Sauf bien sûr dans les phrases où il n'y pas de condition : <I prefer that she play here> (souhait) par exemple.
There is no subjunctive mood in English.
Bugger this being an English forum.....let's all talk subjunctively in French and German.....
[Damian has no time to log into Babelfish right now]
[Damian has no time to log into Babelfish right now]
That's right, there is no subjunctive mood in English. Nothing that could clearly be labeled as such.
>>That's right, there is no subjunctive mood in English. Nothing that could clearly be labeled as such.<<
So then what in hell is that which is morphologically marked that we have been talking about here in this thread if not a subjunctive mood?
So then what in hell is that which is morphologically marked that we have been talking about here in this thread if not a subjunctive mood?
<So then what in h*ll >
You seem to be a bit free with abusive and obscene language, Travis.
You seem to be a bit free with abusive and obscene language, Travis.
>>You seem to be a bit free with abusive and obscene language, Travis.<<
So have you appointed yourself the local censor then (despite not being a moderator to start with)?
So have you appointed yourself the local censor then (despite not being a moderator to start with)?
<So have you appointed yourself the local censor then (despite not being a moderator to start with)? >
Tommie doesn't have to be a moderator to protest about your inappropriate use of abusive language on a forum on which anyone of any age can post. I too protest. There is simply no need for that type of language.
Tommie doesn't have to be a moderator to protest about your inappropriate use of abusive language on a forum on which anyone of any age can post. I too protest. There is simply no need for that type of language.
"They requested that he be banned from driving."
Is really:
They requested that he should be banned from driving.
Covert modals abound in such constructions.
Is really:
They requested that he should be banned from driving.
Covert modals abound in such constructions.
>>Tommie doesn't have to be a moderator to protest about your inappropriate use of abusive language on a forum on which anyone of any age can post. I too protest. There is simply no need for that type of language.<<
<sarcasm>We must protect the children!!!</sarcasm>
Well, umm sorry, but I am not exactly quite as much of a Puritan when it comes to these kinds of matters as some, and I do not believe that somehow seeing the language in a few of my posts here is somehow going to permanently damage children.
If you are somehow truly offended by use of "hell" above, which was not really directed at anyone to begin with (it was being used as an intensifier), it is your own fault for being overly sensitive. I am not going to go and candycoat whatever I say so that everyone likes it (prescriptivists included), and edit it so no rightwingers ostenibly seeking to "protect the children" complain. And no, I am not censoring my post here.
<sarcasm>We must protect the children!!!</sarcasm>
Well, umm sorry, but I am not exactly quite as much of a Puritan when it comes to these kinds of matters as some, and I do not believe that somehow seeing the language in a few of my posts here is somehow going to permanently damage children.
If you are somehow truly offended by use of "hell" above, which was not really directed at anyone to begin with (it was being used as an intensifier), it is your own fault for being overly sensitive. I am not going to go and candycoat whatever I say so that everyone likes it (prescriptivists included), and edit it so no rightwingers ostenibly seeking to "protect the children" complain. And no, I am not censoring my post here.
>>Covert modals abound in such constructions.<<
So you think such are really just modals which have been deleted? The matter is that there the historical linguistics of the matter point at it not one bit. Rather, this is a direct continuation of the Middle English subjunctive, with the primary differences between the two being a reduced number of cases where actual distinctions between the indicative and subjunctive are made, primarily via changes in the conjugation of verbs in the indicative. Please really show me, on historical grounds, how this is somehow supposed to really be due to deleted modals then.
So you think such are really just modals which have been deleted? The matter is that there the historical linguistics of the matter point at it not one bit. Rather, this is a direct continuation of the Middle English subjunctive, with the primary differences between the two being a reduced number of cases where actual distinctions between the indicative and subjunctive are made, primarily via changes in the conjugation of verbs in the indicative. Please really show me, on historical grounds, how this is somehow supposed to really be due to deleted modals then.
I have to support Travis — it is not considered offensive to use 'hell' like that where I come from.
I think what people mean when they say there is no subjunctive in English, is that there is no actual separate verb form to indicate the subjunctive. We do have a subjunctive, but it is always employs the stem form of the verb i.e. 'I suggested he start saving' or 'I insist she be questioned'. The verb form changes from the usual subject verb agreement, but it does not have a separate subjunctive form in itself.
Well, the past subjunctive always uses the plural preterite form, which is not the stem of the verb of course, just to be complete here.