I have noticed it being avoided, not sure how consistently, perhaps even heard that recent British style guides say not to use it? How would you translate the following sentences into British English:
(1) He insists that she does something.
(2) He insists that she do something.
(3) God forbid that we should rebel against the Lord.
These are all correct, but have different meanings.
(1) He insists that she hums out of tune. (This is a thing that she actually does, and he insists that it is so).
(2) He insists that she sing the role of Maria. (He is insisting that she do something which is currently not happening.)
(3) assumes an unstated modal verb in the imperative: [May] God forbid that he rebel… the “rebel” is subjunctive for the same reason as “sing” in the sentence above.
Well, that’s a nice kettle of fish. Starting with what is meant, exactly, by subjunctive. Leaving that aside, I would only change the first to He insists that she do something. The verb ought to be the bare form, so do instead of does.
As to style guides, from the Guardian:
If I were to say “If I was a rich man” (given that I am not, in fact, a rich man), would I not be using the subjunctive, or would I be using “was” as a subjunctive verb?
“Was” is often used in places where “were” is more appropriate. I would say “If I were a rich man.”
Also, “that” can often be omitted: “He insists she do something.” Every style guide I know of recommends omitting unnecessary words in the interest of cleaner prose.
I am prone to use the subjunctive mood as a means of discussing a hypothetical case that is not currently true. I probably make mistakes but I think I have the basics right.
In college I used to use the phrase “as it were” perhaps after a metaphor, I’m not sure why, probably to signal that I knew that it was only a metaphor and not to be taken literally. This used to confuse people. “As what were what?” I stopped using it.
I don’t expect other people to use it, so I am always pleasantly surprised when I happen to come across it. I think it’s a very useful grammatical case and I don’t know how I would express the concept if it didn’t exist.
I think it’s useful, too, but in my judgment, the subjunctive has become so eroded in English that it’s now more a matter of style than of grammar.
ETA:
Wait… seriously?
So we be clear, then, the current recommendation is “seldom obligatory”, implying it sometimes is obligatory, rather than “proscribed”?
“We be clear”? We are clear.
Usage depends on the speaker and the context. Even well-educated people can lapse into lower registers in casual conversations. As a translator, editor, and EFL teacher, I’m usually careful to use the “proper” grammar I’ve been taught.
Yes, I know that. I would say “If I were a rich man” too. But if I were to say “If I was a rich man…”
You would be understood.
One other fun tidbit, the present subjunctive is very often really about the future, and the past subjunctive is pretty often really about the present.
Some of the confusion is because the language is evolving, and many mainstream colloquial English dialects have ditched the subjunctive altogether except in fossilized phrases.
I could never say “if I was a rich man”: it sound wrong to me, because the “if” implies counterfactual which requires the subjunctive. But it’s fine in other dialects.
To be clearer about the first example,
“He insists that she does something” describes reality: he insists that she does so do that.
“He insists that she do something” describes a hypothetical: he insists that she ought to do something.
Both are grammatical, but only one situation requires the subjunctive. But I still hear people use the indicative for the latter all the time.
Yes, seriously. I was a pedantic twat, what can I say?
Also, I thought that, as I was moving from the roistering swamp of a public high school into the rarefied atmosphere of a noted private university (which shall be nameless) I should speak accordingly. Alas, all those science majors had only the barest acquaintance with the finer points of English usage, and regarded us Humanities majors as beneath contempt.
Oh, it wasn’t you I was baffled by. Who doesn’t understand as it were?
Dear god, the fights I got into with the engineering department… That’s not what the word means! Ever! Fun times.
But “if I were a pedantic twat…”?
Wish I’d thought of “Pedantic Twat” for my username.
My question was whether this (“If I was a rich man”) was really an example of the subjunctive disappearing, or whether it was an example of “was” being used as the subjunctive.
For example: If I say “Who did you ask?” the word “who” is being used as the object of “ask.” So some purists would insist that this is incorrect, and the correct word here would be “whom.” Others, however, would say that “whom” is disappearing from our language and that it’s perfectly fine to use “who” instead. This would be an example of “who” used as an object, and not of the disappearance of the objective case.
Yes and no. No, the actual subjunctive is not disappearing. People will always talk about things that are not factual or that are contingent on eventual circumstances. And yes, we are changing the words we use to refer to those things, such that the words we use are indistinguishable from the indicative.
The foreigners to whom I’ve taught English invariably say the objective sounds better because their own languages require it.
I was asking about English. If you think it helps explain English usage, we can expand the discussion to the Latin and German subjunctive as well 