 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006Grammatical term needed
German has two subjunctive moods, called "Subjunctive I" and "Subjunctive II" in the grammar book I used, the first derived from the present infinitive, and the second from the simple past. For example: Er kommt -- er komme -- wenn er kämme And I see the same two in English, with both dying out He comes -- that he come -- if he came He is -- that he be -- if he were Is there a good name for the middle mood, one that ends with -ive? I'd like to see these forms as * infinitive * indicative * ???ive * subjunctive * imperative In case you're in doubt as to what I'm refering to, I mean the mood of the word "give" in the sentence, "It's important that he _give_ the matter his immediate intention."  SignatureStefano > German has two subjunctive moods, called "Subjunctive I" and > "Subjunctive II" in the grammar book I used, the first derived from the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the word "give" in the sentence, "It's important that he _give_ the > matter his immediate intention." If he does come = wenn er komme If he were to come = wenn er kämme If he should come = wenn er komme If he would come = wenn er kommen würde Steve MacGregor wrote: > German has two subjunctive moods, called "Subjunctive I" and > "Subjunctive II" in the grammar book I used, the first derived from the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the word "give" in the sentence, "It's important that he _give_ the > matter his immediate intention." Correction: wenn er käme Not sure of the names of the terms you're looking for. I've never heard any one use "er komme" in speech - always "er käme", usually in reported speech. Baboon. > Not sure of the names of the terms you're looking for. > I've never heard any one use "er komme" in speech - always "er käme", > usually in reported speech. That's what I learned as subjunctive II, used for situations contrary to fact. The other is analogous to the optative in English. Es ist wichtig, daß er sehr schnell komme. It is important that he come very quickly. This form in English, without the "s" ending, is what I was trying to name. Maybe it's disappearing in German as it is in English. SignatureStefano > German has two subjunctive moods, called "Subjunctive I" and > "Subjunctive II" in the grammar book I used, the first derived from the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the word "give" in the sentence, "It's important that he _give_ the > matter his immediate intention." Does future anterior exist in German? W > German has two subjunctive moods, called "Subjunctive I" and > "Subjunctive II" in the grammar book I used, the first derived from the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the word "give" in the sentence, "It's important that he _give_ the > matter his immediate intention." To me, that's the real subjunctive, but I think some (including John Lawler?) use "subjunctive" for "if I were" and "optative" for your example. Certainly "God bless you" has an optative. -- Jerry Friedman's opinion may be less worthy of consideration here than John Lawler's. > To me, that's the real subjunctive, but I think some (including John > Lawler?) use "subjunctive" for "if I were" and "optative" for your > example. Certainly "God bless you" has an optative. Thank you; "optative" is the name I was looking for. I need a name for that mood in order to explain English grammar in a tutorial on Esperanto, for comparisons of the grammar. SignatureStefano > And I see the same two in English, with both dying out > > He comes -- that he come -- if he came > He is -- that he be -- if he were [ snip ] > In case you're in doubt as to what I'm refering to, I mean the mood of > the word "give" in the sentence, "It's important that he _give_ the > matter his immediate intention." Is that actually dying out? -- Mike Hardy >> And I see the same two in English, with both dying out >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Is that actually dying out? -- Mike Hardy It's pretty much dead in Britain, but still standard in the North America. To my American ears, "It's important that he gives the matter his immediate intention" is a statement that in fact he does habitually give the matter his attention, and this fact is important. To say that he ought to give the matter his attention and that it's important that he do (NB not "does") so, "that he _give_" is mandatory around these parts. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >> Is that actually dying out? -- Mike Hardy > >It's pretty much dead in Britain, No it isn't. It is widely believed to be pretty much dead in BrE, and one can find many assertions to that fact on Usenet and the Web, but that doesn't make it dead. Many UK RR's on this very group use the subjunctive as a matter of course. I, also, use it. It is dying and old-fashioned, and I would no longer classify the indicative as substandard, but the subjunctive is still alive. >but still standard in the North America. Quite so. SignatureGraeme Thomas > >> Is that actually dying out? -- Mike Hardy > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that doesn't make it dead. Many UK RR's on this very group use the > subjunctive as a matter of course. I, also, use it. I would use the subjunctive much more, were I in a position to do so. > It is dying and old-fashioned, and I would no longer classify the > indicative as substandard, but the subjunctive is still alive. > > >but still standard in the North America. > > Quite so. >> >> Is that actually dying out? -- Mike Hardy >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> that doesn't make it dead. Many UK RR's on this very group use the >> subjunctive as a matter of course. I, also, use it. I stand corrected. It's just resting. Stunned. Pining for the fjords. Maybe just the tiniest, slightest bit wired to its perch. Delicate creature, the subjunctive. Of course, my American ears tend only to take special note when it _isn't_ used, and is replaced by the indicative, so I tend to form the impression that it is perhaps deader than it really is. > I would use the subjunctive much more, were I in a position to do so. It's not the subjunctive in general that I was speaking of. For example, the contrary-to-fact subjunctive in your sentence above: there's not question that that has to be a past subjunctive; the only question is whether the subjunctive of "be" is "were" here -- the historical, but irregular form -- or if instead it gets regularised, as it often is in informal speech or writing, to coincide in form with the simple past tense, "was" (and the inversion dropped: "if I was"). No one would use the present indicative here ("*I would use the subjunctive much more, if I am in a position to do so."), though some would dispute whether to call "was" subjunctive or just past tense. Rather, it's just the (present) subjunctive in subordinate clauses after phrases like "it is important that..." that is commonly replaced by indicative in BrE but not in AmE. >> It is dying and old-fashioned, and I would no longer classify the >> indicative as substandard, but the subjunctive is still alive. >> >> >but still standard in the North America. >> >> Quite so. Yes. The difference is, I think, that the indicative definitely sounds substandard in American English in these contexts. I've _just about_ gotten used to hearing it from BrE speakers after repeated exposure. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > >> >> Is that actually dying out? -- Mike Hardy > >> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > informal speech or writing, to coincide in form with the simple past tense, > "was" (and the inversion dropped: "if I was"). > No one would use the > present indicative here ("*I would use the subjunctive much more, if I am > in a position to do so."), though some would dispute whether to call "was" > subjunctive or just past tense. No. 'Was' would be indicative. > Rather, it's just the (present) subjunctive in subordinate clauses after > phrases like "it is important that..." that is commonly replaced by > indicative in BrE but not in AmE. How odd. It seems completely incorrect to say "It is important that you are there" instead of "It is important that you be there". > >> It is dying and old-fashioned, and I would no longer classify the > >> indicative as substandard, but the subjunctive is still alive. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > substandard in American English in these contexts. I've _just about_ > gotten used to hearing it from BrE speakers after repeated exposure. Not I. > >> Is that actually dying out? -- Mike Hardy > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that doesn't make it dead. Many UK RR's on this very group use the > subjunctive as a matter of course. I, also, use it. You are right, and, quite apart from sentences where the subjunctive might be regarded as optional in BrE, there is one construction that still _always_ requires in the subjunctive in BrE and that is in clauses that follow the word "lest". I don't think one could frame a sentence with "lest" followed by the indicative that would sound acceptable in BrE. (No doubt there is someone in AUE who can prove me wrong, but that's what I think at this moment.) Of course, it may be the case (I don't know) that "lest" is a word that is not much used in colloquial English, but if it is used it takes the subjunctive. Curiously, I have the impression that "in case" (which seems to me to mean more or less the same as "lest") is less fussy about being followed by a subjunctive. athel >>> And I see the same two in English, with both dying out >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It's pretty much dead in Britain, but still standard in the North > America. FSVO dead. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary > It's pretty much dead in Britain, but still standard in the North America. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the matter his attention and that it's important that he do (NB not "does") > so, "that he _give_" is mandatory around these parts. I think what happens is that, in non-AmE, we avoid "that" clauses in wishes and requirements, so in your example, we would say "It's important for him to give the matter...". Clauses of the "require that" type only occur (for us) in legalese. SignatureRob Bannister >German has two subjunctive moods, called "Subjunctive I" and >"Subjunctive II" in the grammar book I used, the first derived from the >present infinitive, and the second from the simple past. The same is true in English, but there is no specific name (that I have ever heard of) for those two forms. The subjunctive mood in English can, as with many things, be expressed in either of two ways: by direct morphological means or by use of modal auxiliary words. As with all such choices, the direct means is the old, original method, while the use of auxiliaries is the newer and--generally--more powerful (because more subtle) method. The morphological method, called--if anything--the "simple" method, corresponds to your Subjunctive II, while the newer method--the modal-auxiliary method (as close to a name as will be found) corresponds to your Subjunctive I. The simple (morphological) subjunctive actually differs in form from the ordinary indicative only in the third-person singular of the present tense, except for the workhorse verb "be", for which it differs in all persons in the present and for all persons singular in the past tense. But the simple subjunctive can always be recognized because the English use of tenses in the subjunctive is quite different from what it is in the indicative: the past subjunctive always points to the present or the future ("Even if he *came*, it would be too late"). The modal forms are generally capable of substantially more expressiveness than the simple form. They use an auxiliary with the infinitive to achieve the same result, but with shadings of meaning associated with the choice of auxiliary. The separation of the subjunctive into the optative subjunctive (something desired or planned) and the potential subjunctive (an unfactual conception) is useful for several purposes (and each type has in turn several further subdivisions), but does not affect the actual construction of a subjunctive sentence. >> German has two subjunctive moods, called "Subjunctive I" and >> "Subjunctive II" in the grammar book I used, the first derived from >> the present infinitive, and the second from the simple past. > > The same is true in English, but there is no specific name (that I > have ever heard of) for those two forms. I believe I've heard them called "first subjunctive" and "second subjunctive" - i.e. more or less the same terms as in German - but more commonly people seem to use the (somewhat misleading) names "present subjunctive" and "past subjunctive". That's from the viewpoint of an amateur user of English. Many grammarians nowadays, whether or not they prefer marmalade, insist loudly that English has no subjunctive mood; they would instead use the terms "infinitive" and "past tense", even when it doesn't feel like an infinitive or a past tense to the speaker. This is a question of form versus function. In a sentence like "It is important that you drink enough water", the word "drink" can - in my opinion - be either indicative or subjunctive, depending on the intended meaning of the speaker. (The hearer must therefore be given enough other clues, in the context, to disambiguate the sentence.) Those who believe that English has no subjunctive would say that the two meanings have the same spelling, therefore they have the same mood. (Such people would, presumably, also say that the verb "hit" has no past tense.) A good test case is the verb "to be". Native speakers say "If I were a carpenter". Prescriptive grammarians say "If I was a carpenter". SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org We demand that we are philosophers. > >> German has two subjunctive moods, called "Subjunctive I" and > >> "Subjunctive II" in the grammar book I used, the first derived from [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > A good test case is the verb "to be". Native speakers say "If I were a > carpenter". Prescriptive grammarians say "If I was a carpenter". All was flowing smoothly till that last sentence. The case is the reverse: prescriptive grammarians recognize the subjunctive, and much else in the tongue that modern anarchists would as soon toss or pretend never existed. (Unless that was a typo for descriptive grammarians, the sort who turn out the sort of twaddle embalmed in, for example, _The Oxford English Grammar_, which uses that silly past/present labelling system mentioned above). Compare the _Oxford_ with a real grammar of real English, like my favorite of that sort, Curme's _English Grammar_. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.