 |
 | 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 2010Bare subjunctive: a datappoint
It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. I was interested to see a Victorian gentlewoman quoted, in an article on some challenges to Darwinism, using it quite unself-consciously: 'After the Origin was published, the wife of the Bishop of Worcester supposedly reacted: "Descended from monkeys? Let us hope that it is not true. But if it is true, let us hope that it not become widely known."' http://chronicle.com/article/What-Darwins-Doubters-Get/64457/ > It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is > vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. I was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://chronicle.com/article/What-Darwins-Doubters-Get/64457/ Interesting. Any difference in terms of intensity or otherwise? >> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is >> vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Interesting. > Any difference in terms of intensity or otherwise? Hard to say, since the words quoted are the whole context. Her vicarious Grace would certainly have been intensely sincere. Also, I suppose that the subjunctivising auxiliary would have been "may", and perhaps that would have changed her meaning slightly. [...] Re: "But if it is true, let us hope that it not become widely known." > Also, I suppose that the subjunctivising auxiliary would have been > "may", and perhaps that would have changed her meaning slightly. Tense use in the subjunctive is largely unrelated to temporality: the past tense indicates significantly greater doubt. He may come tonight. (quite possible) He might come tonight. (chances are poor) What I wonder is why the subjunctive in the secondary proposition, but not the primary? "But if it be true, let us hope that it not become widely known."  SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > "But if it be true, let us hope that it not become widely known." Precisely the question I asked. SignatureJames > What I wonder is why the subjunctive in the secondary proposition, > but not the primary? > > "But if it be true, let us hope that it not become widely > known." I wondered about that too. I think the reason is that to govern a subjunctive, a verb of desire has to be one that indicates that the desire will or might have some effect on the actual course of events: I hope that it is so. I wish that it were so. I recommend (order, urge, demand, etc.) that it be so. Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: Successful systems accumulate parasites. :|| >It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is >vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. I was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >not true. But if it is true, let us hope that it not become widely >known."' Generally agreed? I don't remember agreeing. I'm not a general, of course, just a private rightpondian. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is >> vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Generally agreed? I don't remember agreeing. When will I learn? I should have said that that was my impression. BrE speakers do seem more likely to say "vital that he should go", which is less likely in NAmE, or "vital that he goes", which is plain wrong over here, at least for that meaning. > I'm not a general, of course, just a private rightpondian. No caviar for you. >> I'm not a general, of course, just a private rightpondian. >> >No caviar for you. That's a major disappointment. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>> I'm not a general, of course, just a private rightpondian. >>> >> No caviar for you. > > That's a major disappointment. Some might be ready to talk back to that, but majors aren't. > When will I learn? I should have said that that was my impression. > BrE speakers do seem more likely to say "vital that he should go", > which is less likely in NAmE, or "vital that he goes", which is plain > wrong over here, at least for that meaning. Since when is "vital that he goes" wrong? Signature'But you ain't part of it, are you?' said Granny conversationally. 'You try, but you always find yourself watchin' yourself watchin' people, eh? Never quite believin' anything? Thinkin' the wrong thoughts?' --Maskerade >> When will I learn? I should have said that that was my impression. >> BrE speakers do seem more likely to say "vital that he should go", >> which is less likely in NAmE, or "vital that he goes", which is >> plain wrong over here, at least for that meaning. > > Since when is "vital that he goes" wrong? When it means "it is vital for him to go" instead of "he goes, and that's vital", it's wrong in North America. That's why I specified the place (over here), and why I added "at least for that meaning" (the meaning we had seen in the original example, "... let us hope that it not become widely known.)" . Can I take it that you are a speaker of British English, OARFT? But I see that you hold sound opinions in the matter of Marmite, or at least jam. Account for yousrelf, Sir. Or Ma'am. >>> When will I learn? I should have said that that was my impression. >>> BrE speakers do seem more likely to say "vital that he should