the si clause and the conditional tense [sic] is used in the result clause.

• Si fuera un drama bueno, iría a verlo. — If it were good drama, I would go see it.
• Sería más interesante si supieras cinematografía. — It would be more interesting if you knew cinematography.

The bigger question is, do we need that example there anyway? That ended up in the Portuguese section because I didn't do a very good job when I separated out the Romance languages into their own sections (IIRC they were previously in a big section that purported to be about French), but it should probably be removed from that section now.

Ruakh 20:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. The example is part of a comparison between Spanish/English, on one hand, and Portuguese, on the other. But there may be other ways to word it... FilipeS 22:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To be clearer, I think a single section for all Romance languages, with examples from various languages this time, might be a good choice. FilipeS 14:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I make no claim that the current set-up is the best, only that it's better than how it was before, with Spanish and Portuguese kind-of having their own sections and kind-of just having part of the section on French. If you want to unite the Romance languages into a single coherent explanation, I think that would be great. :-) Ruakh 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant brand-name-dropping

I don't know whether this is intentional advertising or just bad taste, but sticking a brand name logo at the top of a totally unrelated article reeks. I'm not saying not to mention the "I wish I were an etc." at all, but what does that logo have to do with it? Are the brightly painted words "Oscar Mayer" in the subjunctive? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.188.13.25 (talk • contribs) . It was me Bandiera 16:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Without ever really thinking about it, I found it kind of funny, but now that you bring it up, I guess it is inappropriate. Ruakh 04:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then, can I remove it? Bandiera 16:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No one else has commented, so I guess you might as well. Ruakh 17:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Out it goes, with anti-capitalist glee! Bandiera 03:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How silly. LordLiverpool 14:22, 04 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] if that were the case

I am always happy to learn something: is "if that were the case" in the subjunctive? To my ears, it is. The "if" is immaterial, it seems; "that were the case" seems to be subjunctive. True? --Ancheta Wis 06:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the past subjunctive. Ruakh 13:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words Bill Jefferson was offering the public a sentence which moots any alleged charges against him. --Ancheta Wis 23:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Pluperfect subjunctive tense?

There's a whole article about the Pluperfect subjunctive tense. It has heavy overlap with this page and already needs to link back to this article several times, so it seems to me that it is fit for merging. Comments? --BCSWowbagger 17:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

that would be quite wrong. The subjunctive is an entire mood which, in different languages, appears in many different tenses. To merge it to a single tense would be a category error. It might be possible to merge the pluperfect subjunctive in with this article, but that might make things unduly long. seglea 18:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understood me, Seglea. I am talking about sticking PPS into *this* article, not vice versa. It *might* make things unduly long, but I doubt it. Since there doesn't appear to be an objection, I think I'll give it a shot... as soon as I figure out how to merge. --BCSWowbagger 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging must be done manually; in this case, you would move information from Pluperfect subjunctive tense to the appropriate places in Subjunctive mood, with edit summaries like "moving information from Pluperfect subjunctive tense". Once you've added to Subjunctive mood everything that needs to be added to it, you simply replace the contents of Pluperfect subjunctive tense with

#redirect [[Subjunctive mood]]

so that anyone visiting Pluperfect subjunctive tense gets Subjunctive mood.

Ruakh 01:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruakh. I'm adding the redirect now. It seems you were right, though: there's nothing of value in the current PST entry, except a discussion of the tense in Icelandic, hence nothing for me to merge. Unfortunately, knowing absolutely nothing about Icelandic, I can't expand on it enough to make a complete discussion for *this* article. If anyone else wants to, the final version of PST before getting a redirect is here: [1], including the Icelandic paragraph. --BCSWowbagger 20:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may be blunt, that article says almost nothing that's true, and of what it does say that's true, almost none is of significance. I think we should simply replace the current text of Pluperfect subjunctive tense with a redirect to Subjunctive mood. (If there's any information worth bringing over, then I'm not opposed to doing so; it's just my impression that there isn't.) Ruakh 19:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to have been much of a merge here. Where is the stuff taken from Pluperfect subjunctive tense? There's very little of it here. -- the GREAT Gavini 10:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed not; I guess I was convincing. Ruakh 16:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does English even have a past subjunctive

Some linguists seem to be of the opinion that there is no past subjunctive. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001192.html

"if I were" is a different form entirely, the irrealis.

