Talk:Subjunctive mood

"The subjunctive in Indo-European languages"; as the first topic in Wikipedia's Subjunctive article, mentions many languages from various origins. Why then, is only English differentiated from its "genus" languages to elicit specific importance among them? I realize that this may be a courtesy due to my geographic location, yet I detest its presumed meaning as self-important and not objective as is possible, as one might expect from a source of reference. If one denimination of a family language be distinguished, I curiously hope that others should follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.134.33 (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Shorten and restructure languages?

I think that a lot of the information on individual languages needs to be trimmed. In particular, the conjugation tables strike me as excessive; and a lot of information that's common to multiple languages could be stated once instead of repeated everywhere. That said, most of this is encyclopedic, just not relevant to this article; so, we should make certain that information we delete from here exists in appropriate articles.

We can also restructure the page somewhat by doing more to group related languages. This will hopefully make it easier to avoid repetition: something true of, say, both German and Dutch could be included in a "Germanic languages" header section, and the details of each could be explained in appropriate subsections.

Thoughts?

Ruakh 19:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I just think it strange that there are a certain selection of languages. Maybe links to sub-articles about each language for itself? "Subjunctive in Spanish," "in German", etc. Having half a dozen or so strikes me as strange, because not just those languages use that tense, right? Mdesrosii 01:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously we can't include every single language, even if we do just provide links to sub-articles. The idea is to give information on a number of languages, so people come away from the article with both an understanding of the English subjunctive and a general understanding of subjunctives in other languages. Right now, the article is kind of a hodge-podge, not giving a good unifying explanation; rather, people need to read each language and draw their own conclusions; that needs to be improved. But neither adding every other world language, or removing all information to subpages, will solve the real problem. Ruakh 12:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"I wish I were an Oscar Meyer wiener."

Some mention of I wish I were an Oscar Meyer wiener? I'd do it myself if I could make sense of its broader relevance (did it affect anything linguistically in any noticeable way? I don't know). Koyaanis Qatsi 01:22, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Expressing Wish

I have added to the section about the use of past subjunctive to express wish. After I wish that, it seems to me that past subjunctive is necessary in all cases (I wish that I were taller. I wish that it were not true. etc.) However, the construction would that seems to be able to take either past or present subjunctive, depending on the relative potentiality or abstraction of the hypothetical situation, respectively. Compare:

• I would that my life be spared. (abstract and not imminent)
• Your honor, I would that my life were spared. (...since it is in your power.)

This is as it seems to me, a native English speaker (an American speaker, if you must). It's my opinion that the subjunctive in English is in such a dilapidated state that, barring prescription, it is really only the intuitions of native speakers that can be used to describe its use, and this is to lead to inevitable differences of opinion. Even intuition might prove ambiguous, as some speakers might feel that "I would that my life were spared" is wrong in any event. (See, even this previous sentence ought to probably take a subjunctive, though it feels better to me to use the indicative. I wonder if I should not have split my infinitive just now?...) Nevertheless, I feel this "would that" ambiguity should be included. Does anyone disagree?

See optative mood for information on this, and note the section on Germanic languages in general in this article. LokiClock (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether certain auxiliary verbs mark the subjunctive mood in English

A question, from someone who knows little about linguistics or grammar, but who learnt some French and has now attempted to find the subjunctive in English: don't words like could, should, might, may and would mark verbs as being in the subjunctive mood? And isn't this a relatively good way of starting to explain it to naïve Anglophones? -- pde 06:37, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, "could", "would", ... are called "conditional". According to this article, conditional and subjunctive are the same. But this seems wrong to me. It would mean that there exist two subjunctive forms for to be.

In German and Spanish, conditional (Konditional, potencial/condicional) and subjunctive (Konjunktiv, subjuntivo) have different conjugations.

--zeno 09:53, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As they do in French. But the grammatical contexts in which they are required or acceptable are the same. -- pde 12:32, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't think they are acceptable in the same places in French. It's possible that you can use a subjunctive instead of a conditional (don't know), but doing the opposite is non-standard, if not flat-out wrong. - 62.254.128.6 18:51, 20 February 2005 (UTC)

Dispute over certain claims about British English

I'm a speaker of British English, and I dispute the following:

They insisted that there should be a proper catering service involved. (American English: They insisted that a proper catering service be involved.)

"They insisted that there be a proper catering service involved." would be my natural inclination.

In British English, it is considered incorrect to use a negative subjunctive. The sentence He took heed that his boss not see him., while correct in American English, is incorrect in British, where it should be rendered thus: He took heed that his boss might not see him. (or lest his boss should see him).

The former is not "incorrect in British"! It is slightly less common, but nevertheless perfectly correct. One frequently hears announcements at railway stations (for example) in the form of "It is essential that passengers not leave their personal belongings on the train." and so forth. 80.255

Even if that form weren't common here in many parts of England (note: negative subjunctive!), how can it be "incorrect"? It's plain English. - 212.139.198.82 11:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed I doubt that the whole American-British distinction is nearly as clear-cut as the article claims. At most there may be a difference of tendencies. That example They insisted he went to chapel every day is not, I think, a sentence with a different meaning on each side of the Atlantic, but rather, a sentence which is ambiguous on both sides, though possibly the two speech communities might show a different tendency as to which of the two meanings strikes them first. --Doric Loon 17:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's ambiguous where I am, in the U.S.'s Upper Midwest: it very clearly means something like They refused to acknowledge that he might not be going to chapel every day. If I heard it, and later realized that the speaker meant They refused to let him skip chapel any day, I would assume the speaker had simply misspoken. (Most speakers here wouldn't be able to identify that he go as the subjunctive - if asked, maybe they'd think it was a use of the command form, or maybe they'd think they were simply wrong in saying it - but they would use it nonetheless. At least, so I think.) Ruakh 21:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I guess you're right. I just asked one of my friends here how she'd interpret it - without giving options - and she said it could mean two different things (giving the two meanings you'd expect). So, I guess there is ambiguity, even here. (But if she were the one speaking, and meant "insisted he go," she said that she'd say "insisted he had to go" or "insisted he should go," not "insisted he went.") Ruakh 23:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason I'm doubting is because I'm Scottish and the usage given here as American would be my preferred usage, though I am comfortable with both. But the subjunctive is just so cool (a scientific statement if ever there was one!), quite subjectively it feels stronger and richer than the unmarked options, and it certainly is not my impression that it is moribund in Britain. --Doric Loon 08:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Formation of the subjunctive in English

The subjunctive is formed by taking the infinitive stem of the verb, not the 3rd person present. Hence 'be'. Also, I percieve 'I demand that Napoleon surrenders' as quite grammatical, and would use that construction. - 62.254.128.4 09:02, 16 October 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong. "I demand that Napoleon surrenders" in incorrect and bad grammar. The correct sentence is "I demand the Napoleon surrender." The problem is that the subjunctive is not properly taught in most English classes. Usually the people who have studied a foreign language are the ones who use the subjunctive tense properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.191.14 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 19:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your comment is nonsensical. Firstly, the person you're replying to wrote only that (s)he perceived that construction as grammatical. Unless you're in his head (I'm going to assume for simplicity that it's a guy), it's nonsensical to tell him that he doesn't in fact perceive that. Secondly, if the people who have studied a foreign language are indeed the ones who form the subjunctive the way you do — as in, most English speakers form it differently — then it's nonsensical to claim that "correct" English has rules independent of the actual language. Thirdly, the subjunctive is a mood, not a tense. —Ruakh_TALK 04:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and take exception to your exception of the exception to the original assertion. While it may be true that one can argue that any form or use of the language is "correct," there are still (currently) acceptable and unacceptable forms among those who like to debate such. The original poster may "perceive" that a sentence is grammatical, but most knowledgeable writers here would disagree that the result of that perception was correct. "I demand that Napoleon surrenders" is not the correct form. Defending it in a discussion of an article on the subjunctive seem a bit odd.

That said, you have brought up an interesting point: There are many instances of subjunctive moods constructed "badly" but which have found wide usage. For instance, one often hears statements such as, "If I would have gone to the store, I would have bought some eggs." We know what the person means, but those who adhere to "standard" English would correct that statement: "If I had gone to the store...." So in defense of those who use alternative forms, you might write an interesting addendum to the English section of this article about the changing form of the subjunctive in everyday speech. Of course, I would urge that you be specific and factual in your presentation. Cellmaker (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A new section on the subjunctive in Portuguese

I created a section on the subjunctive in Portuguese. I based it on text and examples in the French and Spanish sections, mutatis mutandis. If anyone can think of any better examples, feel free to change them. EDIT: I couldn't think of a word equivalent to Haver impessoal, which is há, translatable as "there is" and "there are" in English. What is its infintive in English? In Spanish this would be haber, in French y avoir and in Italian esserci. --200.189.74.130 17:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

In English, the subject is essential to the meaning, so you'd use have to use either there to be or for there to be: "For there to be an answer, there must first be a question"; "I want there to be a separate web-site for each project." Ruakh 19:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The Star Beast

The Star Beast in Robert A. Heinlein's novel stated to the protagonist:

"He's telling the truth".

Surprised, the protagonist asked

"How do you know that?"

The star beast then replied

"He spoke in the subjunctive."

In other words, the English language badly needs to retain the subjunctive mood! I fear for countries that are giving up its usage. How else might one state things that are not yet true and yet very much need to be discussed? What other mechanisms of language might there be to work things out? --Ancheta Wis 15:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

English Subjunctive Overhaul

Folks, I think the English Subjunctive section could seriously do with a major overhaul. So I'm currently working on a version to make it a bit more succinct, comprehensible and flowing, and yet still try to retain as much info submitted by other users as I can. I'm having minor moral dilemma trying to work in the differences between British English and American English, primarily because although I appreciate there may be some slight differences, there are enough internal differences within British and American varieties themselves to warrant not raising this as a serious issue (on the basis that it could be misleading). Please see work-in-progress article at user:brianlacey/sandbox. I'd really appreciate any comments! Brian 17:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I do like the box. I would prefer, though, that the cultural references be kept (Fiddler on the Roof; Oscar Mayer, Marvell, &c.) if only because these references allow people to see the mood at work in quotations they might recognise. Smerdis of Tlön 19:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Smerdis (by the way, great name!), I'll definately be keeping those references - I don't want anyone to think I'm going to totally erase their input - I'm just doing a thorough reshuffle! Brian 21:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I don't know whether a crossreference to the Germanic section of Indo-European copula would help for historical aspects. See what you think. --Doric Loon 09:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've transfered my finished (as far as I'm concerned anyway!) version of the English Subjunctive from my sandbox to the article's page, and I'm praying that I haven't disgraced myself by angering anyone who was in the love with the way it used to be! Ruakh - I notice your comment at the top of this talkpage regarding using tables! However, because there are so few differences between the indicative and the subjunctive, I thought it would be easier for someone who didn't know anything about this subject to see them clearly laid out. Brian 20:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Many edits later, this article may need some maintenance. Are so many examples necessary, considering the duplication in the main article, English subjunctive. Also, I think this section may benefit by simplifying sentence construction. By example, I would ask that someone please tell me precisely what is being said in this sentence:

"The subjunctive in Modern English is easily distinguished in a great variety of contexts wherein the sense is past tense, but the form of the subjunctive verb required is present".

