# subjunctive - It is recommended that the customer keeps / keep



## ClimbEveryMountain

Hola a todos.

Estoy poniendo esta pregunta porque en un documento enviado desde Australia y en el que estoy trabajando aparece la siguiente frase:

"It is recommended that the customer keeps a set of critical spares on-site."


Ahora, a mi me enseñaron que en este tipo de estructuras uno usaba el subjuntivo del verbo. Es más, al lado mío tengo un libro llamado Understanding and Using English Grammar (tercera edición) que dice en la página 263 que con ese tipo de estructuras se usa el subjuntivo. Sin embargo, como bien dije antes, el documento viene de Australia. Yo estoy haciendo un curso de mejoramiento de inglés online y le consulté a una de las profesoras (quien es American English speaker) y ella dijo que estaba bien. No contento con eso, le comenté la situación a una amiga, quien a su vez le preguntó a un amigo canadiense que ella tiene y él tipo dijo que estaba bien tal como aparece en la oración en rojo.

Como yo quiero aprender inglés desde la formalidad de la gramática y no desde lo que se habla en la calle o comúnmente de cualquier manera, me tocó abrir este hilo para que los nativos me ayuden a aclarar esto.

¿Se usa  o no se usa el subjuntivo en esta oración? ¿Si o No?

Repito, quiero una respuesta formal. No algo como: "la gente lo usa". La gente usa muchas cosas mal y no porque las usen mal tenemos que validarlas como buenas o aceptables.

Muchas gracias.


----------



## Chris K

"Keeps" es un error (aunque un error bastante común); tiene que estar "keep," el subjuntivo, exactamente como dices.


----------



## ClimbEveryMountain

Muchas gracias por tu valiosa ayuda. Chris K.
Me ha reconciliado con el mundo de la gramática


----------



## Chris K

Para clarificarlo un poquito más (espero), después de "it is recommended that X" sería siempre "keep." Pero después de, por ejemplo, "it is *important* that X," hay dos posibilidades, con dos sentidos distintos:

"It is important that the customer keeps a set of records" (que el cliente mantiene)
"It is important that the customer keep a set of records" (que el cliente mantenga)

La primera es una observación de un hecho (importante), no una recomendación, y por eso el subjuntivo no es necesario. Pero con "recommended" es imposible.


----------



## ClimbEveryMountain

Me enredé, Chris K. La primera opción no tiene sentido en español- Me podrías explicar un poco más. Pero hazlo en inglés, por favor. Quiero tener la idea de cómo lo entienden ustedes en su idioma.


----------



## Chris K

The first ("it is important that the customer keeps") is simply an observation of a matter of fact. The customer keeps records, and we are noting that fact, and its importance; we are not prescribing any behavior. It may not be a particularly well-chosen example.


----------



## juandiego

Hi Chris.

A couple of questions on this subjunctive-triggering expression, if you are so kind:

How it would be if the verb of the subordinate clause is "to be"? for other persons too:
_It's recommended that I/you/he (to be) there_.
Is "be" for all cases?

 How it would be if the principal clause is in the past?
_It was recommended that I/you/he (to be) there but__ I/you/he couldn't._


----------



## ClimbEveryMountain

Hola Juandiego, según lo que he estudiado en el libro que mencioné en uno de los comentarios anteriores, se mantiene la regla. Es más, te voy a transcribir uno que aplica a lo que preguntas.
It is important that they be told the truth.

Lo que sí me genera duda es el final de la última oración que pusiste.

Muy buena observación. Esperemos a ver qué nos dicen los nativos.


----------



## uptown

juandiego said:


> Hi Chris.
> 
> A couple of questions on this subjunctive-triggering expression, if you are so kind:
> 
> How it would be if the verb of the subordinate clause is "to be"? for other persons too:
> _It's recommended that I/you/he (to be) there_.
> Is "be" for all cases?
> 
> How it would be if the principle clause is in the past?
> _It' was recommended that I/you/he (to be) there but__ I/you/he couldn't._


For the present/future, we use *be* in all cases:

_It's recommended that I/you/he *be* there_.

However, that passive construction strikes me as odd. A recommendation isn't usually anonymous. You would probably have something like this:

_I/we/you/they/he/she recommend(s) that I/you/he *be* there_.

For the past, we also use just *be*, again for all cases:

_It was recommended that I/you/he *be* there but__ I/you/he couldn't._


----------



## Chris K

Sí, siempre "that X be," en el presente y el pasado igualmente.

En cuanto a "it is important that they be told the truth," sería "be" también, aunque creo que "it is important that they are told the truth" sería bastante común y no suena tan horrible. Pero "it is *recommended* that they *be* told the truth."


----------



## uptown

Chris K said:


> Sí, siempre "that X be," en el presente y el pasado igualmente.
> 
> En cuanto a "it is important that they be told the truth," sería "be" también, aunque creo que "it is important that they are told the truth" sería bastante común y no suena tan horrible. Pero "it is *recommended* that they *be* told the truth."


Exactly, when the subordinate clause has a verb in the passive voice, the verb "to be" is still rendered as simply *be*.


----------



## juandiego

Thank you three for your answers.

I guess it's the same when using _recommendable_: _It's recommendable that I/you/he be there_; isn't it? Is this construction idiomatic? It's what we usually use in Spanish.


----------



## Forero

Whereas _keeps_ sounds wrong in this sentence to most Americans, I think it may be more acceptable in Australia.

