>>I've got an advanced group of translation and interpreting students.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> 'should' which... should otherwise be used. Needless to say, 'should' is
> always followed by an infinitive.
> "Should" isn't necessary here and hasn't been omitted because, as Franke
> explained, this is a subjunctive - a tense used fairly rarely in Britain
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Undoubtedly you - English teachers - are right, but from a foreign student's
point of view it may be easier to understand if the following problem was
explained in my way. I wanted to point out that "should" wasn't mistakenly
omitted here but may (or may not) be found in this construction right before
a verb and this is why the verb must be used in infinitive. We can use the
same construction without "should" (fully aware omitting it) but the verb
must remain in infinitive. Thus, what we obtain is: "...that he <should>
attend...". I hope I'm right.
Regards, Mike
Django Cat - 16 Jul 2004 20:03 GMT
>> "Should" isn't necessary here and hasn't been omitted because, as Franke
>> explained, this is a subjunctive - a tense used fairly rarely in Britain
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Regards, Mike
In fact it looks like you're right Mike - COBUILD Grammar certainly bears
you out:-
(after an example "He proposes that the governement should hold an
enquiry")
"Note that when you leave out the modal, the verb in the reported clause
still has the form it would have if the modal were present. This use of
the base form is sometimes called the subjunctive." COBUILD Grammer p 325.
'Should' is a modal verb, and 'base form' is what COBUILD calls the
infinitive without 'to'.
The original example was:-
"the judge ordered that he attend a community training course"
I don't hear a vast difference in:-
"the judge ordered that he should attend a community training course"
except maybe it's one more word than we need.
Sorted. This is the sort of thing that usually falls into the 'most
students don't really need to know this' category, but given that these
students are tyro translators I'll take it back to class next week.
Thanks Mike, Franke, Einde and John, have a good weekend.
Django
John Ings - 16 Jul 2004 20:20 GMT
>> "Should" isn't necessary here and hasn't been omitted because, as Franke
>> explained, this is a subjunctive - a tense used fairly rarely in Britain
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> We still find examples of the subjunctive in some standard phrases such
>> as "God bless you".
>Undoubtedly you - English teachers - are right, but from a foreign student's
>point of view it may be easier to understand if the following problem was
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>must remain in infinitive. Thus, what we obtain is: "...that he <should>
>attend...". I hope I'm right.
Personally I'm in awe of those who can analyse sentence structures and
apply words like 'subjunctive' and 'past pluperfect participle' to the
dissected bits!
Anyhow, my dictionary has these hopefully edifying notes about
subjunctives,
**********
Usage. The subjunctive mood of the verb, once used extensively in
English, has largely disappeared today. The subjunctive survives,
though by no means consistently, in sentences with conditional clauses
contrary to fact and in subordinate clauses after verbs like wish:
If the house were nearer to the road, we would hear more traffic
noise.
I wish I were in Florida.
The subjunctive also occurs in subordinate that clauses after a main
clause expressing recommendation, resolution, demand, etc.:
We ask that each tenant take(not takes) responsibility for keeping the
front door locked.
It is important that only fresh spinach be (not is) used.
The subjunctive occurs too in some established or idiomatic
expressions:
So be it.
Heaven help us.
God rest ye merry, gentlemen.
Werein the phrase as it were, meaning "in a way,' is a subjunctive:
His apology, as it were, sounded more like an insult.
*********
Einde O'Callaghan - 16 Jul 2004 20:28 GMT
>>"Should" isn't necessary here and hasn't been omitted because, as Franke
>>explained, this is a subjunctive - a tense used fairly rarely in Britain
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> must remain in infinitive. Thus, what we obtain is: "...that he <should>
> attend...". I hope I'm right.
I would say that the rule of thumb you use (not grammatical rule, I
hasten to add) depends to a certain extent on the language(s) spoken by
your students. Since in many languages there is a subjunctive form (and
in some, e.g. German, a subjunctive would often be used in this type of
structure) this may be the easiest way for students to remember what to do.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' ) - 16 Jul 2004 20:41 GMT
> > "Should" isn't necessary here and hasn't been omitted because, as Franke
> > explained, this is a subjunctive - a tense used fairly rarely in Britain
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> omitted here but may (or may not) be found in this construction right before
> a verb and this is why the verb must be used in infinitive.
It's not the infinitive but the subjunctive form. The problem in English
is that a lot of forms have fallen together and can't be distinguished
by just looking at the word in isolation. I found some more examples
here: http://www.ceafinney.com/subjunctive/excerpts.html
#begin quote
I suggest [that he leave].
I beg [that he return the money].
I demanded [that she give me her files].
We asked [that Marsha tell the truth].
Beth moved [that the meeting be adjourned].
I insist [that you be quiet].
I require [that term papers be turned in on time].
#end quote
> We can use the
> same construction without "should" (fully aware omitting it) but the verb
> must remain in infinitive. Thus, what we obtain is: "...that he <should>
> attend...". I hope I'm right.
You are certainly free to analyse a language in any manner you see fit,
although conciseness of rules and minimum of exceptions are features
usually considered better.

Signature
"If writers knew whose mouths would end up spewing out their works,
they'd cut off their hands." +-Gerard Depardieu, "Pure Formality"