| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | Is the subjunctive disappearing in English? Thread poster: Tim Drayton
|
|---|
Tim Drayton 
Cyprus
Local time: 01:46
Turkish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | I am not so sure | May 16, 2014 |
Neil Coffey wrote: I think it's important to be aware that, while we often refer informally to English having "subjunctives", they're not really subjunctives in the way this term is usually applied to languages as a whole. Usually, the phenomenon labelled "subjunctive" refers to a verbal paradigm that grammaticalises non-assertion. Or in other words, subjunctives are essentially "normal" conjugated verb forms: they have distinct forms in enough cases to identify that there is actually paradigm, syntactically behave essentially like any other conjugated verb form, and are instinctively acquired by any native six-year-old just like any other boring old verb form. But in English, that's not what we have. Ignoring the case of the so-called "past subjunctive" with 'were' (which again is really a nonsensical notion-- we don't generally propose an entire paradigm based on one single form), all evidence suggests that every single so-called "subjunctive" form in English is actually an infinitive. As speakers of other languages, the subjunctive can seem in some sense 'mandatory' or the lack of it surprising, but it seems to me that what we are trying to do in that case is impose the grammar of other languages on to English. Tim Drayton wrote:
"We insist that a meeting be held as soon as possible,"
where the subjunctive 'be held' is used to show that this is what the speaker thinks should be done.
Now, what seems to have happened is that this construction, which is probably a relic from the time when English actually did have subjunctive forms, has more or less survived 'on the fringe' in formal usage but has been gradually declining for some time. What seems to have happened is that recently (in the last 50 years or so) it has had a modest revival in some varieties of English. You seem to be assuming that a short time ago, English was in a state where this construction was widely and instinctively used, but it's really not clear that that is the case. Tim Drayton wrote:
"We require linguists are available to work on this immediately."
In this case, why do you assume that it has anything to do with the "subjunctive"? Isn't it just that the author missed out the word 'who'? Tim Drayton wrote:
The above sentence jars with me
Sure: it's simply ungrammatical! But I don't think there's any strong evidence that this case is related to the issue of "subjunctive". Tim Drayton wrote:
"... asked for it to be decided that a portion of their fees is refunded."
...
and as I belong to the descriptive rather than prescriptive school of grammar, I wonder if a shift is taking place in the rule.
As I say, there possibly isn't a "shift", so much as a continual decline over the past few centuries. Along that decline, we're coming out of a minor 'blip' when the infinitive construction had a bit of a resurgence. Though in this specific example, we need to be careful not to second-guess things. We don't actually know what script the newsreader had in front of them: perhaps it said "be" but the reader made a slip of the tongue; perhaps it said: "...that a portion of their fees is TO BE refunded" and either they misread it or a hasty editor cut it out at the last minute...
It is true that in most tenses and persons the subjunctive has fused with the indicative in English, but not everywhere. The 'he speak' in 'I insist that he speak' is the subjunctive form in the third person of the simple present, i.e. without the -s.
| | | | Neil Coffey
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:46
French to English
+ ...
| "Requiring"... | May 16, 2014 |
Tim Drayton wrote:
I accept the above point, but then, as I understand it, it is necessary to paraphrase. You can't just use a structure requiring the subjunctive and make the verb indicative.
I think this is a good example of what I mean by trying to impose the grammar of other languages on to English. In languages with subjunctives, we tend to think of such-and-such a verb as "taking" the subjunctive. And by and large, that's held out by the data: verbs in particular constructions tend to take one or other mood. (Though with some cases where the choice is essentially idiolectal or subject to change over time.) But in English, that's not the situation that we have: there really aren't verbs/constructions that "require the subjunctive".
| | | |
The following sentence:
We require linguists are available to work on this immediately.
I'd associate with old-fashioned colloquial speech.
It makes no sense for the LSP or client to require 'linguists' in the abstract, or even a select subset (in which case it would have better not to omit the definite article), to be available to work immediately on whatever assignment needs to be handed down to someone.
Rather, the 'require' there t... See more The following sentence:
We require linguists are available to work on this immediately.
I'd associate with old-fashioned colloquial speech.
It makes no sense for the LSP or client to require 'linguists' in the abstract, or even a select subset (in which case it would have better not to omit the definite article), to be available to work immediately on whatever assignment needs to be handed down to someone.
