|
Tenses
Jul 23, 2008 13:49:45 GMT
Post by goofy on Jul 23, 2008 13:49:45 GMT
Goofy While I agree with most of what you said on the subjunctive, I'm intrigued at type number 4, "the were form": surley the same form is in use with (all?) other verbs: If I drove a Jag, I'd have to pay more in tax and fuel. If I could swim, I'd do so right now. If I ate twenty-seven burgers, I'd be ill ... All other verbs use the simple past tense. But be is different. It can use the simple past tense like all other verbs, for instance If I was in Paris, I'd visit the Eiffel tower. But it also has its own special form for counterfactual clauses: were in the first and third person singular: If I were in Paris, I'd visit the Eiffel tower. If she were in Paris, she'd visit the Eiffel tower. The use of was in place of were in counterfactual clauses apparently started 300 years ago. It seems to be a case of regularization: bringing the verb be in line with all other verbs.
|
|
|
Tenses
Jul 23, 2008 15:22:45 GMT
Post by Dave M on Jul 23, 2008 15:22:45 GMT
> All other verbs use the simple past tense <
Ah ... we've been here, before! Surely the simple past tense tells us about something which happened in the past. In If I drove a Jag, I'd ..., I'm NOT referring to the past, so clearly am not using the simple past. I'm referring to the "counterfactual" situation, and am usiing the subjunctive. What's happened is that the subjunctive takes the same form as the simple past.
|
|
|
Tenses
Jul 23, 2008 16:28:25 GMT
Post by goofy on Jul 23, 2008 16:28:25 GMT
> All other verbs use the simple past tense < Ah ... we've been here, before! Surely the simple past tense tells us about something which happened in the past. In If I drove a Jag, I'd ..., I'm NOT referring to the past, so clearly am not using the simple past. I'm referring to the "counterfactual" situation, and am usiing the subjunctive. What's happened is that the subjunctive takes the same form as the simple past. If you want to look at it that way. I'd say that if it looks like the past tense, it's the past tense. One inflectional category can perform more than one function. After all, we can use the present tense to refer to the future: "I'm leaving tomorrow." On another note... imo calling it the "past subjunctive" is confusing, because it implies that it is related to the "present subjunctive" and it isn't. (Historically it might be, but synchronically it isn't.) The were of If I were is not the past tense form of be in something like he demands that I be quiet. We can't have, for instance, *he demanded that I were quiet.What we call the present subjunctive is the mandative subjunctive, used in dependant clauses after certain verbs. What we call the past subjunctive is used after if or wish in counterfactual clauses. The distribution and function of the two forms is very different.
|
|
|
Tenses
Jul 23, 2008 22:14:40 GMT
Post by Pete on Jul 23, 2008 22:14:40 GMT
Goofy While I agree with most of what you said on the subjunctive, I'm intrigued at type number 4, "the were form": surley the same form is in use with (all?) other verbs: If I drove a Jag, I'd have to pay more in tax and fuel. If I could swim, I'd do so right now. If I ate twenty-seven burgers, I'd be ill ... Why not, "If I were to drive a Jag" or "If I were to eat 27 burgers"?
|
|
|
Tenses
Jul 23, 2008 22:15:02 GMT
Post by Pete on Jul 23, 2008 22:15:02 GMT
And what's an optative?
|
|
|
Tenses
Jul 24, 2008 11:04:15 GMT
Post by Dave M on Jul 24, 2008 11:04:15 GMT
> Why not, "If I were to drive a Jag" or "If I were to eat 27 burgers"? <
Pete That's certainly a subjunctive form - but it's a different one. Sometimes we use that form to make clear that it is a hypothetical situation we're referring to.
> I'd say that if it looks like the past tense, it's the past tense. < goofy And I'd say not. Take the verb to cut: the present and simple past tenses are identical in most cases, but we don't say "if it looks like the present tense, it's the present tense". We use the rest of the sentence to gain our understanding, and then in our minds the verb "settles" into a particular tense: Every day at work, I cut my finger at least five times Yesterday at work, I cut my finger at least five times. The form of the verb is identical, but its meaning and tense are different.
The same thing happens with the subjunctive: If I cut myself, I get a plaster If I cut myself, I'd get a plaster. The "counter-factual" or "hypothetical" situation in the latter shows that it's the subjunctive.