"past subjunctive" is just the preterite. Why invent a grammatical disinction where none exists?

This is the relevant passage:

It isn't actually the subjunctive. People often call the "were" of "I wish I were" subjunctive, but that term is much better used (as in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language) for the construction with "be" seen in "I demand that it be done." The "were" form is often wrongly called a past subjunctive, but of course "it were done" is not a past tense of "it be done". The difference between the two is that the subjunctive construction occurs with any verb: "I demand that this cease" is a subjunctive (notice "this cease", not "this ceases"). The relic form in "I were" is only available for "be". For all other verbs you use the preterite: "I wish I went to New York more often." The Cambridge Grammar calls the "were" form the irrealis form. It is surviving robustly in expressions like "if I were you", but even there it has a universally accepted alternate "if I was you", and there is no semantic distinction there to preserve.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.67.89 (talk • contribs) .

The article already does a good job explaining the details of the past subjunctive, including the reasons that Drs. Pullum, Huddleston, Zwicky, etc. reject the term past subjunctive. Seeing as the term past subjunctive is universal, I don't think Wikipedia can really accept their bold renaming, logical and well-motivated though it be. (That doesn't mean we can't mention their scheme, but I don't think we should structure the article around it.)

Incidentally, Dr. Zwicky is at least partly wrong, as his explanation doesn't note that the perfect-aspect auxiliary have still supports the inverted syntax: Had I come earlier, things would have been different. (And in dialects such as BrE where non-auxiliary have is also subject to inversion — "Have you any idea who I am?" — I think we see the same thing there. At least, the old line "Had we but world enough, and time" is still perfectly understandable; I don't know if that construction is still productive in Britain.) (The article currently just says that subjunctive were can be inverted while was cannot; that statement does need to be fleshed out a bit.)

Ruakh 12:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how inverted "had" is relevant. The point is that the past subjunctive is indistinguishable from the past indicative. They are the same thing.

You can invert "had" - "had I come earlier" is equivalent to "if I had come earlier". But that doesn't make it the subjunctive.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.243.246.34 (talk • contribs) .

Re: The point is that the past subjunctive is indistinguishable from the past indicative.: I'm sorry, but you're mistaken; that's not the point that was being made. Ruakh 17:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Then what is the point you were making with inverted "had"?

"The past subjunctive is indistinguishable from the past indicative." -- Not for the verb "to be". Plus, residual as it may be today, historically the English subjunctive is very clearly the descendant of a Germanic subjunctive, analogous in every aspect to the subjunctive that you still find, for example, in German. FilipeS 16:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error in the indication of German tense

It is possible to express the KI in various tenses, including the present (er sei da gewesen) and the future (er werde da sein) although the latter is rarely used.

It looks like the name past (the “Perfekt”) was meant here, rather than present.--Imz 01:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some English examples are not English

I put your dinner in the oven so that it keep warm. He wrote it in his diary so that he remember.

These are not English.--Gheuf 16:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. One can say "so that it should keep warm" and "so that he should remember", but the non-should-using version is not subjunctive, but rather straight-up indicative ("so that it will keep warm", "so that he would remember"). —Ruakh_TALK 18:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't even the version with "should" kind of artificial-sounding? FilipeS 21:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think so. It sounds a bit old-fashioned to my Midwestern ears, but I think it's still current in the U.K. (?) —Ruakh_TALK 02:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Acc. to my sense for these things, each sentence might plausibly be rendered in one of two ways, the literary or the colloquial.

I put your dinner in the oven so that it might keep warm. (lit.)

I put your dinner in the oven so it would keep warm. (col.)

He wrote it in his diary so that he might remember. (lit.)

He wrote it in his diary so he would remember. (col.)

