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?
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.
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.
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:
However, it is not the delectable Ms Stevens we have to thank for this decision, but the songwriter Cathy Dennis.
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.
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.
“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.