(Interestingly, it's not the "if" that switches it, but the understood hypotheticality of the situation. Imagine that someone in a food factory is accused of getting a cut the previous day and not putting on a plaster. In denying that that ever happened, he might say If I cut myself, I'll have the evidence on my skin - and look: I don't . The "cut" there is simple past.)
|
|
|
Tenses
Jul 24, 2008 12:53:15 GMT
Post by goofy on Jul 24, 2008 12:53:15 GMT
(Interestingly, it's not the "if" that switches it, but the understood hypotheticality of the situation. It's the would in the main clause. With cut, it's just simple homophony that happens with a few verbs. We know it's the past because when we replace it with another verb, like injure, we get Yesterday at work, I injured my finger at least five times.But when every single verb in the language has an identical form in the simple past and in present counterfactual conditions, I see no reason to invent a new inflectional category where one will do. Huddleston and Pullum call the simple past the "preterite" and the present counterfactual the "modal preterite", two uses of the same inflectional category. But I'm sure there are some linguists who would agree with you too.
|
|
|
Tenses
Jul 24, 2008 14:24:20 GMT
Post by Dave on Jul 24, 2008 14:24:20 GMT
(Interestingly, it's not the "if" that switches it, but the understood hypotheticality of the situation. Imagine that someone in a food factory is accused of getting a cut the previous day and not putting on a plaster. In denying that that ever happened, he might say If I cut myself, I'll have the evidence on my skin - and look: I don't . The "cut" there is simple past.) I'd probably include had: If I had cut myself, I'll'd have the evidence on my skin - and look: I don't . Does that change the mood?
|
|
|
Tenses
Jul 24, 2008 15:05:19 GMT
Post by goofy on Jul 24, 2008 15:05:19 GMT
I'd probably include had: If I had cut myself, I'll'd have the evidence on my skin - and look: I don't . Does that change the mood? That's a past counterfactual condition, traditionally called the pluperfect subjunctive.
|
|
|
Tenses
Jul 24, 2008 15:36:51 GMT
Post by Dave M on Jul 24, 2008 15:36:51 GMT
Dave As goofy says, the "had" flips it into the subjunctive. My example was chosen to show that it's possible to start with "if" and not go subjunctive. (We talk of "hypothetical" or "counter-factual" situations, and you'd think that "if" would indicate the introduction of a hypopthesis - but, as goofy and I agree, it's the "would" that triggers it.)
|
|
|
Tenses
Jul 24, 2008 15:48:53 GMT
Post by goofy on Jul 24, 2008 15:48:53 GMT
present possible condition: I don't know if he is cutting himself. past possible condition: I don't know/didn't know if he cut himself. present counterfactual condition: If he cut himself, he would know. past counterfactual condition: If he had cut himself, he would know/would have known.
|
|
|
Tenses
Jul 24, 2008 16:01:15 GMT
Post by Dave M on Jul 24, 2008 16:01:15 GMT
Mmm ... a distracting (though common) use of "if", isn't it - is the first sentence really saying that if he is cutting himself, then I don't know?
A less cantankerous example of past possible is If he cut himself, there will be blood. We get better lost when sticking with the first person (where the present tense doesn't require an ess on the end):
I don't know if I cut myself - is that saying that I'm unaware whether I previously managed to cut myself (past possible), or that when I do cut myself, I'm unable to sense it (present possible)?
|
|
|
Tenses
Jul 24, 2008 16:47:32 GMT
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 24, 2008 16:47:32 GMT
I hope Vadim is following all this!
|
|
|
Tenses
Jul 24, 2008 17:07:36 GMT
Post by goofy on Jul 24, 2008 17:07:36 GMT
Yeah, my examples were ambiguous. Maybe these are less ambiguous... or maybe not
present possible condition: I wonder if is possible. past possible condition: I wondered if it was possible. present counterfactual condition: If it was/were possible, I would travel back in time. past counterfactual condition: If it had been possible, I would have traveled back in time.
|
|
|
Tenses
Jul 24, 2008 17:38:10 GMT
Post by Twoddle on Jul 24, 2008 17:38:10 GMT
Yeah, my examples were ambiguous. Maybe these are less ambiguous... or maybe not present possible condition: I wonder if is possible. past possible condition: I wondered if it was possible. present counterfactual condition: If it was/were possible, I would travel back in time. past counterfactual condition: If it had been possible, I would have traveled back in time. A difference between your "possible" and "counterfactual" examples is that in the possibles, "if" can be (and indeed should be) replaced by "whether". I've no idea whether that point's relevant, as I've completely lost track of what's going on, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
|
|