The versions with "should" sound quite peculiar to me. the versions with the bare subjunctive, impossible.--Gheuf 04:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The new versions you've put up seem to me to have the same problem as the old ones.--Gheuf 05:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Google:"in order that" shows that while the phrase doesn't usually introduce a bare-subjunctive clause, it does so a not-insignificant portion of the time. It seems like it most often introduces may clauses, with can, might and bare-subjunctive clauses tying for second most often. —Ruakh_TALK 07:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"In order that" or just bare "that" puts the phrase into a more literary/archaic register than "so that", and this facilitates the true subjunctive. But I suggest using some attested examples, because this register is not particularly compatible with dear diary and dinner in the oven… CapnPrep 08:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how you got that from the google search. Of the first ten examples, 4 were unrelated constructions (e.g., "in order. That"), five used "may" and only one used the bare subjunctive. Of the ones using "may", two were quotes from John Ruskin, and one was from a book on style saying that "In order that" should be followed by "may, might, can" or another modal verb. The one use of bare subjunctive seemed to be an example of "officialese". It seems that passages using "may" were not only much more numerous, but also of a higher quality, than those using a bare subjunctive. You're quite right that the bare subjunctive is occasionally encountered, but the construction seems to be infrequent and is, to my ears, jarring. Why include such marginal cases here?--Gheuf 04:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple: I looked at more than the first ten examples. :-) Of the first fifty, 23 use may, 5 use can, 3 use might, 3 are unambiguous uses of the subjunctive, 2 are ambiguous between the subjunctive and the plain indicative, 2 are unambiguous uses of the plain indicative, 2 use will, 2 use shall, 1 uses should, and 1 uses would. (The other 6 are 4 irrelevant uses of the word sequence "in order that", 1 mention-rather-than-use of the phrase, and 1 unintelligible sentence from a clearly non-native writer.) It's dangerous to extrapolate from small samples, but as a first-order approximation, 9% of relevant uses of "in order that" on the Web use the plain subjunctive. And to me, the plain subjunctive sounds fairly natural in clauses introduced by "in order that", though it depends somewhat on the sentence; as it happens, neither example in the article right now sounds quite right to me, perhaps because (as CapnPrep suggests) the context doesn't seem sufficiently formal to warrant the plain subjunctive. —Ruakh_TALK 06:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Even with the numerous examples you mention, it seems that the bare subjunctive is employed much more infrequently than some modal verb (whether or not it's "may'). And I'd bet that a large proportion of these are also "officialese".--Gheuf 06:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but I'm afraid I don't see your point … :-/ —Ruakh_TALK 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand the point, and it is that the article makes it seem as though the subjunctive is alive and kicking in English, with all sorts of different forms, when actually many of the examples in the page seem to be literary, old-fashioned, regional, or contrived. I guess there was no better way to illustrate the concept of subjunctive in English, but there's something about the tone of the whole English section of the article that is just not very realistic. FilipeS 20:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yes, the article should do a better job distinguishing between cases where people usually use the plain subjunctive ("I ask that everyone respect this decision") and cases where other forms (either the plain indicative, or a redundant modal auxiliary construction) are more common. This depends strongly on dialect — I think ?"It's important that everyone should respect this decision" sounds ridiculous, but from what I gather, it's the form preferred in British English — but we can at least make some effort. I'll see about it … —Ruakh_TALK 00:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the edit you made putting the "may" in parentheses considerably improves things. FilipeS, you understood me right when you pointed out that the examples seem contrived. What I was getting at was that the construction "in order that" with bare infinitive seems to me extremely marginal, almost ungrammatical; "officialese" is practically its own sub dialect, and seems to use constructions that would be unacceptable in the normal language.--Gheuf 06:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the subjunctive mood?

I am puzzled by the phrasing used in this article, which seems inconsistent. On the one hand, the subjunctive is sometimes defined as a kind of verb form: "(that he) own" or "(that he) be" or "(that he) were". On the other hand, the subjunctive is sometimes defined as an "idea", as in the section that says that a modal verb may "express" the subjunctive. But is the subjunctive really something that can be expressed? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that sentences using the subjunctive and sentences using certain modal verbs often overlap in what they express?