go", [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (the meaning we had seen in the original example, "... let us hope > that it not become widely known.)" Interesting, I would not make that distinction, I don't think. Though I seemed to have missed the original posting. I think I would not use 'goes' though. It is vital that he go to Seattle. It is vital that he should go to Seattle. The only difference to my ear is that the second is uncessarily wordy. In the first example I would not go so far as to say that using 'goes' sounds wrong, I just don't think I would use it. > Can I take it that you are a speaker of British English, OARFT? But I > see that you hold sound opinions in the matter of Marmite, or at least > jam. Account for yousrelf, Sir. Or Ma'am. Ah, if only it were that simple. I am, at least technically, AmE. However, I seem to have read far too many British books without the 'benefit' of an American editor to do such critical things as change 'car park' to 'parking lot' to protect my young and impressionable mind from the evils of rightpondian English. This means everytime I read an American publisher's version of Hitchicker's Guide to the Galaxy I am annoyed anew at the ruining of a perfectly good joke. SignatureAUDITORS OF REALITY. THEY THINK OF LIFE AS A STAIN ON THE UNIVERSE. A PESTILENCE. MESSY. GETTING IN THE WAY. 'In the way of what?' THE EFFICIENT RUNNING OF THE UNIVERSE. --Hogfather BAGMAN IS NOT A LEGITIMATE CAREER CHOICE Bart chalkboard Ep. 2F10 > This means everytime I read an American publisher's version of > Hitchicker's Guide to the Galaxy I am annoyed anew at the ruining of a > perfectly good joke. Ah, you mean: Zaphod: Parking lot? What are you doing in the parking lot? Marvin: Lotting cars, dur. SignatureDavid >> This means everytime I read an American publisher's version of >> Hitchicker's Guide to the Galaxy I am annoyed anew at the ruining of a >> perfectly good joke. > Ah, you mean: > Zaphod: Parking lot? What are you doing in the parking lot? > Marvin: Lotting cars, dur. Sigh. Yes. Signatureif you ever get that chimp of your back, if you ever find the thing you lack, ah but you know you're only having a laugh. Oh, oh here we go again -- until the end. It was long ago and it was far away / And it was so much better than it is today >>> This means everytime I read an American publisher's version of >>> Hitchicker's Guide to the Galaxy I am annoyed anew at the ruining [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sigh. Yes. Besides being ruined, apparently, by having been excised and moved to _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_, how exactly is the joke ruined? In the American edition it's Parking cars, what else does one do in a parking lot? In the British edition is there some witty play on the double meaning of "park" (as in, say, "city park")? 'Cause if it's just that parking cars is what you do in a car park, I'd say that the joke works just as well here. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If only some crazy scientist 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |somewhere would develop a device Palo Alto, CA 94304 |that would allow us to change the |channel on our televisions...... kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | --"lazarus" (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> This means everytime I read an American publisher's version of >>>> Hitchicker's Guide to the Galaxy I am annoyed anew at the ruining [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > cars is what you do in a car park, I'd say that the joke works just as > well here. Lewis' revision shows what goes wrong. The original has an interesting structure (chiasmus?): What are you doing in the car park? Parking cars The joke remains but loses its rhythm. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >>>>> This means everytime I read an American publisher's version of >>>>> Hitchicker's Guide to the Galaxy I am annoyed anew at the ruining [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > The joke remains but loses its rhythm. "Lotting parks" would preserve the rhythm and the chiasmus, but it wouldn't make a lot of sense. SignatureJames <snip> >"Lotting parks" would preserve the rhythm and the chiasmus, but it >wouldn't make a lot of sense. The two-bit word, chiasmus, does not make a lot of sense to most people, I'd wager. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> This means everytime I read an American publisher's version of >>>> Hitchicker's Guide to the Galaxy I am annoyed anew at the ruining [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Sigh. Yes. > Besides being ruined, apparently, by having been excised and moved to > _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_, how exactly is the joke > ruined? In the American edition it's > Parking cars, what else does one do in a parking lot? Ah, but in the original the entire exchange is the joke, starting with the exchange between Zaphod and Marvin and continuing to the mirrored exchange with Zaphod and Arthur. > In the British edition is there some witty play on the double meaning > of "park" (as in, say, "city park")? 