Some questions I would consider reading this sentence:

• Is the "subjunctive" in discussion really unique to Modern English, that is, English written and spoken since the 16th century?
• May we see an example of the subjunctive from Middle English in order to contrast the current usage?
• The subjunctive is "easily distinguished" from what? [[Miimno (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)]]

Subjunctive in Dutch

The subjunctive in Dutch is in Dutch grammar texts always refered to as conjunctive. The Dutch name is 'aanvoegende wijs'. In contradiction with the article, there is only one such mood, and it is not like the ones in German (although no doubt there's a common ancestry). Also, 'used less commonly' is a rather huge understatement, as the conjunctive is used exclusively in fixed expressions ('leve de Koniningin' - 'long live the Queen'). Instead, Dutch uses forms of the verb 'zullen' ('shall') to express what German expresses with the subjunctive. Perhaps the form 'zou(den)' (from 'zullen') (and colloquial 'wou((d)en)' from willen?) originated as a subjunctive, any Neerlandicus that can write something about this? I would propose to remove the section on Dutch entirely, until someone can write something useful about it.

212.159.203.211 10:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)KH

As a native Dutch speaker, I second all your comments. Also, I must say, the phrase "is also used rather frequently" confused me on first reading, because I thought it to mean that this form is actually used. Maybe it it should rather say "usually". No Dutch person would either say or write something in subjunctive without a tongue in cheek, save the sporadic expression here and there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.93.92.62 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Totally agreed with the previous 2 comments. Would be nice, too, if there were actually some sources to the Dutch section though it looks ok to me (after having updated the God verdomme part) though I'm not a (Dutch) language scientist at all, merely a native speaker. --77.251.236.67 (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

English mention in section on Portuguese

On 6 April 2006, user Kwertii changed the beginning of this sentence:

Like English, Portuguese and Spanish use the imperfect subjunctive in hypotheticals after se and si ("if"), respectively. In such a case, the main clause is in the conditional mood.

Kwertii changed the opening wording to "Like archaic or formal English". I have undone Kwertii's change. Why?

1. The fact that not all English speakers always "use the imperfect subjunctive in hypotheticals" has already been mentioned earlier in the article.

2. It's not just archaic. Although she may have been a feminine third-person singular personal pronoun in the time of words that are now considered archaic, I wouldn't describe she as an archaic pronoun—because it's still in common use. The same goes for this usage.

3. It's not just formal. While it may come down to individual instances, individual persons, and specific constructions, it's not restricted to formal usage. There must be many, many speakers of English as a first language who, without ever giving a thought to being formal or trying to be formal—and even specificially wanting to be considered informal—, say such things as "If I were you" without even thinking about it.

That's all. President Lethe 04:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Ruakh 04:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The "pluperfect subjunctive" does not have perfect aspect

Perfect aspect in English cannot usually go together with expressions denoting a specific time: "I have killed him" and "I killed him three hours ago" are both OK, but not *"I have killed him three hours ago." Nevertheless, you can say "I wish I had killed him three hours ago," with the "pluperfect subjunctive." This shows that the pluperfect subjunctive is a simple past tense, with no perfect aspect.--128.36.66.222 19:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)jpb

It's both. "They've done this before" and "They did this" are both OK, but not *"They did this before." Nevertheless, you can say "I wish they had done this before." This shows that the pluperfect subjunctive can have a present-perfect sense *or* a past-non-perfect one. Ruakh 21:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

But on the other hand we say that "She's gone to London" has perfect force, while "She went to London" does not, because the former expression implies that she is still in London, while the latter makes no reference to her present location. But if I say, "I wish she had gone to London" I do not imply that, in my wished-for scenario, she would still be in London, but merely that she would have gone at some time in the past; whether I wanted her to stay or to return afterwards, I did not specify in my wish. This would seem to suggest that the "pluperfect subjunctive" lacks perfect force, even though, as you point out, it can occur in the same places as truly perfect forms. For purposes of simple taxonomy at the introduction of the article, I think it would be less misleading to say that the "pluperfect subjunctive" is the past tense of the "past subjunctive", rather than its perfect aspect. Using the second term seems to suggest that the construction has perfect force.--128.36.66.222 04:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)jpb

The term "Pluperfect subjunctive" comes from comparative linguistics, it makes sense in Latin or German, and it is used in reference to English when certain parallels are being drawn. But normally, this term is not used in modern books on English grammar. We no longer use the term "pluperfect" either, but rather "past perfect". The point is, though, that to create a subjunctive force, "I wish" needs to be followed by a tense shift. If we are already talking in either the present perfect or the past simple, a tense shift leads to a subjunctive resembling a past perfect, which then can have either the perfective aspect or not. --Doric Loon 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Doric Loon. I agree that the term "pluperfect subjunctive" seems a little archaic but my problem wasn't with that term. The problem is in describing the "pluperfect subjunctive" as the "perfect aspect" of the "past subjunctive." If, as you and Ruakh seem to agree, the "pluperfect subjunctive" only occasionally behaves like regular perfect forms, and other times does not, then it is misleading to categorize it as "the perfect aspect" of the subjunctive -- it would be better just to say it is the "past tense" and leave the aspect, so to speak, unspecified in the description, just as it seems to be in the language itself. I found the current nomenclature confusing, and I am sure other readers would, too, so I'm for changing it. --Gheuf 03:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)jpb

I advise caution in extrapolating from a language like English, which barely has a subjunctive at all, to all languages. FilipeS 14:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't think anyone was; this discussion was about the section titled "The pluperfect subjunctive", within the section on English. Ruakh 16:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Help with Spanish

The section on Portuguese has the following examples:

• English: "If I were (past subjunctive) king, I would end (conditional) hunger."
  • Spanish: Si fuera (imperfect subjunctive) rey, acabaría con (conditional) el hambre.
  • Portuguese: Se fosse (imperfect subjunctive) rei, acabaria com (conditional) a fome.

However, I'm not absolutely sure that the Spanish version is right. Should it be "Si era rey...", instead? Some help would be appreciated. FilipeS 17:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You might be thinking of French, which indeed uses the imperfect indicative for that; Spanish, however, uses the imperfect subjunctive. To quote from p. 454 of ¡Arriba!: Comunicación y Cultura, Third Edition, by Eduardo Zayas-Bazán and Susan M. Bacon (ISBN 0-13-08415-8):

When a si clause contains implausible or contrary-to-fact information, the imperfect subjunctive is used in the si clause and the conditional tense [sic] is used in the result clause.

• Si fuera un drama bueno, iría a verlo. — If it were good drama, I would go see it.
• Sería más interesante si supieras cinematografía. — It would be more interesting if you knew cinematography.

The bigger question is, do we need that example there anyway? That ended up in the Portuguese section because I didn't do a very good job when I separated out the Romance languages into their own sections (IIRC they were previously in a big section that purported to be about French), but it should probably be removed from that section now.

Ruakh 20:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. The example is part of a comparison between Spanish/English, on one hand, and Portuguese, on the other. But there may be other ways to word it... FilipeS 22:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To be clearer, I think a single section for all Romance languages, with examples from various languages this time, might be a good choice. FilipeS 14:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I make no claim that the current set-up is the best, only that it's better than how it was before, with Spanish and Portuguese kind-of having their own sections and kind-of just having part of the section on French. If you want to unite the Romance languages into a single coherent explanation, I think that would be great. :-) Ruakh 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph on the future subjunctive does not say how to form it. Should information on how to form the future subjunctive be added, or because it is no longer used in spoken spanish, should information on how to form it now be included? Captain Gamma (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Blatant brand-name-dropping

I don't know whether this is intentional advertising or just bad taste, but sticking a brand name logo at the top of a totally unrelated article reeks. I'm not saying not to mention the "I wish I were an etc." at all, but what does that logo have to do with it? Are the brightly painted words "Oscar Mayer" in the subjunctive? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.188.13.25 (talk • contribs) . It was me Bandiera 16:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Without ever really thinking about it, I found it kind of funny, but now that you bring it up, I guess it is inappropriate. Ruakh 04:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then, can I remove it? Bandiera 16:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No one else has commented, so I guess you might as well. Ruakh 17:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Out it goes, with anti-capitalist glee! Bandiera 03:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How silly. LordLiverpool 14:22, 04 November 2006 (UTC)

if that were the case

I am always happy to learn something: is "if that were the case" in the subjunctive? To my ears, it is. The "if" is immaterial, it seems; "that were the case" seems to be subjunctive. True? --Ancheta Wis 06:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the past subjunctive. Ruakh 13:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words Bill Jefferson was offering the public a sentence which moots any alleged charges against him. --Ancheta Wis 23:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Pluperfect subjunctive tense?

There's a whole article about the Pluperfect subjunctive tense. It has heavy overlap with this page and already needs to link back to this article several times, so it seems to me that it is fit for merging. Comments? --BCSWowbagger 17:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

that would be quite wrong. The subjunctive is an entire mood which, in different languages, appears in many different tenses. To merge it to a single tense would be a category error. It might be possible to merge the pluperfect subjunctive in with this article, but that might make things unduly long. seglea 18:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understood me, Seglea. I am talking about sticking PPS into *this* article, not vice versa. It *might* make things unduly long, but I doubt it. Since there doesn't appear to be an objection, I think I'll give it a shot... as soon as I figure out how to merge. --BCSWowbagger 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging must be done manually; in this case, you would move information from Pluperfect subjunctive tense to the appropriate places in Subjunctive mood, with edit summaries like "moving information from Pluperfect subjunctive tense". Once you've added to Subjunctive mood everything that needs to be added to it, you simply replace the contents of Pluperfect subjunctive tense with

#redirect [[Subjunctive mood]]

so that anyone visiting Pluperfect subjunctive tense gets Subjunctive mood.