Rather, the 'require' there takes the same meaning as in, 'we require aid.' Yes, the kind of speech you'd hear in computer games and fantasy novels based in a mediaeval-sorta setting. Followed up with an ellipsis of the kind you'd also generally encounter only in that sort of setting in the modern day (not that I visit the English countryside often enough to find out), i.e. skipping 'that' or 'who' in the role of a relative pronoun introducing a defining clause.
Thus:
'We need linguists who are available to work on this immediately.'
is probably the intended meaning of the sentence in more standard, regionless, 21st century English.
Now, regarding the meeting and the refund, from what I recall of being taught English as a second language twenty years ago, grammar reference was full of shenanigans with the indicative that didn't make much sense even to someone in whose L1 the subjective didn't exist. I basically sorted things out on my own after reading more and learning Latin and French along the way. One of my chosen solutions was, 'meeting should be held,' in order to mitigate — especially for BrE — what would otherwise effectively be the bare infinitive by not omitting the operator.
Using the past subjective (should) rather than the present subjunctive (shall) also mitigates the command, so in effect you aren't laying down hard law but only stating a softer request or requirement.
For the record, when it comes to butchering English grammar non-natives get too much credit and natives too little. A while ago, I was reading a passage in a respected author's book and I saw a statement to the effect that the particular error was not typically made by native speakers. My own reaction was like, dude, who else if not native speakers (something like missing or wrong terminations, e.g. no 3rd person s or they're/their).
Oh, and the subjunctive is still going strong in legalese. Should the Client (by some freak acccident that's obviously merely hypothetical because it never happens in real life) fail to pay the invoice on time, the Translator shall have the right to charge interest.
[Edited at 2014-05-16 14:57 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Neil Coffey
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:46
French to English
+ ...
| Why they're not "subjunctive forms" | May 16, 2014 |
Tim Drayton wrote:
It is true that in most tenses and persons the subjunctive has fused with the indicative in English, but not everywhere. The 'he speak' in 'I insist that he speak' is the subjunctive form in the third person of the simple present, i.e. without the -s.
Tim: the reason for saying that they're infinitives is also syntactic. For example, think about how you would negate "speak" in your sentence above:
"I insist that he not speak".
and, notice how this also applies to a very such as "be":
"I insisted that there not be any arguments."
"*I insisted that there be'nt any arguments."
Notice the position of the "not" in this case and the fact that we can't negative the so-called "subjunctive" verb in the way we normally negate conjugated verbs. But we *do* negate *infinitives* in that way, i.e. the syntax is essentially the same as if you had an overt modal:
"I insist that he (will/should/might/dare) not speak."
"I insisted that there (should) not be any arguments."
So while informally it's common to apply the word "subjunctive" to this construction, what syntactically we have appears to be much more like a construction with a 'null' modal and infinitive:
"I insist that he [M] speak"
"I insist that he [M] not speak"
[Edited at 2014-05-16 15:08 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Tim Drayton
Cyprus
Local time: 01:46
Turkish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Alternative theory | May 16, 2014 |
An alternative explanation is that there is a different 'rule' for forming the negative in the subjunctive, i.e.
Simple present, indicative, first person
I come, I do not come
Simple present, subjunctive, first person
I come, I not come
Simple present, indicative, third person
He comes, He does not come
Simple present, subjunctive, third person
He come, He not come
I am not say... See more An alternative explanation is that there is a different 'rule' for forming the negative in the subjunctive, i.e.
Simple present, indicative, first person
I come, I do not come
Simple present, subjunctive, first person
I come, I not come
Simple present, indicative, third person
He comes, He does not come
Simple present, subjunctive, third person
He come, He not come
I am not saying that this is necessarily the correct explanation, but it works.
In my idiolect, I would have to say that the construction "I insist that ..." is one that requires the subjunctive. I cannot think of any clause using a verb in the indicative mood that will work for me there.
Certainly, even if you support the theory that there is a subjunctive in English, one has to concede that this mood is used far less than in certain other languages that have it, and in most cases there is no morphological distinction between the forms, which fudges the whole matter greatly. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Tim Friese
United States
Local time: 17:46
Member (2013)
Arabic to English
+ ...
| A very UK perspective | May 16, 2014 |
Neil Coffey wrote: Tim Drayton wrote:
I accept the above point, but then, as I understand it, it is necessary to paraphrase. You can't just use a structure requiring the subjunctive and make the verb indicative.