'Cause if it's just that parking > cars is what you do in a car park, I'd say that the joke works just as > well here. [Zaphod] Marvin, will you please tell us where you are! [Marvin] I'm in the car park. [Zaphod] What are you doing in the car park? [Marvin] Parking cars. What else does one do in a car park? [Zaphod] OK, stay there. I'll be down in a minute. [Marvin] That makes two of us. [Zaphod] Come on, guys, let's go! Marvin's down in the car park. [Arthur] What's he doing there? [Zaphod] Parking cars, what else, dum-dum? Come on, let's go! Could just be me, but the excised and 'corrected' American version just falls flat and loses the internal mirroring that is refelcted in the doubling of the conversation. It's a very well written little bit, and it is spoilt by the hamfistedness of some clueless git who thought it was 'too British' or somesuch. Ther's also the issue that the change was *stupid* and *unnecessary* However, it is not the stupidest change I've ever seen an American publisher make. That still has to be the change in Good Omens where Crowley's favorite shows (Cheers, and American sitcom) is changed to Golden Girls (another American sitcom). Why this change was made is baffling. I suspect it was either a bet between two editors, or someone's favorite show was Golden Girls and they wanted to get it into the book. SignatureI WILL NOT DRIVE THE PRINCIPAL'S CAR Bart chalkboard Ep. 7F06 IT WOULD BE A MILLION TO ONE CHANCE, said Death. EXACTLY A MILLION TO ONE CHANCE. 'Oh,' said the Bursar, intensely relieved. 'Oh dear. What a shame.' --Eric >>>>> This means everytime I read an American publisher's version of >>>>> Hitchicker's Guide to the Galaxy I am annoyed anew at the ruining [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > with the exchange between Zaphod and Marvin and continuing to the > mirrored exchange with Zaphod and Arthur. I'll take your word on it, but I would have expected that "car park" would just be a fixed phrase for most British readers, referring to exactly the same thing we call a "parking lot", and that they wouldn't even be likely to notice "Hey, he reversed the words". The joke is that a "What are you doing there?" in the sense of "Why are you there?" is taken literally as "What activity are you engaging in there?" Is Adams on record as saying that he even noticed the "car park"/ "parking cars" mirroring much less considered it crucial to the joke? >> In the British edition is there some witty play on the double meaning >> of "park" (as in, say, "city park")? 'Cause if it's just that parking [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > just falls flat and loses the internal mirroring that is refelcted > in the doubling of the conversation. I think it's just you. It works fine with "parking lot" if that's what you call the place. > It's a very well written little bit, and it is spoilt by the > hamfistedness of some clueless git who thought it was 'too British' [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > someone's favorite show was Golden Girls and they wanted to get it into > the book. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Marge: You liked Rashomon. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Homer: That's not how *I* remember Palo Alto, CA 94304 | it. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [Douglas Adams: "car park" / "parking lot"] > Could just be me, but the excised and 'corrected' American version just > falls flat and loses the internal mirroring that is refelcted in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ther's also the issue that the change was *stupid* and *unnecessary* The American edition still has references to cricket ... but someone thought "car park" would cause confusion? SignatureDo you know what they do to book thieves up at Santa Rita? http://www.shigabooks.com/indeces/bookhunter.html > [Douglas Adams: "car park" / "parking lot"] >> Could just be me, but the excised and 'corrected' American version just >> falls flat and loses the internal mirroring that is refelcted in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Ther's also the issue that the change was *stupid* and *unnecessary* > The American edition still has references to cricket ... but someone > thought "car park" would cause confusion? I think editors feel they have to change SOMETHING, even if the change is moronic. I doubt this is just our editors. Ever read the US version of Good Omens? For some reason the American publisher felt the need to change Crowley's favorite show from "Cheers" (a very popular American sitcom) to "Golden Girls" (A somewhat less popular American Sitcom watched primarily by women, and older women at that). Signature'Does he have people put to death?' said Mort. SOMETIMES. THERE ARE SOME THINGS YOU HAVE TO DO, WHEN YOU'RE A KING. >> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is >> vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. I was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Generally agreed? I don't remember agreeing. Nor I > I'm not a general, of course, just a private rightpondian. I'm gunner second that. Sapere aude and stuff. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>> [rash generalisation] >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I'm gunner second that. Sapere aude and stuff. Eny fule no? >>It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is >>vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. I was [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I'm not a general, of course, just a private rightpondian. I also don't remember agreeing, being a private lower right pondian. And I think that form is commonly used in resolutions at meetings; a bit formal, but still used. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it >>> is vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > And I think that form is commonly used in resolutions at meetings; > a bit formal, but still used. I continue to be surprised. I had thought this was pretty-well settled, that the bare subjunctive had fallen out of use in BrE and was only slowly being reintroduced from the North American (OK, let's be real, American) example. Resolutions at meetings might be a formalistic survival, I suppose (do they say YEA/AYE and NAY at these meetings?); and, for the rest, the reintroduction must be proceeding apace. I should clarify a possible misimpression that I may have left: I didn't and don't suggest that the bare subjunctive is incorrect in BrE, only that it is little-used, or was so for a while -- a while which I had thought included the Victorian period. > I continue to be surprised. I had thought this was pretty-well > settled, that the bare subjunctive had fallen out of use in BrE and > was only slowly being reintroduced from the North American (OK, let's > be real, American) example. I thought it was just falling out of use in BrE now, encouraged by BBC example. I've heard the indicative form from BBC World Service announcers for about 12 years, but didn't start noticing it in the speech of their interview subjects until last year. ¬R >>>> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it >>>> is vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > BrE, only that it is little-used, or was so for a while -- a while > which I had thought included the Victorian period. IIRC, 'twas a sci.langer named Neill who kept insisting only the left-ponders still used the subjunctive like that and it had died out where he lived and worked. When a few Rightpondians begged to differ, I think he claimed they were just part of the old guard that was dying out. SignatureAl in St. Lou >>>>> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it >>>>> is vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Rightpondians begged to differ, I think he claimed they were > just part of the old guard that was dying out. It's been discussed here too, but I'm being forced to the conclusion that I misremember the debate. [...] >>> I continue to be surprised. I had thought this was pretty-well >>> settled, that the bare subjunctive had fallen out of use in BrE and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It's been discussed here too, but I'm being forced to the conclusion > that I misremember the debate. I've never read sci.lang, so it was definitely crossposted here. SignatureAl in St. Lou >> It's been discussed here too, but I'm being forced to the conclusion >> that I misremember the debate. > > I've never read sci.lang, so it was definitely crossposted here. Probably by PTD, who claims that he never crossposts here. (And he can't deny it without admitting that he has read this message.) But I would accept a claim that he did it accidentally, because it's pretty clear that he doesn't understand the GG interface. But, then, does anyone? SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>>>> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it >>>>>> is vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > It's been discussed here too, but I'm being forced to the conclusion > that I misremember the debate. I no longer remember it, but the last time I contributed to such a debate, I _would_ have said the bare subjunctive was unnatural to ordinary British discourse, whether spoken or written; I wouldn't be surprised to find it from time to time in very formal or high-falutin' use, and I _do_ think it's coming back, at least to some extent, under American influence. Further, if I'd been His Grace's missis, I wouldn't have used any kind of subjunction or irrealismo at all: I'd have said "...let us hope it does not become generally known." I think a subjunctive or one of its substitutes would have been plain wrong. So there. SignatureMike. >>>>>>> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive >>>>>>> ("it is vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > So there. Her honour has been vindicated elsethread, and I confounded. > It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is > vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. I use it and I'm Brit. > I was > interested to see a Victorian gentlewoman quoted, in an article on > some challenges to Darwinism, using it quite unself-consciously: > 'After the Origin was published, the wife of the Bishop of Worcester > supposedly reacted: "Descended from monkeys? Let us hope that it is > not true. But if it is true, let us hope that it not become widely > known."' That's how people used to speak, isn't it? And some of us still do. SignaturePablo >> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is >> vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > That's