Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007

Hi Marius. No, it is in a book entitled: A Dictionary of Modern English
Usage.
It is in the section about subjunctives, starting from the bottom of
page 576 and filling the first column of page 577.
I cannot do better than to quote from it. So here it is:
To those who have had to do with Latin & Greek grammar,there will to e
familiar sund in  Sequence of Tenses and Sequence of moods; what is
implied in the terms is that it may be necessary to use a tense or mood
nt to convey the meaning peculiar to it as such but for the sake of
harmony with another verb on which it depends. The principle has its
place, though little isheard of it, in English grammar; it is mentioned
here, because the most likely explanation of the subjunctives now to be
quoted, some clearly wrong, someat best uncalled-for, seems to be a
hazy memory of seqence of moods; after each example the supposed
reasoning is mentioned, not as sound, but as concievable.

1)Why should ordinary shop assistants enjoy a half-holiday as is
proposed in Sir William Bull's Bill, while the staff working behind the
scenes, often working underground, be denied this privilege?
(Fowler's note:'Why should assistants be denied' is in the subjunctive
which isextended to the subordinate clause making it 'why should the
behind-the-scenes staff BE denied, instead of IS denied)
(My note:Fowler seems to think 'IS denied' is better)

(Some other examples which I omit since they have less bearing on this
topic)

2)And if exceptional action were needed to prove love, What would be
proved except that love were not the rule.
('Exceptional action were needed' and 'what would be proved' are in the
subjunctive what there is no need for it tofilter down to 'love is not
the rule'. So it should be   'love is not the rule' and not 'love were
not the rule)

(And some more examples,either along the lines of the above two or a
little irrelevant to the present discussion)