Ruakh 01:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruakh. I'm adding the redirect now. It seems you were right, though: there's nothing of value in the current PST entry, except a discussion of the tense in Icelandic, hence nothing for me to merge. Unfortunately, knowing absolutely nothing about Icelandic, I can't expand on it enough to make a complete discussion for *this* article. If anyone else wants to, the final version of PST before getting a redirect is here: [1], including the Icelandic paragraph. --BCSWowbagger 20:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may be blunt, that article says almost nothing that's true, and of what it does say that's true, almost none is of significance. I think we should simply replace the current text of Pluperfect subjunctive tense with a redirect to Subjunctive mood. (If there's any information worth bringing over, then I'm not opposed to doing so; it's just my impression that there isn't.) Ruakh 19:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to have been much of a merge here. Where is the stuff taken from Pluperfect subjunctive tense? There's very little of it here. -- the GREAT Gavini 10:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed not; I guess I was convincing. Ruakh 16:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Does English even have a past subjunctive

Some linguists seem to be of the opinion that there is no past subjunctive. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001192.html

"if I were" is a different form entirely, the irrealis.

"past subjunctive" is just the preterite. Why invent a grammatical disinction where none exists?

This is the relevant passage:

It isn't actually the subjunctive. People often call the "were" of "I wish I were" subjunctive, but that term is much better used (as in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language) for the construction with "be" seen in "I demand that it be done." The "were" form is often wrongly called a past subjunctive, but of course "it were done" is not a past tense of "it be done". The difference between the two is that the subjunctive construction occurs with any verb: "I demand that this cease" is a subjunctive (notice "this cease", not "this ceases"). The relic form in "I were" is only available for "be". For all other verbs you use the preterite: "I wish I went to New York more often." The Cambridge Grammar calls the "were" form the irrealis form. It is surviving robustly in expressions like "if I were you", but even there it has a universally accepted alternate "if I was you", and there is no semantic distinction there to preserve.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.67.89 (talk • contribs) .

The article already does a good job explaining the details of the past subjunctive, including the reasons that Drs. Pullum, Huddleston, Zwicky, etc. reject the term past subjunctive. Seeing as the term past subjunctive is universal, I don't think Wikipedia can really accept their bold renaming, logical and well-motivated though it be. (That doesn't mean we can't mention their scheme, but I don't think we should structure the article around it.)

Incidentally, Dr. Zwicky is at least partly wrong, as his explanation doesn't note that the perfect-aspect auxiliary have still supports the inverted syntax: Had I come earlier, things would have been different. (And in dialects such as BrE where non-auxiliary have is also subject to inversion — "Have you any idea who I am?" — I think we see the same thing there. At least, the old line "Had we but world enough, and time" is still perfectly understandable; I don't know if that construction is still productive in Britain.) (The article currently just says that subjunctive were can be inverted while was cannot; that statement does need to be fleshed out a bit.)

Ruakh 12:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how inverted "had" is relevant. The point is that the past subjunctive is indistinguishable from the past indicative. They are the same thing.

You can invert "had" - "had I come earlier" is equivalent to "if I had come earlier". But that doesn't make it the subjunctive.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.243.246.34 (talk • contribs) .

Re: The point is that the past subjunctive is indistinguishable from the past indicative.: I'm sorry, but you're mistaken; that's not the point that was being made. Ruakh 17:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Then what is the point you were making with inverted "had"?

"The past subjunctive is indistinguishable from the past indicative." -- Not for the verb "to be". Plus, residual as it may be today, historically the English subjunctive is very clearly the descendant of a Germanic subjunctive, analogous in every aspect to the subjunctive that you still find, for example, in German. FilipeS 16:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Error in the indication of German tense

It is possible to express the KI in various tenses, including the present (er sei da gewesen) and the future (er werde da sein) although the latter is rarely used.

It looks like the name past (the “Perfekt”) was meant here, rather than present.--Imz 01:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Some English examples are not English

I put your dinner in the oven so that it keep warm. He wrote it in his diary so that he remember.

These are not English.--Gheuf 16:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. One can say "so that it should keep warm" and "so that he should remember", but the non-should-using version is not subjunctive, but rather straight-up indicative ("so that it will keep warm", "so that he would remember"). —Ruakh_TALK 18:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't even the version with "should" kind of artificial-sounding? FilipeS 21:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think so. It sounds a bit old-fashioned to my Midwestern ears, but I think it's still current in the U.K. (?) —Ruakh_TALK 02:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Acc. to my sense for these things, each sentence might plausibly be rendered in one of two ways, the literary or the colloquial.

I put your dinner in the oven so that it might keep warm. (lit.)

I put your dinner in the oven so it would keep warm. (col.)

He wrote it in his diary so that he might remember. (lit.)

He wrote it in his diary so he would remember. (col.)

The versions with "should" sound quite peculiar to me. the versions with the bare subjunctive, impossible.--Gheuf 04:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The new versions you've put up seem to me to have the same problem as the old ones.--Gheuf 05:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Google:"in order that" shows that while the phrase doesn't usually introduce a bare-subjunctive clause, it does so a not-insignificant portion of the time. It seems like it most often introduces may clauses, with can, might and bare-subjunctive clauses tying for second most often. —Ruakh_TALK 07:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"In order that" or just bare "that" puts the phrase into a more literary/archaic register than "so that", and this facilitates the true subjunctive. But I suggest using some attested examples, because this register is not particularly compatible with dear diary and dinner in the oven… CapnPrep 08:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how you got that from the google search. Of the first ten examples, 4 were unrelated constructions (e.g., "in order. That"), five used "may" and only one used the bare subjunctive. Of the ones using "may", two were quotes from John Ruskin, and one was from a book on style saying that "In order that" should be followed by "may, might, can" or another modal verb. The one use of bare subjunctive seemed to be an example of "officialese". It seems that passages using "may" were not only much more numerous, but also of a higher quality, than those using a bare subjunctive. You're quite right that the bare subjunctive is occasionally encountered, but the construction seems to be infrequent and is, to my ears, jarring. Why include such marginal cases here?--Gheuf 04:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple: I looked at more than the first ten examples. :-) Of the first fifty, 23 use may, 5 use can, 3 use might, 3 are unambiguous uses of the subjunctive, 2 are ambiguous between the subjunctive and the plain indicative, 2 are unambiguous uses of the plain indicative, 2 use will, 2 use shall, 1 uses should, and 1 uses would. (The other 6 are 4 irrelevant uses of the word sequence "in order that", 1 mention-rather-than-use of the phrase, and 1 unintelligible sentence from a clearly non-native writer.) It's dangerous to extrapolate from small samples, but as a first-order approximation, 9% of relevant uses of "in order that" on the Web use the plain subjunctive. And to me, the plain subjunctive sounds fairly natural in clauses introduced by "in order that", though it depends somewhat on the sentence; as it happens, neither example in the article right now sounds quite right to me, perhaps because (as CapnPrep suggests) the context doesn't seem sufficiently formal to warrant the plain subjunctive. —Ruakh_TALK 06:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Even with the numerous examples you mention, it seems that the bare subjunctive is employed much more infrequently than some modal verb (whether or not it's "may'). And I'd bet that a large proportion of these are also "officialese".--Gheuf 06:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but I'm afraid I don't see your point … :-/ —Ruakh_TALK 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand the point, and it is that the article makes it seem as though the subjunctive is alive and kicking in English, with all sorts of different forms, when actually many of the examples in the page seem to be literary, old-fashioned, regional, or contrived. I guess there was no better way to illustrate the concept of subjunctive in English, but there's something about the tone of the whole English section of the article that is just not very realistic. FilipeS 20:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yes, the article should do a better job distinguishing between cases where people usually use the plain subjunctive ("I ask that everyone respect this decision") and cases where other forms (either the plain indicative, or a redundant modal auxiliary construction) are more common. This depends strongly on dialect — I think ?"It's important that everyone should respect this decision" sounds ridiculous, but from what I gather, it's the form preferred in British English — but we can at least make some effort. I'll see about it … —Ruakh_TALK 00:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the edit you made putting the "may" in parentheses considerably improves things. FilipeS, you understood me right when you pointed out that the examples seem contrived. What I was getting at was that the construction "in order that" with bare infinitive seems to me extremely marginal, almost ungrammatical; "officialese" is practically its own sub dialect, and seems to use constructions that would be unacceptable in the normal language.--Gheuf 06:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the subjunctive mood?

I am puzzled by the phrasing used in this article, which seems inconsistent. On the one hand, the subjunctive is sometimes defined as a kind of verb form: "(that he) own" or "(that he) be" or "(that he) were". On the other hand, the subjunctive is sometimes defined as an "idea", as in the section that says that a modal verb may "express" the subjunctive. But is the subjunctive really something that can be expressed? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that sentences using the subjunctive and sentences using certain modal verbs often overlap in what they express?

This conflation of meaning, function and form seems especially problematic in the structure of the article, which is organized along the uses of the subjunctive: "to express a possibility", "to express a command", etc. This is not the best way to organize things at all. We can express these ideas without the subjunctive: "He is perhaps in Spain," "I order you to go"; and we can use the subjunctive without expressing any of these ideas: "Plain though she be, we'll find a husband for her yet" (="She is plain, but we'll find a husband for her yet").

A definition of the subjunctive based on meaning is therefore bound to be at once too narrow and too broad. --Gheuf 07:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You should understand that most of the examples from English do not give the true flavour of the subjunctive. In the other languages mentioned in the article, the subjunctive is most definitely a different set of verb forms. But what is it that makes them "subjunctive" forms, rather than forms of some other grammatical mood? Their predominant function. So, explaining the typical functions of a subjunctive is also important. FilipeS 13:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

>>But what is it that makes them "subjunctive" forms, rather than forms of some other grammatical mood? Their predominant function.<< The SIL website seems to make, very succinctly, the distinction which I am referring to, and which may be the same as the distinction between "mood" and "modality": "Subjunctive mood is a mood that typically signals irrealis meanings." Obviously the use of the subjunctive mood has some relation to meaning; but that is not to say that it IS a particular kind of meaning. ("Modal verbs can 'express' the subjunctive".)

