PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Aug 5, 2011 7:36:55 GMT -5
Mickey,
In reply to something Dave wrote about "if I were you" being preferable to "if I was you" you said you agreed but would like to know why.
The best I can do is to say that this is an example of the past subjunctive mood of a verb
Having said that I suppose I should define subjunctive. Here I'm going to enlist the help of a manual on English grammar which defines subjunctive as:
The mood of a verb expressing wishes, stipulating demands, or making statements contrary to fact.
The "present" subjunctive is the bare form of a verb (that is, a verb with no ending). It does not show agreement with its subject. (Example: "I strongly recommend that he retire.")
The only distinctive form of the "past" subjunctive is the word were. It is used with singular subjects in conditional sentences and with the subordinating conjunctions as if and as though. (Example: "I love him as if he were my son.")
There were suggestions among grammarians in the mid 20th century that, in the interests of more simple grammar, the subjunctive mood be dropped from teaching grammar in schools.
I'm so glad it wasn't, but I may be in a minority. I'm told teaching the subjunctive mood has already been dropped from the National Curriculum for State-controlled schools.
PeterW
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Aug 5, 2011 12:25:52 GMT -5
PeterW,
Gasp!
Mickey
|
|
|
|
Post by Peltigera on Aug 5, 2011 12:40:55 GMT -5
There were suggestions among grammarians in the mid 20th century that, in the interests of more simple grammar, the subjunctive mood be dropped from teaching grammar in schools. I'm so glad it wasn't, but I may be in a minority. I'm told teaching the subjunctive mood has already been dropped from the National Curriculum for State-controlled schools. PeterW When I was in school in the 1960s, we were not taught any grammar despite it being a grammar school (Redruth County Grammar School to be precise) - we were certainly not taught moods, subjunctive or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by George C. on Aug 5, 2011 16:30:17 GMT -5
I think what you are seeing is a reflection of the general demise of non-scientific subjects. Well, at least that is my impression. There is so much emphasis on science and math that the other subjects suffer, a lot.
After I retired, I attended a local university to take some of those courses that I had wanted to take years ago, but had no time. I took college-level grammar, some Linguistics courses, dabbled in foreign languages, and other courses as suited my fancy.
Had I not mentioned the subjunctive mood, I would not have heard of it at all--save for its rather extensive and more elaborate use in Greek. All of the English courses ignored it until I mentioned it.
At first, I blamed it on the fact that our local university is primarily a teachers' college ("normal" school) and that subjects were taught so that teachers could go into the primary and secondary classrooms and actually teach at those levels. Eventually, I conceded that I was wrong about that and that the general level of grammar teaching has declined. Many times, I found college grammar courses teaching stuff that I had learned in grade school.
Much to think about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Aug 5, 2011 22:05:38 GMT -5
Peter, you are the thinker of deep thoughts. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by keith201 on Mar 21, 2012 0:05:46 GMT -5
If the English language is used correctly, it is capable of more delicate nuances of meaning than any other. Unfortunately, they don't seem to teach grammar any more do they?
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Mar 21, 2012 5:16:16 GMT -5
If the English language is used correctly, it is capable of more delicate nuances of meaning than any other. Unfortunately, they don't seem to teach grammar any more do they? Keith, I think your comparing the delicate nuances of English to other languages is rather far fetched. Indeed, I doubt that there is or was any one person with the knowledge of enough languages to ever dare make such a comparison. Why don't we just agree that English is a beautiful language capable of expressing extreme nuances of meaning. Mickey |
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Mar 21, 2012 8:42:40 GMT -5
Would it be insolent, entering the discussion as a non-native English speaker ? Remembering my English lessons 30 years ago, both "were" and "was" are sounding strange to me ... just from feeling. Shouldn't it be "If I would have been you", considering, that something happened in the past, still having an effect on the present or "If I would be you", if it would be something, happening in the present and having an effect on the future ? At least I would expect the subjunctive word "would" as I can never be anybody else than myself. But of course ... native speakers should know it better and I just hope to learn something  |
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Mar 21, 2012 8:55:49 GMT -5
MIK,
Don't try to make sense of English. I think there are more broken rules than there are rules.
"If I would have been you", considering, that something happened in the past,..."
How about "If I had been you." or "Had I been you." or "Were I you."
"If I would be you", if it would be something, happening in the present and having an effect on the future ?"
"If I were you." or "Were I you." again.
I enjoy confusing issues.
It's too complicated. It is easier to be me. (How about those two to's too?
Mickey
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2012 9:06:37 GMT -5
The only thing that matters is understanding each other. Rules be d@mned!!
W
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Mar 21, 2012 9:33:52 GMT -5
Me too  At least, I learned, that it is possible to replace the subjunctive form by simple forms as well. Interesting. That is also true  |
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Mar 21, 2012 11:55:37 GMT -5
Yea Wayne.
Mickey
|
|
|
|
Post by grenouille on Mar 26, 2012 7:44:44 GMT -5
Although we learn English in school, we do not live with the language like a native English man, because we use our own language at home and for day to day living.
So although we can speak and write, we lack the ability on comprehension and expression, thus our knowledge is limited to only using the right tense and words.
Since moving to France 10 years ago, I have not use my mother tongue as well, thus without practice, its dying a slow death.
My choice is just to bluff my way in French just as I have bluff my way in English or die standing.
Hye
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Mar 26, 2012 8:44:22 GMT -5
Hye,
Your English is very good.
Despite all the rules and regulations regarding language - any language, I presume, the ability to make oneself understood is really all that matters.
You do that very well.
Mickey
|
|
|
|
Post by grenouille on Mar 26, 2012 11:16:35 GMT -5
Thanks Mickey,
Regards
Hye
|
|
At least, I learned, that it is possible to replace the subjunctive form by simple forms as well. Interesting.