THESE PROCESSES ARE MISNAMED

"SUBJUNCTIVES"  BY  GRAMMARS:

REPLACEMENTS OF THE DEFUNCT

ENGLISH SUBJUNCTIVE

© 1997, 1999, 2000, 2005 by Orchid Land Publications

Charles-James N. Bailey

[updated 120051129]

[This information is being expanded in a  forthcoming volume on CD-ROM.  
The page has been revised a good deal, but the author hasn't had time or 
energy to put the revision online.]

     The following nine processes that yield irrealis predications are misnamed "subjunctives" by grammarians:

     1. Should-DELETION in examples like "It was for the good of the country that she not remain"; this cannot be a subjunctive, inasmuch as the subjunctive obeyed the "sequence of time forms" and would have (depending on the date of its death in English) required a form of do with not. This is the injunctive use of should. (Of the four uses of should, one other, the dubitative use, has been [catachrestically] called a subjunctive, as in "if we should be late, . . .," "unless it should've been accidental," or "supposing that/in case they should"; these usages occur in clauses beginning with if, in case (that), unless and when the main clause has a posterior verb, after temporal conjunctions (when, till, as soon as, before, after, once) and relative pronouns.  Combinations of may or might plus a (short) infinitive are no more aptly or properly termed "subjunctives" than combinations of should plus infinitive; and the same is true of conditional would and could.  Grammarians that do this--and some prominent ones do--have lost all idea of what a "subjunctive" mode is; it's parallel to the waywardness of saying that "for me" is a "dative case."  One should not confuse "If she was there yesterday" with "If she'd been there yesterday " or "If she should have been there yesterday" or "If she were there yesterday, . . . "  The past counterfactual use of the past-anterior in the foregoing is often replaced today by--in order of lessening unacceptability--the past, would've, and the double past-anterior [as in "If she had've been there yesterday"--which cultivated speakers accept.)   Should-deletion optionally occurs in clauses depending on expressions of will or necessity, those of importance or propriety--including predicates like "be inevitable" (as in "It was inevitable that they [should] be upset"; here, would would be the near-equivalent of posterior "were going to be upset.")--and in negative purpose clauses (e.g. "demanded that we not remain there any longer").  It is also heard in indirect questions like:  "I wonder why they should have been awarded the prize."
--"It's unthinkable that they should fail" does not delete should because of the negative predicate that its clause depends on.  This illustrates the dubitative or unexpectative use of (undeletable) should.  (This is one of three irrealis uses of should; the other two include the foregoing use in which should can be deleted and the obligative use--equivalent to ought [to].)  Irrealis, non-obligative should is sometimes used in negative or non-negative purpose clauses; e.g. "It was done in order that no one/someone should notice and report it."  The British do not make the distinction as often as North Americans between "It was important that they knew that she was dying" and "It was important that they should know that she was dying."  The latter is similar to "It was important for them to know that she was dying."  
--It is worth noticing that should can be factual (when depending on an expression of surprise or its opposite or of disgust or its opposite--but not neutral values of these features); e.g. "She was surprised and disgusted that he should (have) put that there."  In no way can this be thought of as a "subjunctive."   Those grammarians who call "It was proper that they not be compensated" have never explained the absence of a form of do before not--nor the failure of the alleged present subjunctive, be, in this example to exhibit the sequencing rule that required a past subjunctive (the rule was made for subjunctives!) to stand in a subordinate clause dependent on an independent clause having a past predicate.  They obvious don't understand what they are talking about; they know the rule but do not relate it to the putative entity the rule would apply to. 

     2. The TEMPORAL THROWBACK in "Were he here now, . . .," "I wish they believed in it, . . .," "It’s time we were on our way," and "Had he been on time yesterday, . . ." and "Were she to respond, . . ." (Re-spelling one verb form, was, cannot pass as a mode, since it affects only one verb—optionally, in most contexts.)  Historically, but no longer today, should represents a throwback of shall.  Dubitative should occurs not only in hypothesis clauses (beginning with if, in case, unless, etc., and though) following wish, and following prefer, it's time, rather than, had rather, had just as soon, would prefer--nearly all of which can also alternatively exhibit simply the temporal throwback of the main verb, should-deletion, or the exochronous modality. 