I think this is a good example of what I mean by trying to impose the grammar of other languages on to English. In languages with subjunctives, we tend to think of such-and-such a verb as "taking" the subjunctive. And by and large, that's held out by the data: verbs in particular constructions tend to take one or other mood. (Though with some cases where the choice is essentially idiolectal or subject to change over time.) But in English, that's not the situation that we have: there really aren't verbs/constructions that "require the subjunctive".
As others have stated, you are expressing a very UK flexibility to the subjunctive. In the US, this tends to be more straightforward. There are indeed constructions where US speakers expect the subjunctive: "I insist that" "it is imperative that" "I demand that". I think I would use the subjunctive 100 times out of 100 for the above constructions.
A few times each edition of the Economist, I have to re-read a sentence because of them not using the subjunctive in these cases or using what to me are bizarre phrases like "in future".
| | | | Tim Drayton
Cyprus
Local time: 01:46
Turkish to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | I insist that Paris is the capital of France. | May 16, 2014 |
I have just noticed a case where the indicative can be used after "I insist that ... ". Imagine somebody is forcefully telling me that Paris is not the capital of France, and I wish to state that it most certainly is, I could use the above sentence (although it feels a little forced).
On the other hand, if I am insisting on something being done, the subjunctive is mandatory for me.
| | | | Neil Coffey
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:46
French to English
+ ...
| The scientific method means placing constraints on your theory | May 16, 2014 |
Tim Drayton wrote:
An alternative explanation is that there is a different 'rule' for forming the negative in the subjunctive, i.e.
...
I am not saying that this is necessarily the correct explanation, but it works.
But remember that the aim of "good science" isn't to come up with *any* old explanation, but rather to come up with the simplest, most coherent model that explains the available data.
You *can* propose that English has "subjunctive" forms which in every case are identical to the infinitive and then propose that these forms, but just these forms, have a special rule for forming negatives which is unlike the negative rule for other conjugated verb forms but which is the same as the rule used to negate infinitives. You can also propose that English has a special tense form called the "Monday present" which is used instead of the ordinary present tense on Mondays but which is identical in form and syntax to the ordinary present... You can propose that model, but usually we don't, because it adds complexity without adding any explanatory power. In the model that you put forward for the "subjunctive", that's essentially what you're doing.
Tim Drayton wrote:
Certainly, even if you support the theory that there is a subjunctive in English, one has to concede that this mood is used far less than in certain other languages that have it, and in most cases there is no morphological distinction between the forms, which fudges the whole matter greatly.
It doesn't just "fudge the matter", though: it means that they're completely different phenomena.
| | |
|
|
|
Tim Friese
United States
Local time: 17:46
Member (2013)
Arabic to English
+ ...
| Good example | May 16, 2014 |
Tim Drayton wrote:
I have just noticed a case where the indicative can be used after "I insist that ... ". Imagine somebody is forcefully telling me that Paris is not the capital of France, and I wish to state that it most certainly is, I could use the above sentence (although it feels a little forced).
On the other hand, if I am insisting on something being done, the subjunctive is mandatory for me.
I agree with the indicative usage here - subjunctive is ungrammatical for me.
| | | | Kirsten Bodart
United Kingdom
Local time: 00:46
Dutch to English
+ ...
| I insist the capital of France henceforth be Paris | May 16, 2014 |
in the times before the capital of France was Paris, the king could have declared this because he wanted it. 'I insist the capital of France is Paris' is indeed right if you are speaking now to a person who is totally ignorant of the fact: the capital of France is Paris, period.
You can also see this construction in the King James Bible. 'that he be not...' means 'that he may not...' as in 'I desire he will/shall not be'. Abbreviating it is a bit uncomfortable, but should theoretica... See more in the times before the capital of France was Paris, the king could have declared this because he wanted it. 'I insist the capital of France is Paris' is indeed right if you are speaking now to a person who is totally ignorant of the fact: the capital of France is Paris, period.