The section where the subjunctive is categorized "according to function" should perhaps be rewritten to emphasize syntax over meaning: Subjunctive occurs in subordinate clauses introduced by "that" after "important, necessary", etc..... This would avoid the problems inherent in the "meaning" approach: "Subjunctive is used 'to express' necessity" -- the problems I have already mentioned above.--Gheuf 15:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair criticism. I would tend to agree with your objections. I, too, see the subjunctive as more a morphological concept than a semantic or syntactical notion (though the three aren't completely separate). However, I am not an expert. We may need a linguist to come and sort this out. (Then again, modern linguists seem to be fond of reducing everything to semantics...) FilipeS 11:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

One perennial introduction to the subjunctive is an advertising jingle widely known in the US.

• "I wish I were an Oscar Meyer wiener"

In my opinion, the jingle epitomizes the article. It expresses a genuine counterfactual, etc. Every summer, a new class of student marketeers leave Madison, Wisconsin to cover the US in wienermobiles. They can wear costumes, learn marketing, have fun, and get paid to boot.

Note: the word that is not in the jingle. At one time the jingle was even in the article. --Ancheta Wis 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Faça-se luz

I wonder why someone changed "faça-se luz" to "que se faça luz". If I remember correctly, Brazilian Portuguese and Portuguese Portuguese differ in where the clitic pronoun should be placed -- maybe the correcter was Brazilian? The online Bible I checked had "haja luz" ("let there be light" rather than "let light be made"), which is an equally useful example of the bare subjunctive. Maybe it should be preferred since it doesn't use clitic pronouns, which are outside the scope of what the example is meant to illustrate.--Gheuf 05:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the translation I am used to has Faça-se luz (or, more precisely, Faça-se a luz). FilipeS 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bravo!

I've studied the English portion of this for a long time and started to write several criticisms, which I have put aside and come back to several times. I was very skeptical of several aspects of this entry. But as I worked out what I was going to say, again and again I found I was wrong and the entry was correct as written. I think it is very nearly perfect. Bravo! Please defend it against all attempts to change it unless they are very very convincing.

JimLuckett 23:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - This article is excellent. Kudos to the contributors! Beth C. 06:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.191.158 (talk)

I don't know. You guys are as precious as my uncles, BUT I STILL DONT KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE SUBJUNTIVO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.143.173 (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

German again

The article says use of the Konjunktiv I "is in continual decline". I'm a native speaker, and I've never heard it used outside of the news in TV and radio (a bit like how French ne is almost exclusively written but not spoken nowadays); also, my dialect, like all I know something reasonable about, lacks any trace of it. But then I'm Austrian. Is that different somewhere in Germany? David Marjanović 18:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is true that in general the KI (or more accurately, the mixed conjunctive for indirect speech) is only used in (hopefully witty) media, literature, scientific texts and other forms of artistical and/or high speech. One might even come across as awkwardly pedantic if one uses correct indirect speech in an informal context. The development in Germany is not very different from the one in Austria. Not always though, for in many cases when it's necessary to express doubts about what you've heard, you do use KI. So it hasn't completely lost its value in everyday language just yet, apart from high speech.

What's interesting, however, is the relationship of the Swiss toward that particular mood, perhaps of all speakers of Alemannic dialects in general. Every Swiss dialect has retained its conjunctive forms for indirect speech. I can give some examples for the urban flavor of the Zurich dialect; speakers from the so called agglomerations may have a slightly different image:

Er hätt gseit, geschter sigi er dete gsih. - He said that he was there yesterday. (Notice the free word order)

Ich ha ghörd, er gächi no zersch uf St. Galle. - I heard he would go to St. Gallen first. (I have also heard stuff like "giängti", but more often as a KII form than anything else)

Sie hätt gseit, dasses no ä party gäbti/gitt. - She had told me that there would be a party. (I had to hesitate for a bit, since both is possible)

Hence why the Swiss zealously use the KI in indirect speech - thus I would say, not only because the Swiss use it extensively in both dialectical and high language, but because the KI is an essential part of the German language, that the KI is, in fact, not "in continual decline". :P

Sindwiller (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Conditional and subjunctive

I think we are getting two moods confused here. In my opinion "might" and "should " are subjunctive whereas "would" is conditional. For example: We hoped that they might succeed. (subjunctive) ...there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (St Luke and subjunctive) If I were rich, I would be happier. Conditional (and sadly true).

Although it is often dangerous to make analogies with other languages, some of the concepts are common even if the words are not. Consequently I believe that the two moods in French correspond with their equivalents in English. Thus in French "Si j'étais riche, je serais plus content." This is also condititional and is directly analogous with the third English example above. JMcC (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Subjunctive in Slavic

I have removed the recently added section "The Subjunctive in Russian":

In Russian the subjunctive is used to express events that may not happen or have not happened. It is made by first forming the past tense of the verb and adding the particle “бы” to the clause. For example, take the verb "читать", to read. so in the subjunctive (with a masculin subject) this would be "читал бы", as in the sentence "Я читал бы эту книгу", i might/would read this book. Please note that in rusiian thhe subjunctive mood does not conjugate into different tenses; the past, present and future tenses of this example would all look exacly the same. Also, the word order is not important, so this sentense could be written as "Я бы читал эту книгу", amongst others.

Other examples: οна жила в Москве = she might live in Moscocow

               кто хочелo бы стать милионером = who wants to be a millionaire
               Нам хотелось бы τри билета, пажалуйста = we'd like 3 tickets, please

The text needs cleaning up and formatting, and the examples are not subjunctives, but main clause conditionals. It might be good to have some discussion of Slavic languages in this article, because there seems to be some controversy over whether they have a subjunctive mood (see this forum, for example). CapnPrep (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mood vs. Tense

Why is the article called Subjective Mood? It is not a "mood", it is properly a tense. One does not say the future mood or plusperfect mood, one says future tense and plusperfect tense. Why should the subjunctive be any different? In over thirty years of studying fivee different languages, I have never heard anyone else refer to is as a mood rather than a tense. Finally, the articles on past and future tenses are entitled "Past Tense" and "Future Tense". It seems that we should be consistent in naming the articles, and therefore the main title of this article should be "Subjunctive Tense", not "Subjunctive Mood". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.222 (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, subjunctive transcends tense (in the temporal sense). That is why it is not called 'tense'. When one asks God to 'bless you and keep you', there is no time involved for an Eternal. Rather it is a request beyond the mere temporal moment, but for Eternity. There are other subtleties in the usage of subjunctive which will occur to me and to you as we read this talk page. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

needed fix

This paragraph needs attention. I think there's a mix up where some of the UKs need to be changed to USs but I'm not sure enough about which ones to make the change myself.

Instead, UK English often uses present indicative or even past indicative − which are both considered incorrect by many people in the UK and (prescriptive) UK authorities on language usage − or a construction with "should". Much time is spent in the UK in trying to prevent this language change well underway in UK English, and the use with "should" is arguably better because not considered as ungrammatical by most. So instead of writing No wonder the Tory Party turned him down as a possible candidate, suggesting he went away and came back with a better public image. as in the Guardian (which would be almost impossible to find in any US newspapers, which would always use the traditional go away and come back), it would be considered less ungrammatical to use should go away. Some authorities like Ernest Gowers even recommend the use with should (in UK English) instead of the untenable traditional forms.

Thanks -LambaJan (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no mixup here. It's correctly quoted and summarised from the source indicated. What part do you want me to check, do you have trouble believing? US usage here is, as more often than not, more conservative than UK usage, despite the popular opposite misconception. --Espoo (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I think that misconception was getting in the way of my reading it correctly. I get it now, thank you. -LambaJan (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the French translation of 'God keep our land glorious and free!' also in subjunctive mood?

Is Et ta valeur, de foi trempée also in subjunctive mood, as is the English? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a literal translation. FilipeS (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the Subjunctive "Universal" in Informal, Educated Speech?

The article says, "While use of the subjunctive in natural, informal speech is almost universal among educated speakers, its use is becoming very infrequent among large portions of the population." Personally, I don't think this is true. I consider myself educated as well as many other people around me, and many never make use of the subjunctive in common speech. While many use it infrequently, I think the words "almost universal" are too strong of a generalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.88.247 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Decline in English

Surely the change from "If I were.." to "If I was.." does not indicate a decline in the subjunctive? Surely in the phrase "If I was President...", the subjunctive is still used since you're using a past tense form to express something that is extremely unlikely to occur and certainly did not occur in the past. And the same for phrases like that such as "I wish I was President" in which people are a lot less likely to use "were". Same for stuff like "If I bought a new car" which would express something that could happen in the future that is certainly not impossible or necessarily unlikely by using a past tense form. Maybe I'm confusing exactly what the subjunctive is here, but the article doesn't make it completely clear. --92.22.214.224 (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Subjunctive" is a morphological term. If the subjunctive looks exactly like the indicative in every way, then there's no point in even talking about it, and the language can be said to lack a distinct subjunctive. This is no different from saying that English lacks grammatical genders, or cases. FilipeS (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh right. But since it uses a different tense form, surely it's still noteworthy? --92.40.45.160 (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the truth is English is a borderline case, where the subjunctive has distinct forms only for the verb "to be" (cf. "If I was" with "If I were"). But in all other verbs the past subjunctive is the same as the past tense, and the present subjunctive is the same as the infinitive.

So, we can talk about a subjunctive in English, but there is really little to be said about it. FilipeS (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggested split: Subjunctive mood → English subjunctive + Subjunctive mood

This article is getting large, and the part on the foreign languages is a bit chaotic. Does anyone oppose moving the stuff about English to a specialized article? FilipeS (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

British English

I know Google tests are unscientific, but I suggest people try comparing the incidence of "I suggested he go" as against "I suggested he went" for various countries' CcTLDs. This test shows very clearly the way that British English has gone its own way. I tried this just now, and the results were that in all of .us, .ca, .au and .nz sites, usage of the subjunctive version was at 98-100%. However, in .uk sites the corresponding figure was 51.5%. Saying "I suggested he went to work" would be unlikely to raise an eyebrow in Britain, at least in informal settings. 81.159.62.0 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Mistake with subjuctive examples

"...in "If that were true, I would know it," were (a past subjunctive) has no past-tense sense."