how people used to speak, isn't it? And some of us still do. Note that she said "If it is true" and not "If it be true". What can we read into that? SignatureJames >>> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it >>> is vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Note that she said "If it is true" and not "If it be true". What > can we read into that? She used the word "that"as a cue? If that it be true ... I suppose the same was true of early Scottish? "Gin that" followed by the subjunctive? The first page of googlehits is unmixed genever, and I'm afraid to look deeper. >> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is >> vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. > > I use it and I'm Brit. Not from Barcelona, originally? >> I was >> interested to see a Victorian gentlewoman quoted, in an article on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's how people used to speak, isn't it? And some of us still do. Actually, I would almost certainly have said "that it does/will not become", and I'm a North American. Perhaps the unusualness of the form is what made it stand out for me. >>> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is >>> vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > become", and I'm a North American. Perhaps the unusualness of the > form is what made it stand out for me. Ah! A blast of glorious right-mindedness! My apols for not reading the whole thread before replying. SignatureMike. >>>> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it >>>> is vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Ah! A blast of glorious right-mindedness! My apols for not reading > the whole thread before replying. Her Honour has been vindicated elsethread, by Joe Fineman, and I confounded. (In my list, the posting appears right after yours, dated 3/9/2010.) > It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is > vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. I was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not true. But if it is true, let us hope that it not become widely > known."' My understanding is that the bare subjunctive was standard in expressions of desire until the 19th century, when it was abandoned on both sides of the Atlantic. It was subsequently revived in America and imported into Britain, where for a while it was sometimes called "the American subjunctive". However, the above (mis)quotation is not an example of it. Idiom does not allow it after "hope": I can say "I hope it happens" or "I hope it will happen", but surely not "I hope it happen". And indeed, Google reveals that what the lady said was "let us hope that it does not become widely known". Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: We only of Creation (Oh, luckier bridge and rail!) :|| ||: Abide the twin-damnation -- To fail and know we fail. :|| >> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is >> vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. I [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > indeed, Google reveals that what the lady said was "let us hope > that it does not become widely known". That was going to be my next attempt at satisfying James, who didn't seem to like my "subjunctive triggered by 'that'" idea. I was resisting it because of its Godwin-like effect on the discussion. Good-bye, little thread. Is any of this coherent? I am being rushed by circumstances this morning, and can no longer stay. > That was going to be my next attempt at satisfying James, who didn't > seem to like my "subjunctive triggered by 'that'" idea. I was > resisting it because of its Godwin-like effect on the discussion. > Good-bye, little thread. >> > Is any of this coherent? Maybe, but I don't understand a word of it. Who is James? Signature--- Joe Fineman joe_f@verizon.net ||: The world goes its way past all who will not partake of its :|| ||: folly. :|| >> That was going to be my next attempt at satisfying James, who didn't >> seem to like my "subjunctive triggered by 'that'" idea. I was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Maybe, but I don't understand a word of it. Who is James? A lot of people wonder about that. SignatureJames >>> That was going to be my next attempt at satisfying James, who >>> didn't seem to like my "subjunctive triggered by 'that'" idea. I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > A lot of people wonder about that. But all our swaIns commend him. And I quote: 'Note that she said "If it is true" and not "If it be true". What can we read into that?' 'She used the word "that"as a cue? If that it be true ... '. [forbearance] >> That was going to be my next attempt at satisfying James, who didn't >> seem to like my "subjunctive triggered by 'that'" idea. I was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Maybe, but I don't understand a word of it. Who is James? That all his swainettes commend him. SignatureLes (BrE) >>> That was going to be my next attempt at satisfying James, who >>> didn't seem to like my "subjunctive triggered by 'that'" idea. I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That all his swainettes commend him. Sorry. Shoulda kept reading. |
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.