This conflation of meaning, function and form seems especially problematic in the structure of the article, which is organized along the uses of the subjunctive: "to express a possibility", "to express a command", etc. This is not the best way to organize things at all. We can express these ideas without the subjunctive: "He is perhaps in Spain," "I order you to go"; and we can use the subjunctive without expressing any of these ideas: "Plain though she be, we'll find a husband for her yet" (="She is plain, but we'll find a husband for her yet").

A definition of the subjunctive based on meaning is therefore bound to be at once too narrow and too broad. --Gheuf 07:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You should understand that most of the examples from English do not give the true flavour of the subjunctive. In the other languages mentioned in the article, the subjunctive is most definitely a different set of verb forms. But what is it that makes them "subjunctive" forms, rather than forms of some other grammatical mood? Their predominant function. So, explaining the typical functions of a subjunctive is also important. FilipeS 13:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

>>But what is it that makes them "subjunctive" forms, rather than forms of some other grammatical mood? Their predominant function.<< The SIL website seems to make, very succinctly, the distinction which I am referring to, and which may be the same as the distinction between "mood" and "modality": "Subjunctive mood is a mood that typically signals irrealis meanings." Obviously the use of the subjunctive mood has some relation to meaning; but that is not to say that it IS a particular kind of meaning. ("Modal verbs can 'express' the subjunctive".)

The section where the subjunctive is categorized "according to function" should perhaps be rewritten to emphasize syntax over meaning: Subjunctive occurs in subordinate clauses introduced by "that" after "important, necessary", etc..... This would avoid the problems inherent in the "meaning" approach: "Subjunctive is used 'to express' necessity" -- the problems I have already mentioned above.--Gheuf 15:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair criticism. I would tend to agree with your objections. I, too, see the subjunctive as more a morphological concept than a semantic or syntactical notion (though the three aren't completely separate). However, I am not an expert. We may need a linguist to come and sort this out. (Then again, modern linguists seem to be fond of reducing everything to semantics...) FilipeS 11:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

One perennial introduction to the subjunctive is an advertising jingle widely known in the US.

• "I wish I were an Oscar Meyer wiener"

In my opinion, the jingle epitomizes the article. It expresses a genuine counterfactual, etc. Every summer, a new class of student marketeers leave Madison, Wisconsin to cover the US in wienermobiles. They can wear costumes, learn marketing, have fun, and get paid to boot.

Note: the word that is not in the jingle. At one time the jingle was even in the article. --Ancheta Wis 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faça-se luz

I wonder why someone changed "faça-se luz" to "que se faça luz". If I remember correctly, Brazilian Portuguese and Portuguese Portuguese differ in where the clitic pronoun should be placed -- maybe the correcter was Brazilian? The online Bible I checked had "haja luz" ("let there be light" rather than "let light be made"), which is an equally useful example of the bare subjunctive. Maybe it should be preferred since it doesn't use clitic pronouns, which are outside the scope of what the example is meant to illustrate.--Gheuf 05:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the translation I am used to has Faça-se luz (or, more precisely, Faça-se a luz). FilipeS 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bravo!

I've studied the English portion of this for a long time and started to write several criticisms, which I have put aside and come back to several times. I was very skeptical of several aspects of this entry. But as I worked out what I was going to say, again and again I found I was wrong and the entry was correct as written. I think it is very nearly perfect. Bravo! Please defend it against all attempts to change it unless they are very very convincing.

JimLuckett 23:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - This article is excellent. Kudos to the contributors! Beth C. 06:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.191.158 (talk)

[edit] German again

The article says use of the Konjunktiv I "is in continual decline". I'm a native speaker, and I've never heard it used outside of the news in TV and radio (a bit like how French ne is almost exclusively written but not spoken nowadays); also, my dialect, like all I know something reasonable about, lacks any trace of it. But then I'm Austrian. Is that different somewhere in Germany? David Marjanović 18:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conditional and subjunctive

I think we are getting two moods confused here. In my opinion "might" and "should " are subjunctive whereas "would" is conditional. For example: We hoped that they might succeed. (subjunctive) ...there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (St Luke and subjunctive) If I were rich, I would be happier. Conditional (and sadly true).