Were in this case is in the conditional mood, not subjunctive. Does anyone have any suggestions for another example?

Portuguese Bible example is possibly misleading

"The subjunctive in Portuguese ... Command: Faça-se luz! 'Let there be light!' " -- I think that most readers will take "Let there be light!" as a quote from the Biblical account of creation, Genesis 1:3.
I've just taken a quick look at a half-dozen websites with the Bible in Portuguese, and they all give this as "Haja luz." Is this a discrepancy between different Bible versions? Do we want to clarify that our example is not a quote from the Bible? Do we want to use a different example for clarity? Is our example just wrong? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

I was trying to find something about that grammatical feature, but couldn't remember its name... I've finally found it, but redirects from "I were", "it were", etc. could be useful. Ian (77.254.31.171 (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

English first-person past subjunctive

What is the source for the claim that the English language first-person past subjunctive has (outside of the copula) a distinct form from that of the other persons? —SlamDiego_←T 07:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this claim made anywhere… The forms in the table were erroneous and contradicted the text (fixed now). CapnPrep (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the claim was implicitly made by the table. Anyway, your fix addresses my concern. —SlamDiego_←T 17:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

When need be / when there will be need

The article claims that "when need be" is literary English and that "when there will be need" is spoken English. But who on Earth says "when there will be need"? Rubbish, I say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.82.16 (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Spanish subjunctive needs cleaning up

I haven't read the rest of these sections, but to me, the Spanish subjunctive section seems sloppy and unsystematic. I think that we should include more exact examples for when the subjunctive is appropriate. The subjunctive mood is very important in Spanish, and all too often, these guides and references are insufficient. I'm going to list a few rules here, and those of you who edit this page can take it or leave it.

• How to form:

• Present subjunctive: (Usage note: As the future subjunctive is now archaic, the present subjunctive is used to represent the present and future tenses. Because of this, it might be more appropriate to refer to this tense as the non-past subjunctive.) Take the present indicative yo form (e.g. hablo) of the verb. Take off the -o and:

• For -ar verbs, add the -er endings:

• e.g. hablar > hablo

(yo) hable, hables, (él/ella/Ud.) hable, hablemos, habléis, hablen

• For -er and -ir verbs, add the -ar endings:

• e.g. comer > como

(yo) coma, comas, (él/ella/Ud.) coma, comamos, comáis, coman

• For stem-changing verbs (a.k.a. "boot verbs"), the stem change remains inside the "boot".

• e.g. dormir > duermo

(yo) duerma, duermas, (él/ella/Ud.) duerma, dormamos, dormáis, duerman

• For irregular yo forms, the irregularity persists throughout the verb.

• e.g. tener > tengo

(yo) tenga, tengas, (él/ella/Ud.) tenga, tengamos, tengáis, tengan

• Because Spanish is a primarily phonetic language, spelling changes are necessary in certain verbs to maintain pronunciation.

• -car > -que- (e.g. tocar)

(yo) toque, toques, (él/ella/Ud.) toque, toquemos, toquéis, toquen

• -gar > -gue- (e.g. jugar)

(yo) juegue, juegues, (él/ella/Ud.) juegue, juguemos, juguéis, jueguen

• -zar > -ce- (e.g. comenzar)

(yo) comience, comiences, (él/ella/Ud.) comience, comencemos, comencéis, comiencen

• Apart from the above rules, there are six totally irregular verbs in this tense, which form the acronym DISHES:

• dar > dé, des, dé, demos, deis, den
• ir > vaya, vayas, vaya, vayamos, vayáis, vayan
• ser > sea, seas, sea, seamos, seáis, sean
• haber > haya, hayas, haya, hayamos, hayáis, hayan

• This form of haber is used with past participles (-ado/-ido) to form the present perfect tense of the subjunctive mood.

• estar > esté, estés, esté, estemos, estéis, estén
• saber > sepa, sepas, sepa, sepamos, sepáis, sepan

• Imperfect subjunctive: Take the third-person plural of the preterite tense (-aron/-ieron form), take off the -ron, and add -ra- or -se-, using -ar and -er endings, respectively. The nosotros form requires an accent mark on the third-to-last syllable.

• Usage note: The -se form (like the vosotros) is considered a literary form, and is used conversationally mostly in Spain. The -ra form is used most often in conversation. Other than that, they mean exactly the same thing.
• Following the above rules, the imperfect subjunctive has no irregular verbs.

• -ar example: triunfar > triunfaron

• triunfara, triunfaras, triunfara, triunfáramos, triunfarais, triunfaran
• triunfase, triunfases, triunfase, triunfásemos, triunfaseis, triunfasen

• -er example: haber > hubieron

• hubiera, hubieras, hubiera, hubiéramos, hubierais, hubieran
• hubiese, hubieses, hubiese, hubiésemos, hubieseis, hubiesen

• Note: The imperfect subjunctive of haber is used with the past participle (-ado/-ido) to form the pluperfect subjunctive.

• -ir example: dormir > durmieron

• Note: In -ir verbs that stem change in the present tense, there will also be a stem change in the third person singular and plural preterite forms. This carries over to the entire imperfect subjunctive.

• durmiera, durmieras, durmiera, durmiéramos, durmierais, durmieran
• durmiese, durmieses, durmiese, durmiésemos, durmieseis, durmiesen

• How to use:

• Nominative (Noun) Clauses: These are clauses that function as (i.e. can replace) nouns in a sentence.

• Examples of nominative clauses (taken from Spanish: An Oral and Written Review, 5th Ed. by Mario Iglesias and Walter Meiden (c) 1995, p. 267):

• Esa chica (sustantivo) es sabia. / That girl (noun--subject) is wise.

Es sabio que vengan temprano. / It is wise for you to come early. (The subjunctive can function in dependent clauses acting as subject nouns.)

• Prefiero ese automóvil (sustantivo). / I prefer that car (noun--direct object).

Prefiero que digas la verdad. / I prefer that you tell the truth. (The subjunctive can function in dependent clauses acting as object nouns.)

• Sé la dirección de su casa (sustantivo). / I know her home address (noun--direct object).

Sé que ella te quiere. / I know that she loves you. (The indicative can function in nominative clauses.)

• Deciding when to use the subjunctive in nominative clauses. All three of the following conditions must be met:

• There must be a change of subject between the independent and dependent (nominative) clauses.
• There must be the word que.
• The dependent clause must fall into one of the conditions expressed in WEDDING

• Wants, Wishes, Commands, etc.: Nominative clauses expressing the objects of verbs like desear (desire), esperar (hope), mandar (command), pedir (ask), querer (want/wish), etc., which occur in the independent clause.
• Emotions and Feelings: For example, if the independent clause uses a word like alegrarse (de) (to be happy), molestar(le) (to bother), sorprenderse (to be surprised), temer (to fear), etc.
• Doubts: dudar (to doubt), etc.
• Denials: negar (to deny), etc.
• Impersonal Expressions: These include most constructions with ser which follow the formula "[ser] + (adjective) + que", including es bueno que (It's good that), es fácil que (It's easy that), es increíble que (It's incredible that), es necesario que (It's necessary that), etc. If, however, the construction expresses certainty, as in es cierto que (It's certain that), the nominative clause will take the indicative mood. Note that other verbs, such as parecer (to seem) may replace ser in this construction. This category is not limited to expressions with ser, as these extend to any and all impersonal expressions of uncertainty, including parecer (to seem), valer (to be worth), and bastar (to be enough).
• Negations of Certainty: When the independent clause is a negation of an expression of certainty, the subjunctive will be used. Examples include: no creer (to not believe), no pensar (to not think), no saber (to not know), and no es cierto que (It's not certain that).
• God: The expression Ojalá, used as an interjection (i.e. by itself) means "Godwilling," or "I/Let's hope so." It can also mean "I/Let's hope (that)" or "God grant (that)" when followed by a clause in the present subjunctive.

Note: This is the only instance where nominative clauses do not require the word que to trigger the subjunctive.

Note: When used with the past subjunctive, ojalá implies a contrary-to-fact statement (i.e. If only...). When used with the imperfect subjunctive, ojalá implies a contrary-to-fact statement in the present. When used with the pluperfect subjunctive, it implies a contrary-to-fact statement in the past.

• Adjectival or Relative Clauses: These are clauses that perform the function of an adjective and are connected to the sentence by relative pronouns.

• Relative pronouns include words like que (that, which, who), lo que (what), quien (who), cual(es) (who, which), cuyo/a(s) (whose), donde (where, which, in which).

• Examples of relative clauses (Taken from the above source, p. 291)

• Un empleado alto (adjetivo) llegó riendo ante su jefe. / A tall (adjective) clerk arrived laughing before his boss.
• Un empleado de correos (adjectivo) llegó riendo ante su jefe. / A postal (adjective) clerk came laughing before his boss.
• Un empleado, que (pronombre relativo) era cartero y todo en la oficina de correos, llegó riendo ante su jefe. / A clerk, who (relative pronoun) was a carrier and everything else at the post office, arrived laughing before his boss.

• Deciding when to use the subjunctive in adjectival clauses. The use of subjunctive in a relative clause depends upon the clause's antecedent. If the antecedent is a certain, identifiable thing, then the indicative is used. If the antecedent refers to the idea of a hypothetical thing in the speaker's mind, then the subjunctive is used. This may be the difference as subtle as which verb is used in the indicative clause, or whether a definite or indefinite article is used to identify the antecedent.

• In these examples (Taken from the above source, p. 302.), the subjunctive elements are in bold, and the antecedents are italicized:

• Ocupo un asiento que está cerca de la puerta. / I occupy a seat that is close to the door.

In this example, the seat is a definite, identifiable thing, because the only seat that the speaker could be referring to is the one that s/he is occupying.

• Quiero un asiento que esté cerca de la puerta. / I want a seat that is close to the door.

In this example, the seat could be any seat, so long as it is close to the door.

• Quiero el asiento que está cerca de la puerta. / I want the seat that is close to the door.

