English subjunctive

The subjunctive in English is used to form sentences that do not describe known objective facts. These include statements about one's state of mind, such as opinion, belief, purpose, intention, or desire. The subjunctive mood is also used for statements that are contrary to fact, such as If I were a unicorn...as distinguished from I was a unicorn . Subjunctive statements often occur in dependent clauses, such as the subjunctive example in the preceding sentence. It contrasts with the indicative mood, which is used for statements of fact, such as He speaks English.

In Modern English, the subjunctive form of a verb often looks identical to the indicative form, and thus subjunctives are not a very visible grammatical feature of English. For most verbs, the only distinct subjunctive form is found in the third person singular of the present tense, where the subjunctive lacks the -s ending: It is necessary that he see a doctor (contrasted with the indicative he sees). However, the verb be has not only a distinct present subjunctive (be, as in I suggest that he be removed) but also a past subjunctive were (as in If he were rich, …).

These two tenses of the subjunctive have no particular connection in meaning with present and past time. Terminology varies; sometimes what is called the present subjunctive here is referred to simply as the subjunctive, and the form were may be treated just as an alternative irrealis form of was rather than a past subjunctive.

Another case where present subjunctive forms are distinguished from indicatives is when they are negated: compare I recommend they not enter the competition (subjunctive) with I hope they do not enter the competition (indicative).

Forms

English has present subjunctive and past subjunctive forms, which can be compared with the corresponding present indicative and past indicative forms (the familiar present and past tense forms of verbs). The distinction between present and past is one of tense; the distinction between indicative and subjunctive is one of mood. Note that these terms are used here merely as names for forms that verbs take; the use of present and past forms is not limited to referring to present and past time. (Sometimes the term subjunctive is used only to refer to what is called here the present subjunctive.)

The present subjunctive is identical to the bare infinitive (and imperative) of the verb in all forms. This means that, for almost all verbs, the present subjunctive differs from the present indicative only in the third person singular form, which lacks the ending -s in the subjunctive.

Present indicative
I own, you own, he owns, we own, they own
Present subjunctive
(that) I own, (that) you own, (that) he own, (that) we own, (that) they own

With the verb be, however, the two moods are fully distinguished:

Present indicative
I am, you are, he is, we are, they are
Present subjunctive
(that) I be, (that) you be, (that) he be, (that) we be, (that) they be

Note also the defective verb beware, which lacks indicative forms, but has a present subjunctive: (that) I beware…

The two moods are also fully distinguished when negated. Present subjunctive forms are negated by placing the word not before them.

Present indicative
I do not own, you do not own, he does not own…; I am not…
Present subjunctive
(that) I not own, (that) you not own, (that) he not own…; (that) I not be…

The past subjunctive exists as a distinct form only for the verb be, which has the form were throughout:

Past indicative
I was, you were, he was, we were, they were
Past subjunctive
(that) I were, (that) you were, (that) he were, (that) we were, (that) they were

In the past tense, there is no difference between the two moods as regards manner of negation: I was not; (that) I were not. Verbs other than be are described as lacking a past subjunctive, or possibly as having a past subjunctive identical in form to the past indicative: (that) I owned; (that) I did not own.

Certain subjunctives (particularly were) can also be distinguished from indicatives by the possibility of inversion with the subject, as described under Inversion below.

Compound forms, auxiliaries and modals

The auxiliary and present subjunctive do is rarely used, perchance as an emphatic form.[1] As a present subjunctive, it is identical to the bare infinitive, is accompanied by a bare infinitive (except be, which cannot be used with do-support in either the indicative or subjunctive mood) and can usually be recognized only with the third person singular. For example:

Although it is possible to use this auxiliary for negation, it is never mandatory to do so and is frequently seen as ambiguous or incorrect because of its resemblance to the indicative. The negated present subjunctive is always unambiguous with the third person singular (e.g., (that) he do not own).

The auxiliary and past subjunctive did, when not used for negation, is somewhat more frequent as an emphatic form and is conjugated the same as the indicative (e.g., (that) I did own).

Occasionally, a present perfect subjunctive is seen, as in It is important that he have completed two years of Spanish before graduation.

A compound past subjunctive form is made with were (the past subjunctive of be) followed by a verb's to-infinitive (corresponding to indicative forms like I was to own). For example:

A pluperfect subjunctive may be considered to exist; its form (had with past participle) does not differ from the corresponding indicative, but a distinction can be sought in the possibility of inversion: had I sung… (equivalent to if I had sung). A compound pluperfect subjunctive can be formed with were followed by to have and the verb's past participle; consequently, the previous example can be expressed as such: if I were to have sung.