     3. The use of be in place of am and are (but not in place of is) to convey a behavioral pattern in "If you (don’t) be good tomorrow morning, . . . ," "Why don’t you be more attentive?" and "I always just be myself when she’s around." This behavioral use also affects only one verb. Aside from that consideration, how can one set up a "subjunctive mode" (which was historically used mainly in the third-person singular!) for a usage that excludes the third-person singular?  The exochronous modality has replaced the old subjunctive in numerous instances.  We now would say exochronous are rather than be in "There be dragons here."   Contrast exochronous-characterizing are in "That is a good child" with present-durative is being in "That child is being good right now."  English has got exochronous be in a number of contexts where the Romance languages have their subjunctive.  (Compare the Portugese [and Old Spanish] future subjunctive in the equivalent of English, "If she arrives tomorrow, . . ."

     4. SUBJECT-VERB INVERSION in "May they be safe!" (Contrast "They may be safe." SUBJECT-INVERSION is also used for questions; this is the optative use. (Cf. "Let them remain"—which is a different construct.)  Also heard  after clause-initial negatives (e.g. "Never had he heard that before, Not until the next day did she realize that") and (optionally) words like thus and so.  Sometimes the very say and similar expressions, interpolated in quotations, is affected by this process, as in "I will never, say I (or said she), put up with that!

     5. The preceding may be combined with may-DELETION "Be it ever so humble," "Long live the Queen!" Of the four uses of may, it is optative-may that gets deleted. (This, no longer productive, usage is more complicated than grammars let on; there is no inversion in "God help us!"—where an object is present.)  
--Consider again "Be it ever so humble." Parallels are found in fossilized "So be it" and "Be that as it may." (Note "may"--which indicates the correctness of the proposed analysis. May is deleted prior to the application of the rule inverting the order of subject and verb.) Such usages are practically limited to "be" and "come" (cf. "How come?" and "Come what may"). These usages do not productively occur in normal English, though some preachers and politicians at times affect "If it be" (for "If it is," "If it should be," or "Should it be"), "Whether it be" (for "Whether it is"), "Though it be" (for "Though it may be" or "Though it is"), and "Unless it be" (for "Unless it should be" or "Unless it is")--presumably to make their utterances more solemn and weighty. Of course, other examples occur in quoting from the 1611 Bible; and "Be it . . ." is still in (limited) use as an idiom--i.e. not as than as a grammatically productive construct.

1.     If-DELETION, always combined with SUBJECT-VERB INVERSION, as in "Had they been on time, . . ., Were he ready, . . ., Should she so desire, . . .,  Did we lack such items, . . .  This is not used with modal verbs other than should (and could--which is infrequent).

2.     Contraponence--using an active verb form as a passive or reflexive, as in "This chapter translates easily."  Generally limited to causative verbs.

3.     You-DELETION--except for the don'tchu-imperative, you is deleted in imperatives; e.g. "Don't do it"--with which contrast "Don'tchu do it!" 

4.     Do-INSERTION--obligatory with not (even clause-initial not) when no other auxiliary verb is present in the clause.  Where not obligatory and/or carrying emphatic intonation, do indicates emphasis.

·         These processes are discussed in various writings by me, including my Essays on time-based linguistic analysis (Oxford University Press, 1996). (Contrast Ch. 5, ^^ 25-26 in S. Greenbaum’s recent grammar by the same press.) The long and short of all of this is that better teaching won't improve the situation of English in the schools until a better understanding of the architecture of English is embraced.

CLICK FOR HOW GRAMMARS OF ENGLISH HAVE MISSED THE BOAT

SEE ALSO:   HOW TO PRONOUNCE FREQUENTLY MISPRONOUNCED WORDS OF ENGLISH

CLICK FOR YET MORE!