In this example, even though an indefinite verb like querer was used, the antecedent is definite because of the definite article el. The seat in question is a specific seat and no other. (Perhaps there is only one seat close to the door, from that person's point of view.)

• Another application of the subjunctive in relative clauses includes any use of "X-ever" in English. This includes all phrases beginning with the relative pronouns quienquiera (who(m)ever), cualquiera (who(m)ever, whatever, whichever), and dondequiera (wherever) and any use of como, donde, cuando, cuanto/a(s), etc. which imply the feeling of "X-ever".

Note: This use may occur in an independent clause.

• Adverbial Clauses: These are dependent clauses which function as adverbs and begin with adverbial conjunctions. The basic adverbial function that concerns the subjunctive is time. In Spanish, every verb has a time frame to reference. Using the subjunctive in adverbial clauses is as simple as this: If there is temporal anticipation (i.e. if the action has not occurred yet) within the time frame of the dependent clause, the subjunctive is used.

Remember that for the subjunctive to function, the subjects in the independent and dependent clauses must not be the same. If the two subjects are the same, the subjunctive is not used. In the following examples, when the two subjects are the same, conjunctions with an asterisk (*) drop the terminal "que" and employ an infinitive. Other conjunctions simply revert to the indicative.

• Adverbial conjunctions that absolutely require the subjunctive when the independent and dependent subjects are not the same. This is because these conjunctions have intrinsic temporal anticipation.

• No se ESCAPA el subjuntivo:

En caso (de)* que (provided that)

Sin* que (without)

Con tal (de)* que (provided that)

A menos que (unless)

Para* que (+ a fin (de)* que) (so that, in order that)

Antes (de)* que (before)

• Adverbial conjunctions that may require the subjunctive when the independent and dependent subjects are not the same.

This distinction depends upon temporal anticipation. That is, if the action occurred in the past or regularly/habitually occurs in the present, the indicative is used. If the action may occur presently or is expected to occur in the future, the subjunctive is used.

• MATCHES + DL:

Mientras que (while)

Aunque / (A) donde (even though / (to) where)

Tan pronto como (as soon as)

Cuando / Como (when / like, as)

Hasta* que (until)

En cuanto (as soon as)

Según (according to)

Después de* que (after)

Luego que (then)

• Si Clauses: Clauses with the word "si" (if) manifest in three ways in Spanish.

• 1. If-Then Statements of Fact

• These describe cause-and-effect situations that function almost as a result of nature.

Example: Si mesclamos pintura amarilla y azul, tendremos pintura verde. / If we mix yellow and blue paint, we will have green paint.

• The formula for this construction is "Si (cláusula indicativa--causa), (cláusula indicativa--efecto)." / "If (indicative clause--cause), (indicative clause--effect)." Cause-effect si clauses can take on any tense in the indicative. The effect clause may also express a command.

• 2. Conditional Statements

• These describe something that would happen if some condition were met. This could refer to something that may have happened in the past (but probably didn't--we don't know) or something that may happen in the future.

Example: Podría vivir sin preocupación si mi madre no estuviera enferma. / I would be able to live without worry if my mother were not sick.

• The formula for this construction is "Si (cláusula del imperfecto del subjuntivo), (cláusula condicional)." / "If (imperfect subjunctive clause), (conditional clause)." There is no allowance for tense variation here. The si-clause must be imperfect subjunctive, and the independent clause must be conditional.

• 3. Contrary-to-fact Statements

• These describe an action that specifically did not occur in the past. That is, they describe a cause-effect contingency that would have occurred if something else were to have happened.

Example: No habrías sacado la mala nota si hubieras estudiado. / You would not have gotten the bad grade if you had studied

• The formula for this construction is "Si (cláusula del pluscuamperfecto del subjuntivo), (cláusula del condicional perfecto)." / "If (subjunctive pluperfect clause), (conditional perfect clause)." Once again, there is no allowance for tense variation. The perfect forms of the verb moods expressed in si clause construction 2 imply completed action. That is, while construction 2's contingencies may still occur or may have occured, construction 3's contingencies did not occur and will not occur, resulting in a statement that is, as the name implies, contrary to fact.

• Independent Clauses: The subjunctive may be used in independent clauses expressing wishes (as in "(Que) Viva el rey." / Long live the king.) or doubts (with adverbs quizás, tal vez, and acaso / perhaps, when there is considerable doubt).

Sorry--I forgot to log in before I made all of these changes. Anyway, these are my suggestions for changing the Spanish section. Once again, I would like to emphasize that among languages that I know (English, Spanish, and French), the subjunctive mood is by far the most important in Spanish. It barely exists in English, and a layperson can live her/his entire life without using the French subjunctive. me llamo Andrés (tock) 06:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The subjunctive suffixes in Old, Middle, and Modern English regular verbs (Table)

It appears the Old English Past Tense Plural ending, shown in the table as "-d-on" is incorrect for the subjunctive. "-d-on" is the Past Indicative. The correct Past Subjunctive should be "-d-en". Is there any way to correct this wrength? Leasnam (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Language Nesting

It seems a bit weird (and somewhat culturally insensitive) to have separate headings for IE languages, then on the same level for Germanic, Celtic etc., and then to have a same-level heading for semitic languages. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to include all the IE language groups under IE, then a similar multi-level structure for Semitic languages (with Hebrew and Arabic separately listed beneath), and finally "Other" with Hungarian? I could understand some special status for English (this is an article _in_ English), but I don't see why that should carry over to a special status for all IE languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urilabob (talk • contribs) 08:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the heading to "Proto-Indo-European" as it doesn't discuss the daughter languages in detail. Count Truthstein (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Lists of phrases

I've deleted the long lists of subjunctive phrases in English, as they weren't suitable for this article, which is about the subjunctive crosslinguistically. Even in the article on the specifically English subjunctive they wouldn't really be appropriate, as the article should be something other than an editor's favorite uses of the subjunctive. The deleted sections also contained some inappropriate editorializing. Ergative rlt (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian "subjunctive"

Is there any evidence for the claims made about Hungarian? As a native speaker I find it strange to be told that we don't have a subjunctive/conditional mood as distinct from the imperative/jussive mood.

Hungarian has three moods: Indicative (kijelentő mód - exclamatory, or annountive mood); Conditional/subjtunctive (often just called conditional; in Hungarian feltételes mód - conditional mood; refered to hereafter as N-mood owing to the characteristic -n- infix); and jussive/imperative (a.k.a. subjunctive, imperatuve, or jussive; in Hungarian felszólító mód - adressing mood; referred to here as J-mood owing tot he characteristic -j- infix).

Although the J-mood, which the article currently treats as the Hungarian subjunctive, can be used in some circumstances which would normally be reserved for subjunctive or conditional in IE languages, and it expresses a range desires from wish to command, it does not perform most of the roles of either conditional or subjunctive which is handled by the N-mood.

N-mood handles constructs such as:

subjunctive-conditional constructs "if I were rich, I would be happy" - "ha gazdag lennék, boldog lennék.

polite commands "would you do something for me?" - "megtennél nekem valamit?"

and some desires "if only I had money" - "ha csak lenne pénzem"

J-mood handles:

direct commands "put it down" - "tegyed le"

indirect commands "he['d better] go to work - "menjen dolgozni"

reported commands "he told me to go" / he told me that I must go - "azt mondta, hogy menjek"

Suggestions - "let's go" - "menjünk"; "in my oppinion let's go" - "szerintem menjünk" (these would be considered commands) or "should I go?" "menjek?" (used only in questions)

some desires "[I want it] not to rain tomorrow" - "ne essen honap az eső" (this falls under indirect command)

subordinate clauses of desire "I want that it doesnt rain" - "azt akarom, hogy ne essen"

subordinate clauses of obligation "it is obligatory that I go" - "kötelező, hogy menjek"

I would therefore argue, that the N-mood is more analoguous to subjunctive and conditional moods in IE languages, and the J-mood is closer to imperative

The benevolent dictator (talk) 09:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you were to be here, I would dance with you (??)

I think there is something wrong with the subjunctive examples for events in the future. For past and present events, I agree with:

If you had been here, I would have danced with you.

If you were here, I would dance with you.

However, for a future event, shouldn't it be

If you are here, I will dance with you.

rather than

If you were to be here, I would dance with you.

Thanks —Quantling (talk | contribs) 16:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Futuro de subjuntivo in Spanish

Phrases expressing the subjunctive in a future period normally employ the present subjunctive. For example: "I hope that it will rain tomorrow" would simply be "Espero que llueva mañana" (where llueva is the third-person singular present subjunctive of llover, "to rain"). The future subjunctive form of the verb would have been "lloviere".

The last sentence is wrong, in my opinion. "Espero que llueva mañana" (I hope that tomorrow will rain) is correct. The future subjunctive is a hypothetical future. A good example of the use of this tense would be "Si mañana lloviere, no iríamos a la playa": if tomorrow would rain, we wouldn't go to the beach. The verb in the main sentence is a conditional. In everyday speach the future subjunctive is replaced by the past subjective: "Si mañana lloviera, no iríamos a la playa". Purely hypothetical; we can just as well pack our swimming suits and the tanning lotion. Compare with "Si mañana llueve, no vamos la playa" (the verb in the main sentence is in the indicative mood). Rain is a distinct possibility; better think of an alternative indoor activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.93.203.156 (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Latin

The article says "The Latin subjunctive is mostly made of optative forms, while some of the original subjunctive forms went to make the Latin future tense, especially in the Latin third conjugation."

I'm no expert, but surely it's the other way round? The basic difference in I-E is that the subjunctive simply lengthens the theme vowel, while the optative adds a -y- to it. On that basis, the first conjugation subjunctive, "amem, ames, amet", and the forms for esse, "sim, sis, sit", are indeed optative; but in the other conjugations the future (regam, reges, reget; audiam, audies, audiet) sounds optative while the subjunctive (moneam, moneas, moneat; regam, regas, regat; audiam, audias, audiat) sounds like a true subjunctive. Can anyone cast any light on this? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced assertion

I'm transferring the following from my talk page to here. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, on 11 July 2011, you added the following statement to the article on Subjunctive mood:

The terms "present subjunctive" and "past subjunctive", such as appear in the following table, refer to the form and not to the time of action expressed. (Not shown in the table is the pluperfect subjunctive, which uses the had plus past participle construction when the counterfactual time of action is the past.)