The English modal verbs do not have present subjunctive forms, except for synonyms such as be able to as a subjunctive corresponding to the indicative modal can. However would, should, could and might can in some contexts be regarded as past subjunctives of will, shall, can and may respectively. (They may also be described simply as the past forms of the latter modals, or as modals or auxiliaries in their own right.)

The auxiliary should is used to make another compound form that might be regarded as a subjunctive, and, in any case, it is frequently used as an alternative to the simple present subjunctive. For example:

With present subjunctive
It's important that he be cured.
With should
It's important that he should be cured.

The should form, in certain conditionals, can undergo inversion as described below.

Use of the present subjunctive

The main use of the English present subjunctive, called the mandative or jussive subjunctive,[2] occurs in that clauses (declarative content clauses; the word that is sometimes omitted in informal and conversational usage) expressing a circumstance which is desired, demanded, recommended, necessary, or similar. Such a clause may be dependent on verbs like insist, suggest, demand, prefer,[3] adjectives like necessary, desirable,[4] or nouns like recommendation, necessity;[5] it may be part of the expression in order that… (or some formal uses of so that…); it may also stand independently as the subject of a clause or as a predicative expression.

The form is called the present subjunctive because it resembles the present indicative in form, not because it need refer to the present time. In fact this form can equally well be used in sentences referring to past, future or hypothetical time (the time frame is normally expressed in the verb of the main clause).

Examples:

Note that after some words, both indicative and subjunctive are possible, with difference in meaning:

This dual statement/directive use of verbs like insist, suggest and propose can lead to confusion in cases where some, mainly British, speakers informally use the indicative and not the subjunctive, strongly preferred by many, especially Americans.[6]

Examples:

  1. Marjorie had insisted that Barbara spent the morning resting in her stateroom. As it was grey outside and the wind was markedly cooler, she was not deprived too much. [Peter Lovesey, The False Inspector Dew, 1982, p. 200]
  2. Vivian wept as she felt so helpless to do anything for her little baby. She asked John to call Father O'Brien to baptize little Caroline and insisted that he went home to rest. [Mary Jo Stanley, Boxed Secrets, 2011, p. 194]
  3. He worked in an optical business off Baker Street, and I suggested that he studied lenses and optics, and got him into night school. [Leslie Thompson, Jeffrey P. Green, Leslie Thompson, an Autobiography, 1985, p. 143]
  4. Undaunted by mere appearances, Thornton proposed that he underwent an immediate tracheostomy and that he should be warmed by gentle massage and washing and be transfused with fresh lamb's blood! [Transactions of the Medical Society of London, 2000, Vol. 117, p. 6 ]
  5. They were insistent that he checked it out. He was exhausted and right now all he wanted to do was to take his tired ass home and get some sleep. [Bernard L. Jr. Satterwhite, Playaz and Wolves, 2009, p. 139]
  6. That's odd, because originally it was John who was adamant that we brought in a keyboard player. [Hugh Cornwell, Jim Dury, The Stranglers: Song by Song, 2002, p. 292]
In example 1, many American speakers, after reading the second sentence, will be jarred into thinking the indicative spent in the first sentence is a mistake for the subjunctive spend, because the second sentence makes it clear that insist was used as a directive and not a statement. Examples 2 and 3 may similarly perplex some readers: context suggests the verbs are directives, which clashes with the indicative mood the authors use. Example 4 is a curious mix of both British alternatives to the subjunctive: the indicative (underwent) and the modal (should be warmed… be transfused). Examples 5 and 6 show that some non-verbal constructions can have similar mandative force. American versions of the above examples would use the subjunctive: (1) spend; (2) go; (3) study; (4) undergo [and delete should]; (5) check out; (6) bring in.

Notice that the subjunctive is not generally used after verbs such as hope and expect, or after verbs that use a different syntax, such as want (it is not usual to say *I want that he wash up; the typical syntax is I want him to wash up).

Another use of the present subjunctive is in clauses with the conjunction lest, which generally express a potential adverse event:

The present subjunctive is occasionally found in clauses expressing a probable condition, such as If I be found guilty… (more common is am or should be; for more information see English conditional sentences). This usage is mostly old-fashioned or excessively formal, although it is found in some common fixed expressions such as if need be.