You can also see this construction in the King James Bible. 'that he be not...' means 'that he may not...' as in 'I desire he will/shall not be'. Abbreviating it is a bit uncomfortable, but should theoretically be possible and was apparently first used in the 1600s when English started to use ain't and don't, but has evidently gone out of use. I would say probably because the place of 'not' if written in full has shifted. Jane Austen's characters could still say 'are not you' for 'aren't you', whereas we would have to say 'are you not' (in extremis).
It definitely is not an infinitive. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Michele Fauble
United States
Local time: 15:46
Member (2006)
Norwegian to English
+ ...
| Good discussion | May 16, 2014 |
How refreshing it is to read a discussion about grammar that is informed by a knowledge of linguistics, rather than the usual rants about how it's wrong, wrong, wrong because some self-appointed language "authority" says it is, usage be damned.
| | | | Jeff Whittaker
United States
Local time: 18:46
Member (2002)
Spanish to English
+ ...
|
|
|
Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 00:46
Italian to English
In memoriam | If the mood takes you | May 16, 2014 |
Neil Coffey wrote:
I think it's important to be aware that, while we often refer informally to English having "subjunctives", they're not really subjunctives in the way this term is usually applied to languages as a whole.
There are other ways of looking at this, Neil.
While I agree with you that applying the term "subjunctive" to the vestigial non-assertive verb forms that English still retains is sometimes unhelpful, all languages of which I am aware still "modify" verbs in the sense that the form, inflected or phrasal, of the verb can express the speaker's mood (attitude) towards the action described.
The moods contemplated in languages of which I am aware range from the indicative (really a sort of non-modal mood) to the subjunctive, optative, jussive, performative and so on. Crucially, verbal moods may be marked in discourse by a variety of mechanisms, including inflection (as in most Indo-European languages from Sanskrit on) to auxiliaries inserted in the verb phrase (English and many other languages) and suffixes agglutinated to the root verb (the Turkic languages, among others).
It is equally important to remember that apparently similar forms are not always used in the same way in different languages. Modal auxiliaries, for example, are performative in English but not in German or the neo-Latin languages.
The modal notion can also be incorporated into the discourse as a dynamic verb. That's why Phil Hand feels that "insist that a meeting be held" and "insist that a meeting is held" are equivalent. In the first phrase, the mood-marked "be held" is redundant because the modal notion is already present in "insist".
Could we possibly agree that while the term "subjunctive" is of secondary importance in English, modality is an important concept when analysing discourse in all languages?
[Edited at 2014-05-17 05:53 GMT]
| | | | Neil Coffey
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:46
French to English
+ ...
Giles Watson wrote:
The moods contemplated in languages of which I am aware range from the indicative (really a sort of non-modal mood) to the subjunctive, optative, jussive, performative and so on. Crucially, verbal moods may be marked in discourse by a variety of mechanisms, including inflection (as in most Indo-European languages from Sanskrit on) to auxiliaries inserted in the verb phrase (English and many other languages) and suffixes agglutinated to the root verb (the Turkic languages, among others).
So, I think my view would agree somewhat with this but where I differ slightly is that I think it's helpful to distinguish between what is strictly 'mood'-- a systematic marking of modality through verb morphology, which is essentially as systematic a dimension as other 'core' features such as tense, aspect, number etc-- and other means of marking modality which are more 'peripheral' to the verb phrase, including the modal auxiliaries in English. It's not clear to me that the thing people informally call "subjunctive" in English is one of these 'core, systematic dimensions' to the verb morphology (whereas in various other languages it is).
Giles Watson wrote:
Could we possibly agree that while the term "subjunctive" is of secondary importance in English, modality is an important concept when analysing discourse in all languages?
Yes. Unfortunately, I also think that it's one of the wishy-washyest areas of linguistic analysis...!
| | | | Oliver Walter
United Kingdom
Local time: 23:46
German to English
+ ...
| Simple explanation | May 16, 2014 |
Taking a cue from Neil's remark about science and simple explanations, I think the non-use of the subjunctive (if that's what it is) where many native English speakers would use it is due to a mixture of ignorance (including copying bad examples) and bad teaching, analogous to the reasons for remarks such as "If he would have done X, they would have done Y" instead of the correct "If he had done X, they would have done Y".
Oliver
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Is the subjunctive disappearing in English? | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
