The subjunctive

rogersgeorge on March 4th, 2014

English verbs can exhibit a feature called mood. Moods have to do with the the reality of what you’re speaking (or writing) about. That might not be a very useful definition, but you no doubt recognize the names of the moods from grade school. You use the indicative when you’re asserting something to be true. You use the interrogative to ask a question.  The imperative is for when you give a command. And the subjunctive is for when something is not real. In English, most verbs don’t have a separate form for the subjunctive; you have to figure it out from the context.

However, the verb to be does have a subjunctive form. It’s were. Now that looks like the past tense form, so you still need some context. The context you need is some way to say that the situation is not real. For example, if you were to start a sentence with If, you should use the subjunctive.

If I were in better shape, I could swim farther. But I’m not, so I can’t.

The normal past tense (indicative) is I was. I need the subjunctive because I’m not actually in good enough shape. Could, by the way, is a modal auxiliary, and I don’t want to get into those in this post, but note that you have to write could instead of can because you’re using the subjunctive. This is intuitive for native speakers of English. People generally get the could-can dichotomy right, but people fairly commonly get the main verb wrong, saying “If I was in better shape..”

Another contextual indication of the subjunctive is to express a wish, and that leads us to today’s comic grammar lesson, and a reminder that we parents should always tell our kids the truth, from Zach Weiner’s excellent Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal:

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

Another historical diagram

rogersgeorge on March 2nd, 2014

This chart explains the reasoning behind the shapes of the numerals we use. Back in the late 1100′s a guy name of Fibonacci came back from a trip overseas with some new writing tools—for numbers. Until his day roman numerals were the way people wrote numbers. Fibonacci was a mathematician, and he figured out (or […]

Continue Reading...

Another interesting language chart

rogersgeorge on February 28th, 2014

I posted a chart recently that shows languages based on shared vocabulary. This one is more traditional—It shows family relationships based on etymology. There’s a slight typo in the circle at top center. It shouldn’t have that space between Proto and Indo. I suspect he had the text box set to justified, but what do […]

Continue Reading...

Teaser for an interesting article

rogersgeorge on February 26th, 2014

Other people besides me are good with English (duh) and I ran into an article by one of those folks; I think you might like to read it. The article is about an internet-based linguistic meme called doge (pronounced “doggy,” I say). Read the article for a full understanding of how it works. The article, […]

Continue Reading...

Prove that rule!

rogersgeorge on February 24th, 2014

I’m pretty sure I mentioned this in the past, but I found a good example, and the idea is worth repeating. Besides, the guy who made the mistake (and he might have made it on purpose. He is, after all, literate.) is a worthwhile daily read. First, here’s the quote: So, ladies and gentlemen, it […]

Continue Reading...