Perhaps somewhat more common is the use after whether in the sense of "no matter whether": Whether they be friend or foe, we shall give them shelter. In both of these uses, it is possible to invert subject and verb and omit the conjunction; see Inversion below. Analogous uses are occasionally found after other conjunctions, such as unless, until, whoever, wherever, etc.: I shall not do it unless I be instructed;[7] Whoever he be, he shall not go unpunished.

In most of the above examples a form with should can be used as an alternative: I insist that he should leave now etc. This is more common in British English than American English. In some cases, such as after in order that, another alternative is to use may or (especially with past reference) might:

A present subjunctive verb form is sometimes found in a main clause, with the force of a wish or a third person imperative (and such forms can alternatively be analyzed as imperatives). This is most common nowadays in established phrases, such as (God) bless you, God save the Queen, heaven forbid, peace be with you, truth be told, so be it, suffice it to say, long live…, woe betide… It is used more broadly in some archaic or literary English.[8] An equivalent construction is that with may and subject-verb inversion: May God bless you etc.

See also Archaic uses below.

Use of the past subjunctive

As already mentioned, the only distinct past subjunctive form in English (i.e. form that differs from the corresponding past indicative) is were, which differs when used with a first or third person singular subject (where the indicative form is was). As with the present subjunctive, the name past subjunctive refers to the form of the verb rather than its meaning; it need not (and in fact usually does not) refer to past time.

The main use of the past subjunctive form is in counterfactual if clauses (see English conditional sentences: Second conditional):

Note that the indicative form was might be used in sentences of this type, but were is sometimes preferred especially in more formal or literary English. According to the Random House College Dictionary, "Although the [were] subjunctive seems to be disappearing from the speech of many, its proper use is still a mark of the educated speaker."[9] When were is used, an inverted form without if is possible (see Inversion below); this is not possible with was. A common expression involving were is if I were you.

The same principles of usage apply to the compound past subjunctive form were to…, which appears in 'second conditional' condition clauses, usually with hypothetical future reference:

The past subjunctive form may be used similarly to express counterfactual conditions after suppose, as if, as though, unless, etc.

There is also the set expression as it were.

The past subjunctive can also be used in some that clauses expressing a wish contrary to fact or unlikely to be fulfilled (see also Uses of English verb forms: Expressions of wish):

As above, was cannot be used instead of were in these examples except perhaps in informal English conversation. After it's (high) time… the use of the past subjunctive were is occasionally found. The example with would rather can be cast in the present subjunctive, expressing greater confidence that the action is feasible: I would rather she be released.

See also Archaic uses below.

Distinguishing from past indicative after if

Confusion sometimes arises in the case of if clauses containing an ordinary past indicative was.

When if means when, the indicative is the proper mood.

  1. If/when he was walking down the road, he used to whistle.

compared with:

  1. If he were to walk down the road, he might whistle.

Compare also:

  1. If he was in class yesterday, he learned it.
  2. If he were in class today, he would be learning it.

The first if clause contains a simple past indicative, referring to past time (it is not known whether or not the circumstance in fact took place). The second, however, expresses a counterfactual circumstance connected with the present, and therefore contains (or should contain) a past subjunctive.

The "past subjunctive" (irrealis) form were is also used by some as an alternative to the backshifted indicative was following if or whether in indirect speech or thought,[10] for example:

Inversion

As noted in the sections above, some clauses containing subjunctive verb forms, or other constructions that have the function of subjunctives, may exhibit subject–auxiliary inversion (an auxiliary or copular verb changes places with the subject of the clause).

The most common example of this is in condition clauses, where inversion is accompanied by the omission of the conjunction if. This is described in more detail at English conditional sentences: Inversion in condition clauses. The principal constructions are:

Inversion is also possible in the case of the (rarer) use of the present subjunctive in condition clauses, and in other clauses with somewhat different meaning, where the omitted conjunction would be something like whether, although or even if. These are generally archaic, except for some instances where the meaning of the clause is "no matter whether … or … " (second and third examples below).

In some examples, preserved in set expressions and well-known phrases, inversion may take place with non-auxiliary verbs: come what may; come Monday (etc.). (See also Archaic uses below.) There are also imperative-type (jussive) uses such as Long live the King! A more common way of expressing such jussives is with inversion of the auxiliary may: May they always be happy!