As far as I know, this is totally incorrect. The past subjunctive is only used to indicate a past tense subjunctive mood, never a present tense subjective mood. The present subjunctive may refer to the future, however. Perhaps this is the source of the confusion. Oxford Dictionaries also seems to disagree with your assertion. Thus I must ask you to provide a citation in a primary reference for this assertion. Considering this assertion has been published on Wikipedia for approximately 21 months, you are likely to find many non-primary (e.g. Web page) references agreeing with you by now. TheTruthWasOutThere (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, "if I were you" is a typical example of what is normally called the past subjunctive, yet it doesn't indicate any relationship to past time. Also the present subjunctive is not restricted to present time reference - it can refer not only to the present and future, but also to the past: "It was suggested that he resign." So the statement seems to me to be substantially correct. I also don't see anything in the linked blog page that would contradict it. Victor Yus (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That is the "blog page" of Oxford Dictionaries. Also, if you don't see anything that would contradict this wrong assertion added by DuoDuoDuo, see below for elucidation. TheTruthWasOutThere (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

DuoDuoDuo replied:

(edit conflict)Two separate things here:

(1) You say The past subjunctive is only used to indicate a past tense subjunctive mood, never a present tense subjective mood. No. Remember that in linguistics "tense" means "time". E.g., the lead sentence of Grammatical tense says In grammar, tense is a category that locates a situation in time, to indicate when the situation takes place. For example, "I wish that I owned it" means "I wish that I owned it right now". This is present tense, because it refers to present time. We don't need a citation for that present time indication of "I wish that I owned it", because it falls into the category Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue: every native speaker of English understands that. And the source you cite doesn't dispute that.

TheTruthWasOutThere replies:

Stop with the pedantic crap about "remember 'tense' means 'time.'" That is completely disingenuous of you to suggest that I would debate your WP:OR on this point without knowing that. Your appeal to Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue is completely bogus, as well. You are attempting to pretend that my argument is something other than to dispute that the Past Subjunctive is not Past Tense, which it is. TheTruthWasOutThere (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(2) The source you cite says English has no special ‘past subjunctive verb endings’, so that we must conclude that English also has no past subjunctive verb forms. In other words, English has no verb forms (with the one exception your source gives) dedicated exclusively to the subjunctive. But of course, as our article implies, "owned" is different in form from "own", and the former is used subjunctively for present time while the latter is used indicatively for present time. Since our article doesn't assert that "owned" is exclusively a subjunctive form, there's no conflict with your source. And we don't need a source for the "sky is blue" assertion that "owned" is not identical to "own". Duoduoduo (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

TheTruthWasOutThere replies:

WOW. You are a disingenuous person, aren't you? The quote you took from the Oxford Dictionary source that I cited has been taken out of context by you. Here is the complete quote, with boldface emphasis added by me:

"What about the past subjunctive? Again, English has no special ‘past subjunctive verb endings’, so that we must conclude that English also has no past subjunctive verb forms. There’s one exception, though, and this is when we use were in an example like the following: I wish he were more helpful. This use of were is a relic of the past subjunctive. We now also frequently hear I wish he was more helpful."

Notice that immediately following the sentences you quoted begins a sentence, "There's one exception..." Obviously you had to see that in order to do your cut-and-paste misrepresentation correctly.

I didn't ask you to come here and re-assert your belief. I asked you, on your talk page, to locate a primary reference rather than rely on your WP:OR. Your talk page was the appropriate place to ask you to provide a valid reference to a priamry source. I have provided a reference, to Oxford Dictionaries, which disputes you, and you have stooped to precarious lows here. If you push an agenda of WP:OR and use falsification of primary sources in your defense, this is going to escalate quickly. This sock-puppet account which I am using may be new, but I am not a newbie here. You need to produce a primary source which states that English has no past tense subjunctive, without exception. We all know that English has no past subjunctive conjugation of verbs other than "to be." That is irrelevant; you are asserting that the Past Subjunctive form of "to be" is not the past tense, and that is false. TheTruthWasOutThere (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the words "There's one exception...". That's why I said "with the one exception your source gives". So I didn't misrepresent it.

Your point seems to be your statement "you are asserting that the Past Subjunctive form of "to be" is not the past tense, and that is false." (1) The blog post you cite does not say that the past subjunctive of "to be" refers to past time. (2) The past subjunctive form of "to be" refers to present or future time, not past time. "If he were here right now, he would help us" refers to present time. Or do you think it means "If he were here in the past right now, ..."? Duoduoduo (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Duoduoduo wrote: "(2) The past subjunctive form of "to be" refers to present or future time, not past time."

Yes, that is the false assertion you are making. You've been asked to provide a citation and haven't. Instead you have misrepresented references. TheTruthWasOutThere (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you can think that this assertion is false, unless you are misunderstanding it. A phrase such as "if I were you" refers to (hypothetical) present (or possibly future time), not past time. If you were referring to past time, you would say "if I had been you". Victor Yus (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect. If I were referring to past time, I would say "If I were you, I would have blah, blah." If I were referring to future time, I have recently learned that I am supposed to say, "If I were to be you, I would blah blah." Present time is included in past subjunctive, but future time is not, and there is a past tense form of subjunctive mood in the case of "to be", and that is "He/she/I were." TheTruthWasOutThere (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you a native English speaker? I think any such speaker of standard English would use "if I were you" for future time (possibly) or present time, but not for past time. (In a "mixed conditional" sentence like If I were you, I would have run, the second clause certainly refers to the past, but the first clause refers to the present, or rather to the past, present and future taken together.) In any case, I think we agree that the "past subjunctive" is not associated with the expression of past time specifically (nor is the "present subjunctive" associated with the expression of present time specifically), so the statement that you originally objected to is in fact sound. Victor Yus (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Though I don't agree with the objection as expressed, there is a serious problem with this section in that it is not referenced, and if reliable sources such as The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language were used, we would have a problem with parts of the table. The problem is that, though authors do use different terminology, modern grammars of English use the term subjunctive to refer to those forms of the verb that (in part of the "conjugation table") use a different form from the indicative. The verbs be and own in the following are in the (present) subjunctive form:

• "The law requires that the superintendent be present at the meeting."
• "The law requires that the Government own the means of communication."

When describing events or states in the past, the same "present" subjunctive form is used

• "The law required that the superintendent be present at the meeting."
• "The law required that the Government own the means of communication."

So, in this respect, the word "past" in the term "past subjunctive" does not have the meaning of past time.

Also, the verbs be in the following is in the (so-called) past subjunctive form (some authors call this the irrealis form and avoid use of the word subjunctive, since it expresses a different modality from the so-called "present subjunctive"):

• "If Einstein were alive today, he would vote for our party."

Here "were" refers to present time. So, in this respect, the word "past" in the term "past subjunctive" does not have the meaning of past time. But, of course, the word "present" in the term "present tense" does not necessarily refer to present time, either.

However, "modal remoteness", in English is normally expressed not by the subjunctive but by a different verb form: the preterite" (sometimes called the simple past form).

• "If I owned a car, I would go for a long drive."

In colloquial English, the preterite rather than the "past subjunctive" is also used for the verb be:

• "If Einstein was alive today, he would vote for our party."

In English, the preterite is also used for a similar purpose of "remoteness", or distancing, in indirect speech, where German, for instance, would use the "present subjunctive" (Konjunktiv I, e.g. sei) or "past subjunctive" (Konjunktiv II, e.g. wäre). This is often referred to as "backshifting":

• He said "I own a car." becomes "He said he owned a car."

So one problem with the table is that it treats the preterite form owned as if it were a subjunctive. This confuses mood with modality. If there are authors who clearly use the term subjunctive in this sense, they should be quoted. I don't think this should be presented as the mainstream view without sources. In my judgement, this questionable use of the term past subjunctive for the use of the preterite in conditions is not supported by

• The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston, Pullum)
• A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk et al.)
• The Oxford English Grammar (Greenbaum)

The Oxford English Grammar is particularly clear:

• "The past subjunctive is the hypothetical subjunctive. It is restricted to were . . .".

Unfortunately, some statements in grammar books permit an interpretation that the term subjunctive is being used to include the use of the preterite to express modal remoteness (e.g. "If I owned . . ."). But "if I was" (also the preterite") is usually identified correctly as the (preterite) indicative.

I would suggest removing the table completely. After all, this section is only supposed to be a short summary of the main article. --Boson (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"So, in this respect, the word "past" in the term "past subjunctive" does not have the meaning of past time."

You have drawn an incorrect conclusion, here. Those verbs are in the past subjunctive, but they are indistinguishable from the present subjunctive. Only "to be" is distinguishable, and it has a past tense subjunctive mood form ("were") as well as a future tense subjunctive mood form ("were ... to be"). Feel free to find a reference otherwise. The table is fine, the problem is the statement I marked "citation needed," because it is false.

"But, of course, the word "present" in the term "present tense" does not necessarily refer to present time, either."

Really? Do tell.

TheTruthWasOutThere (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Time is not the same as tense. "The exhibition opens next week" expresses something about the future, but the verb used is present-tense. (Example from Huddleston and Pullum, A Student's Introduction, p. 31.) Boson, I agree with your analysis completely. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, you can be an impartial admin, or you can have an opinion on the topic under debate. You can't do both. TheTruthWasOutThere (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I am a friendly admin who answered a grammatical question you had. My answer did not give an opinion, as any linguist can tell you: it's a fact. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You're a linguist? If so, maybe you know the answer: How does one represent a past tense subjective mood form of the verb 'to be?' TheTruthWasOutThere (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll assume that "subjective" is a typo for "subjunctive". Your question then presupposes that subjunctive and past tense can be combined. But they can't be. See below. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Even putting aside name-calling and so forth, the discussion above is confused. One problem is that the notion of "subjunctive" is confused, and a major reason for this is that traditional grammatical analyses are confused. They're confused because they are in books written to support the prejudices of their potential purchasers: by contrast, a book that (to take a subjunctive-irrelevant example) treats "ago" as an anomalous preposition (or a postposition, if you wish) is not going to appeal to small-minded schoolmarms (of either sex).

Luckily English has a reference grammar that was compiled after considering debates in linguistics and reexamining old assumptions on their merits rather than popularity. That book (of course already mentioned above) is The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL). It's neither uncontroversial nor infallible, but anyone disagreeing with any part of it should proceed after carefully digesting that part, thinking very hard, and (if writing for Wikipedia) citing something that's similarly authoritative.