Although it is often dangerous to make analogies with other languages, some of the concepts are common even if the words are not. Consequently I believe that the two moods in French correspond with their equivalents in English. Thus in French "Si j'étais riche, je serais plus content." This is also condititional and is directly analogous with the third English example above. JMcC (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subjunctive in Slavic

I have removed the recently added section "The Subjunctive in Russian":

               кто хочелo бы стать милионером = who wants to be a millionaire
               Нам хотелось бы τри билета, пажалуйста = we'd like 3 tickets, please

The text needs cleaning up and formatting, and the examples are not subjunctives, but main clause conditionals. It might be good to have some discussion of Slavic languages in this article, because there seems to be some controversy over whether they have a subjunctive mood (see this forum, for example). CapnPrep (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mood vs. Tense

Why is the article called Subjective Mood? It is not a "mood", it is properly a tense. One does not say the future mood or plusperfect mood, one says future tense and plusperfect tense. Why should the subjunctive be any different? In over thirty years of studying fivee different languages, I have never heard anyone else refer to is as a mood rather than a tense. Finally, the articles on past and future tenses are entitled "Past Tense" and "Future Tense". It seems that we should be consistent in naming the articles, and therefore the main title of this article should be "Subjunctive Tense", not "Subjunctive Mood". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.222 (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, subjunctive transcends tense (in the temporal sense). That is why it is not called 'tense'. When one asks God to 'bless you and keep you', there is no time involved for an Eternal. Rather it is a request beyond the mere temporal moment, but for Eternity. There are other subtleties in the usage of subjunctive which will occur to me and to you as we read this talk page. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] needed fix

This paragraph needs attention. I think there's a mix up where some of the UKs need to be changed to USs but I'm not sure enough about which ones to make the change myself.

Instead, UK English often uses present indicative or even past indicative − which are both considered incorrect by many people in the UK and (prescriptive) UK authorities on language usage − or a construction with "should". Much time is spent in the UK in trying to prevent this language change well underway in UK English, and the use with "should" is arguably better because not considered as ungrammatical by most. So instead of writing No wonder the Tory Party turned him down as a possible candidate, suggesting he went away and came back with a better public image. as in the Guardian (which would be almost impossible to find in any US newspapers, which would always use the traditional go away and come back), it would be considered less ungrammatical to use should go away. Some authorities like Ernest Gowers even recommend the use with should (in UK English) instead of the untenable traditional forms.

Thanks -LambaJan (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no mixup here. It's correctly quoted and summarised from the source indicated. What part do you want me to check, do you have trouble believing? US usage here is, as more often than not, more conservative than UK usage, despite the popular opposite misconception. --Espoo (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I think that misconception was getting in the way of my reading it correctly. I get it now, thank you. -LambaJan (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is the French translation of 'God keep our land glorious and free!' also in subjunctive mood?

Is Et ta valeur, de foi trempée also in subjunctive mood, as is the English? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a literal translation. FilipeS (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is the Subjunctive "Universal" in Informal, Educated Speech?

The article says, "While use of the subjunctive in natural, informal speech is almost universal among educated speakers, its use is becoming very infrequent among large portions of the population." Personally, I don't think this is true. I consider myself educated as well as many other people around me, and many never make use of the subjunctive in common speech. While many use it infrequently, I think the words "almost universal" are too strong of a generalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.88.247 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Decline in English

Surely the change from "If I were.." to "If I was.." does not indicate a decline in the subjunctive? Surely in the phrase "If I was President...", the subjunctive is still used since you're using a past tense form to express something that is extremely unlikely to occur and certainly did not occur in the past. And the same for phrases like that such as "I wish I was President" in which people are a lot less likely to use "were". Same for stuff like "If I bought a new car" which would express something that could happen in the future that is certainly not impossible or necessarily unlikely by using a past tense form. Maybe I'm confusing exactly what the subjunctive is here, but the article doesn't make it completely clear. --92.22.214.224 (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Subjunctive" is a morphological term. If the subjunctive looks exactly like the indicative in every way, then there's no point in even talking about it, and the language can be said to lack a distinct subjunctive. This is no different from saying that English lacks grammatical genders, or cases. FilipeS (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh right. But since it uses a different tense form, surely it's still noteworthy? --92.40.45.160 (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)