Historical subjunctive forms

The first table below shows the present and past subjunctive endings in use at various stages of the development of English: in Old English, Middle English, Early Modern English and Modern English.[12] Forms which differ from the corresponding indicative are bolded. -Ø denotes zero ending.

Present tense Past tense
Singular Plural Singular Plural
First person Second person Third person First & third person Second person
Old English -e -e -e -en -d-e -d-e -d-on
Middle English -e -e -e -e(n) ? ? -d-e(n)
Early Modern English -Ø -Ø -Ø -Ø -d -d -d
Modern English -Ø -Ø -Ø -Ø -d -d -d

For comparison, the corresponding indicative endings are also given:

Present tense Past tense
Singular Plural Singular Plural
First person Second person Third person First & third person Second person
Old English -e -st -eþ -aþ -d-e -d-est -d-on
Middle English -e, -Ø -st, -est -th, -s -e(n) -d(e) -d-st -d-e(n)
Early Modern English -Ø -est, -st -s, -th -Ø -d -d-st -d
Modern English -Ø -Ø -s -Ø -d -d -d

The irregular verb be has a larger number of distinct forms, these being derived from different stems (a case of suppletion). See the Wiktionary articles on be, am, is, were, etc.

As the tables show, in Early Modern English the past subjunctive was distinguishable from the past indicative not only in the verb to be (as in Modern English), but also in the informal second-person singular (thou form) of all verbs. For example: indicative thou sattest, but subjunctive thou sat. The -(e)st ending was also absent in principle in the present subjunctive; nonetheless, it was sometimes added; for example, thou beëst appears frequently as a present subjunctive in the works of Shakespeare and some of his contemporaries.

Archaic uses

Subjunctive verb forms were formerly used more widely in English than they are today. Cases of such usage can be encountered in samples of archaic or pseudo-archaic English, and in certain set expressions that have been preserved in the modern language.

Examples of subjunctive uses in archaic English:

Examples of set expressions that preserve archaic subjunctive uses:

The expression "the powers that be" does not contain a subjunctive, however. It is a Biblical quotation from Romans 13:1, where it translates a present participle using the archaic alternative indicative form "be" for "are".

Some further examples can be found in the sections on usage above.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ An example is If he do bleed, I’ll gild the faces of the grooms withal, For it must seem their guilt. (from Macbeth)
  2. ↑ Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey; Svartik, Jan (1985). "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language". Longman. ISBN 0-582-51734-6
  3. ↑ Other verbs after which subjunctives may be used include propose, suggest, recommend, move (in the parliamentary sense), demand, ask, mandate, prefer, request, desire, advise, urge, specify, instruct, order, insist, require, rule, necessitate, suffice, advocate, vote, would rather.
  4. ↑ Other adjectives after which subjunctives may be used include imperative, important, adamant, necessary, preferable, optional, permissible, acceptable, okay, all right, satisfactory, desirable, advisable, sufficient, necessary, mandatory, urgent, vital, crucial, essential, fitting, right, appropriate, better, expedient, legitimate.
  5. ↑ Other nouns after which subjunctives may be used include insistence, proposal, preference, request, desire, advice, suggestion, option, alternative, recommendation, demand, requirement, necessity, imperative, condition, mandate, specification, rule, ruling, edict, instruction, principle, prerequisite, order, qualification, ultimatum, vote, motion.
  6. ↑ For more on the increasing use of the mandative subjunctive in British English as influenced by American English, see §3.59 in Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey; Svartik, Jan (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman. ISBN 0-582-51734-6. However, grammars rarely point out this source of confusion for Americans.
  7. ↑ Another example: Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please on all points in dispute between you and us. —George Haven Putnam
  8. ↑ An example is America, America, God shed His grace on thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood (from "America the Beautiful"). Similarly the traditional English text of the Aaronic blessing is cast entirely in the subjunctive, with jussive force: The Lord bless thee and keep thee. The Lord make His face to shine upon thee. The Lord lift up His countenance upon thee and give thee peace.
  9. ↑ Stein, Jess, Editor in Chief (1989). Random House College Dictionary, Revised. Random House. p. 1308.
  10. ↑ Huddleston & Pullum 2002, p. 87.
  11. ↑
  12. ↑ The Cambridge history of the English language. Richard M. Hogg, Roger Lass, Norman Francis Blake, Suzanne Romaine, R. W. Burchfield, John Algeo. (2000).

Bibliography

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Wednesday, May 04, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.