CGEL tells us:

One striking weakness of the traditional analysis is that it treats the verbs of I be and I were as present and past tenses of a single mood, the subjunctive: this is quite unjustified in terms of the contemporary language. (p.87)

CGEL elaborates, but I am not going to violate copyright by regurgitating what it says, and I am not going to attempt to summarize because its phrasing is already compact. Very briefly, however, it demonstrates that where I be and I were can be fairly directly compared, there is no contrast of time. Of course the relationship between time and tense is not direct, but here there's no reason to think that time has anything to do with it. CGEL terms 1st/3rd person singular were the irrealis form of BE (p.88).

CGEL uses "subjunctive" quite differently, for a syntactic construction (one that employs a verb in its plain form, most clearly exemplified by "be"), not a verb form.

CGEL calls "subjunctive" various more or less fossilized constructions ("Far be it from me to block you indefinitely, but...", etc) in the main/matrix clause (p.90), and a very limited number of subordinate/embedded constructions (pp.993–1001). Although the latter kinds of constructions are few, they're used freely: as examples "I demanded that he be blocked indefinitely", "He should stop dicking around, lest he be blocked", "Whether you be an IP, a regular user, or an admin, I will block your ass". There's no hint in this substantial chunk of a very large book of (A) what is either conventionally or sensibly called the past tense (unless you perversely insist that "should" is necessarily the past tense of "shall") or indeed of (B) the past. -- Hoary (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Appealing to CGEL shuts out those people who don't want to pay over $100 for what appears to be an unhelpful tome. First, let's address the material you quoted:

One striking weakness of the traditional analysis is that it treats the verbs of I be and I were as present and past tenses of a single mood, the subjunctive: this is quite unjustified in terms of the contemporary language.

Any appeal to "the contemporary language" is immediately suspect in my opinion. The contemporary language allows constructs such as "I could of cared less." The contemporary past subjunctive form of "to be" does not exist, "was" is simply used instead. If we are going to take that approach, the article should say that English used to have a past subjunctive, and no longer does.

CGEL uses "subjunctive" quite differently, for a syntactic construction (one that employs a verb in its plain form, most clearly exemplified by "be"), not a verb form.

Does this not disagree with practically every other source, and the meaning of "subjunctive" when applied to other languages?

TheTruthWasOutThere (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Another elitist academic book, the Oxford English Grammar by Greenbaum et al (already referenced above, but a steal at less than $50), does use the term "past subjunctive"--but again this has nothing to do with time: "The past subjunctive were is the hypothetical subjunctive, used in hypothetical conditional clauses and some other hypothetical constructions: 'If I were you, I wouldn't go'" (633). Hoary, I suppose all our academic tomes will seem "suspect" since every single contemporary grammar in the world takes the descriptive approach. I wonder what books we'll be allowed to cite here. At least my Oxford grammar isn't tainted by communist associations that your Cambridge tome carries (though I have to admit that I use Huddleston and Pullum, A Student's Introduction, in the classroom for Advanced English Grammar, and Huddleston's English Grammar: An Outline is my go-to reference). Drmies (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Apropos of the above comments, I would mention that the definitions of "subjunctive mood" and "tense" as used in the discipline of linguistics are different from those often used in grammars of specific individual languages. Since the present article is on a linguistic concept and is not specific to a particular language, it should stick with the definitions that are used in linguistics. As per our article grammatical tense,

tense is a category that locates a situation in time, to indicate when the situation takes place. Tense is the grammaticalisation of time reference, often using three basic categories of "before now", i.e. the past; "now", i.e. the present; and "after now", i.e. the future.

So linguistic tense is the same thing as time reference, when the time reference is given by grammatical means.

The linguisitic meaning of "subjunctive mood", as given in the lede of the present article, is

The subjunctive is a grammatical mood....The subjunctive is an irrealis mood

and as our article grammatical mood says,

Grammatical mood is a grammatical (and specifically, morphological) feature of verbs, used to signal modality. That is, it is the use of verbal inflections that allow speakers to express their attitude toward what they are saying....Less commonly, the term is used more broadly to allow for the syntactic expression of modality — that is, the use of non-inflectional phrases.

So any grammatical change that indicates any of certain irrealis intentions is a change to the subjunctive mood. For example, changing "He is here" to either "I wish he were here" or "I wish he was here" changes from indicative to hypothetical, and it does so by means of the grammatical change "is"→"was/were", so the new sentences are in the subjunctive mood as it is defined in linguistics. Likewise, changing "I own it (now)" to "I wish I owned it (now)" changes the mood from indicative to irrealis by means of the grammatical morpheme "-ed", so the latter sentence is in the subjunctive mood.

Incidentally, in answer to something else that came up above, the past time expression of the subjunctive for "be" is "If I had been". This is subjunctive in the broader linguistic sense because it creates the irrealis by means of a grammatical construction which is syntactic rather than morphological (though the use of "had" is a morphological variant of "have"). Duoduoduo (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There still remains the question, however, of how to distinguish between the two types of "subjunctive" (the ones that are called traditionally, though potentially misleadingly, the "present" and "past" subjunctive). Victor Yus (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So any grammatical change that indicates any of certain irrealis intentions is a change to the subjunctive mood.I'm not too keen on referring to the mandative (present) subjunctive as indicating "certain irrealis intentions ". If the mandative (present) subjunctive expressed irrealis intentions, so would the the imperative. It is the "past subjunctive" (i.e. were) which expresses the hypothetical or counterfactual (rather than the "mandative"). The use of the term "subjunctive mood" in this context implies that the "present subjunctive" and the "past subjunctive" are the same mood. I have tried in the past to use traditional terms but incorporate mainstream linguistic thought, and I don't think I have been very successful. I don't know if we can get round this without biting the bullet and distinguishing between what different authorities say. We should cite them, but first, I think we need a reliable source for use (not mention) - with examples - of the word "subjunctive" to refer to the use of the preterite/simple past form ("owned") to express "irrealis intentions". I thought Garner might use it in this sense in his Modern American Usage but, apparently, he doesn't (though the way he expresses himself is, in my view, so confusing as to appear deliberately so). The same applies to Fowler's (3rd ed., Burchfield). Both of these do mention that the subjunctive is usually indistinguishable from the indicative, which might be misinterpreted to include the use of the preterite, but that inference is not supported by the surrounding text or the examples. On this topic, even the CGEL is not a model of unambiguous clarity, in my view, though one of its authors expresses himself fairly clearly here. As regards the statement in the Grammatical mood article Less commonly, the term is used more broadly to allow for the syntactic expression of modality — that is, the use of non-inflectional phrases. I would understand this to mean the use of modal auxiliaries, as in CGEL (p.172): "The main mood system, therefore [in English], is analytic rather than inflectional, marked by the presence or absence of special words, the modal auxiliaries." This would be similar to the future tense being expressed by the use of a modal. Fowler's 1st and 2nd editions say the subjunctive is moribund, so that doesn't look as if he is using it to include the use of the preterite in remote conditions, though some of Fowler's original text might be misleading.--Boson (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I found a good source, focusing on English from a linguistic perspective: The Handbook of English Linguistics, Edited by Bas Aarts, April McMahon, Copyright © 2006 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: 12 Mood and Modality, by ILSE DEPRAETERE AND SUSAN REED, pp. 270-290. http://data.ulis.vnu.edu.vn/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2897/1/10_eng_ling.pdf#page=283 It says on p. 271:

The indicative normally represents situations as facts, but the indicative past tense and past perfect can also be used modally, in specific structures, to represent situations as non-factual or counterfactual:

(7) It would be great if it rained tonight.

(8) If only Meg was/had been coming with us.

(9) I wish/wished he had told me about it.

So this source views the subjunctive as something there are two necessary conditions for: mandative or irrealis modality, and a form that is not only grammatically based but also distinctive -- i.e., a form that is exclusively mandative or irrealis. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I understand all the ingredients of this message of yours, Duoduoduo, but I don't understand the logic with which you string them together. That aside, you call this a good source. But it's mostly about modality rather than mood. Depraetere and Reed do indeed refer to a "past subjunctive", but first they make clear that this has nothing to do with past reference, and secondly their endnote 3 acknowledges that CGEL has a quite different approach, and they say that they are instead following Quirk et al -- for which they may have a very good reason, but if they do have a good reason they don't obviously divulge it. I haven't read the chapter, which may be excellent on modality, but it doesn't impress me as a description of mood. -- Hoary (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Continuing thread on 21 February 2013 and forward

What does it say about "(if I) were" and "(that he) be" ? Victor Yus (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It loads very slowly, but eventually it does load. P. 270-1: The past subjunctive is only distinct from the past indicative for first and third persons singular, which are realized by the form were.3 The terms present subjunctive and past subjunctive should not be taken to refer to the time reference of the forms in question. The present subjunctive can be embedded in a clause with present, past or future time reference (cf. (5c) ). The past subjunctive always refers either to a hypothetical (or ‘tentative’ – cf. Declerck and Reed (2001) ) situation or to a counterfactual situation, but the hypothetical or counterfactual situation may be located in the present, the past or the future:

(3) Jimmie wishes/wished/will wish his girlfriend were with him.

The present subjunctive is used in formulaic expressions (cf. (4) ), in more or less fixed phrases functioning as conditional clauses (cf. (5a), (5b) ) and after expressions (verbs, adjectives, and nouns) that express volition (cf. (5c) ), the so-called mandative subjunctive. In the latter case, should + infinitive is a less formal alternative:

(4) a. God save the Queen

b. If that’s how you feel, so be it.

c. Perish the thought.

(5) a. You can refer to this at a later date, if need be. (Cobuild, ukmags)4

b. If truth be told, it all sounds a bit earnest. (Cobuild, ukmags)

c. The board desires/ordered/will request that changes be (should be) made to the plans.

The past subjunctive is used productively in hypothetical (cf. (6a)) and counterfactual (cf. (6b)) conditional clauses and after the verb wish (cf. (6c)), but is not used as a mandative subjunctive:

(6) a. What would you say if I were to refuse to go?

b. If she were living closer, I’d visit her more often.

c. I wish I were in Phoenix now.

Duoduoduo (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)