# The English subjunctive: How and Whence? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 26, 2004, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-english-subjunctive-how-and-whence/231276 "2004-02-26T12:22:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![TJdude825](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@TJdude825](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TJdude825)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2004, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-english-subjunctive-how-and-whence/231276/21 "2004-02-27T05:34:17Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > In _The Elements Of Grammar_, the author distinguishes between conditions contrary to fact and non-commital conditions. > > “If John were angry at Tom, Tom would apologize” suggests that John is not angry at Tom at the moment. “If John is angry at Tom, Tom will apologize” suggests that the speaker doesn’t know or doesn’t care whether John is actually angry at Tom. > > I don’t know how well this agrees with modern usage, but it’s interesting to note. I’m pretty sure this is commonly used in Spanish, at least in “Mexican Spanish.” Or something similar. Actually, I think the case in which the speaker doesn’t know or care is probably subjunctive, at least in Spanish. Anyway, here’s my hopefully accurate cite: If I remember last year’s lesson on the subjunctive correctly, _¿Crees que vaya a llover?_ and _¿Crees que va a llover?_ both mean “Do you think it is going to rain?” However, the first (where “going to” is in the subjunctive _vaya_) implies that the speaker thinks it probably won’t rain, whereas the second (which uses the indicative _va_) implies that the speaker thinks it probably will. Any _hispanohablantes_ to back me up on this? ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2004, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-english-subjunctive-how-and-whence/231276/22 "2004-02-27T21:49:51Z")
I have the impression that the subjunctive is moribund in England. When I published a book with a London publisher, the English proof-reader marked several dozen dozen subjunctives that (s)he assumed were the wrong number. They were almost all “that” clauses such as: “In order that a category have …”. I left them all as they were and never heard again. Afterwards, I checked with some Brits who mainly seemed confused by my question, but basically confirmed my observation. I imagine the subjunctive will eventually disappear in all dialects of English. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2004, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-english-subjunctive-how-and-whence/231276/23 "2004-02-27T23:04:10Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > I know how to say that form. How is it spelled? You add -st to most verbs, -est where tradition views the consonant cluster as unpronouncable. To be is “thou beest,” generally spelled with a diaresis (? - “umlaut” – reclining colon) over the second e to make clear it’s not a misspelling of “beast” or something. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-english-subjunctive-how-and-whence/231276/24 "2004-02-28T11:33:46Z")
The most notable public use of the subjunctive in the UK recently was in the incredibly catchy pop song _Sweet Dreams my LA ex_ Rachel Stevens. Rather pathetically, my wife and I pricked up our ears and simultaneously said “subjunctive!” the first time we heard the chorus of this very catchy tune: > [@](#): > > If I were in your shoes > I’d worry of the effects > You’ve had your say but now it’s my turn > Sweet dreams my LA ex However, it is not the delectable Ms Stevens we have to thank for this decision, but the songwriter Cathy Dennis. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-english-subjunctive-how-and-whence/231276/25 "2004-02-28T11:58:32Z")
**jjimm** - On so many levels, you’re a sad, sad bastard ! **Eva Luna** - For clearing that up, I thang yew. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-english-subjunctive-how-and-whence/231276/26 "2004-02-28T12:10:43Z")
> [@London\_Calling](#): > > **jjimm** - On so many levels, you’re a sad, sad bastard ! Hey, no insults in GQ. Take it to the pit, buddy. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-english-subjunctive-how-and-whence/231276/27 "2004-02-28T12:38:59Z")
Apologies Bjorn, give my regards to Benny. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-english-subjunctive-how-and-whence/231276/28 "2004-05-01T12:28:10Z")
Sorry to revive the thread, but **Nametag** ’s sig line drew my attention to it (I’d managed to miss it the first time around). And yes, he _is_ the subjunctive king, although he may have to battle it out with **Polycarp**! An example: If wishes were fishes, we would all cast nets. Everyone in this thread agrees that _were_ in the above sentence is subjunctive mood, past tense. What I want to know is, what is _would_? I would (there it is again, that pesky verb!) say subjunctive mood, future tense, but I would appreciate someone whose knowledge exceeds mine in this area confirming or denying (with further explanation). BTW, chalk me up as another person who, while using the subjunctive properly all my life, never recognized it as a distinct entity until I studied Latin in high school. Even in my childhood in the sixties, they no longer taught such things in what is somewhat ironically (under the circumstances) known as grammar school. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-english-subjunctive-how-and-whence/231276/29 "2004-05-01T15:46:26Z")
Conditional. ---
**Author:** ![shijinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@shijinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shijinn)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-english-subjunctive-how-and-whence/231276/30 "2004-05-01T18:39:59Z")
> [@bordelond](#): > > > [@Sutremaine](#): > > > > For example: > > > > ‘If he hadn’t been drinking, he wouldn’t have had an accident’ > > > > would, in Chinese, be: > > > > ‘He had an accident because he was drinking.’ > > > > Much more concise, but using the subjunctive allows to to mention stuff that has nothing to do with what really happened. > > This Chinese translation doesn’t ring true to me. Surely speakers of Chinese can speak of hypothetical situations, even if they wouldn’t use the familiar subjunctive of English, French, Spanish _et al_? a chinese might say “ru guo ta mei you he jiu de hua, jiu bu hui fa sheng yi wai le.” which literally translate to “if he didn’t drink wine supposedly, then wouldn’t happen accident”. this is a normal ‘if/then’ sentence used in everyday speech. i’m not sure if it fits the definition of a subjunctive in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-english-subjunctive-how-and-whence/231276/31 "2004-05-01T20:29:39Z")
> [@AvhHines](#): > > If wishes were fishes, we would all cast nets. > > Everyone in this thread agrees that _were_ in the above sentence is subjunctive mood, past tense. What I want to know is, what is _would_? I would (there it is again, that pesky verb!) say subjunctive mood, future tense, but I would appreciate someone whose knowledge exceeds mine in this area confirming or denying (with further explanation). “Would” is one of the “modal verbs”; it’s taken on a life of its own, but it was originally the past tense of “will” (it still is, actually). As such, it’s also the form taken by the subjunctive of “will.” For some reasons, most modern grammarians and linguists don’t call it that any more. Look at the sentence this way: “When wishes are fishes, we will all cast nets.” “Were” and “would” cast both clauses into the subjunctive. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2004, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-english-subjunctive-how-and-whence/231276/32 "2004-05-02T01:13:18Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > “Would” […] was originally the past tense of “will” \*\* (it still is, actually) \*\*… Does it mean that I could say “He would him to…” instead of “He wanted him to…”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-english-subjunctive-how-and-whence/231276.md?page=1)