For past tense, "It was recommended...", standard American usage is to keep the "present" subjunctive (the one that looks like an infinitive), but in England, I think, past indicative may be acceptable, so perhaps in Australia too?


----------



## uptown

juandiego said:


> Thank you three for your answers.
> 
> I guess it's the same when using _recommendable_: _It's recommendable that I/you/he be there_; isn't it? Is this construction idiomatic? It's what we usually use in Spanish.


I would definitely use the subjective there, but it sounds odd in English. We would really just make the recommendation already and say "It's recommended that..."


----------



## uptown

Maybe part of my problem is its closeness to the word *commendable*, which means praiseworthy. I might be mixing up commendable and recommendable in my head (and I'm probably not the only anglophone to do so).


----------



## Chris K

I don't think I've ever heard "recommendable" used, although it does exist. I would avoid it.


----------



## mochalany

Chris K said:


> "Keeps" es un error (aunque un error bastante común); tiene que estar "keep," el subjuntivo, exactamente como dices.



It's inaccurate to describe this as an error. The shift in English has long been to abandon the subjunctive in English. In elevated speech it is probably better to continue to use it but this is increasingly uncommon. Another example to elucidate the problem:

A prescriptivist would tell you that the sentence 'If I was younger I'd go', should "correctly" be written 'If I were younger I'd go'. However, the amount of people who would even register this "mistake" is increasingly small and it is probably an inevitability that within 50 years 'If I were..." will be on the verge of extinction. This isn't because everyone will be making more mistakes, but rather that the language will have changed.


----------



## Chris K

mochalany said:


> It's inaccurate to describe this as an error. The shift in English has long been to abandon the subjunctive in English. In elevated speech it is probably better to continue to use it but this is increasingly uncommon. Another example to elucidate the problem:
> 
> A prescriptivist would tell you that the sentence 'If I was younger I'd go', should "correctly" be written 'If I were younger I'd go'. However, the amount of people who would even register this "mistake" is increasingly small and it is probably an inevitability that within 50 years 'If I were..." will be on the verge of extinction. This isn't because everyone will be making more mistakes, but rather that the language will have changed.



I agree up to a point, although I think the was / were question is a separate issue. Yes, English has generally been discarding the subjunctive, but I think there are instances (as in the original example above) where it still serves a useful function. It is true that many speakers no longer observe the rule.


----------



## juandiego

Forero said:


> For past tense, "It was recommended...", standard American usage is to keep the *"present" subjunctive* (the one that looks like an infinitive), but in England, I think, *past indicative* may be acceptable, so perhaps in Australia too?


Hi Forero.

In Spanish, the verb of the subordinate clause would shift to the past subjunctive since the whole sentence is in the past:
_Es recomendable que yo *esté* allí_. —> _Era recomendable que yo *estuviera* allí pero no pude_.

If I'm not wrong, past indicative and past subjunctive are the same in English except for the first person (I were). I know that this is only used when the speaker is saying something impossible, but somehow it resulted impossible as stated thereafter.

So, my question is if "_It was recommended that I *were* there but I couldn't"_ would be defensible as valid.


----------



## Chris K

juandiego said:


> [...]
> So, my question is if "_It was recommended that I *were* there but I couldn't"_ would be defensible as valid.



No, it's "that I be there."


----------



## Forero

juandiego said:


> Hi Forero.
> 
> In Spanish, the verb of the subordinate clause would shift to the past subjunctive since the whole sentence is in the past:
> _Es recomendable que yo *esté* allí_. —> _Era recomendable que yo *estuviera* allí pero no pude_.
> 
> If I'm not wrong, past indicative and past subjunctive are the same in English except for the first person (I were). I know that this is only used when the speaker is saying something impossible, but somehow it resulted impossible as stated thereafter.
> 
> So, my question is if "_It was recommended that I *were* there but I couldn't"_ would be defensible as valid.


I couldn't were there? No.

To be fair, English used to use past subjunctive this way (but not with _couldn't_) several centuries ago. The only place I know of where past subjunctive is still used as a past tense of present subjunctive in English is in an _if_ or _whether_ clause, or in the construction with an implied _whether_ from inverting the subject and verb:

Present: _If that be so, then I will stand corrected._
Past: _If that were so, then I would stand corrected._

Present: _The giant will grind up his bones, be he alive or be he dead._ [As in "Jack and the Beanstalk", this means it does not matter to the giant whether he is/be alive or dead.]
Past: _The giant would grind up his bones, were he alive or were he dead._

Needless to say, this is rare nowadays, but still not like Spanish since _si_ does not allow present subjunctive.


----------



## Istriano

In British English you can find

"The customer is recommended to keep a set of critical spares on-site."

This is perfectly standard:
RECOMMEND


> _[with  object and  infinitive]_ advise (someone) to do something: _ you are strongly recommended to seek professional advice_


http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/recommend?q=recommend

We learn this option in school: _*I recommend him to try the cake*_, and not_ I recommend that he try the cake_ which sounds like an Americanism.
 All Oxford Grammars teach:  _recommend someone to do something_ in which _someone _functions as an indirect object without to (indirect object without to can be found in American English too: I wrote him a letter).



> *recommend somebody to do something*_ We'd recommend you to book your flight early._


Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/recommend


----------



## Chris K

_"_You are strongly recommended to seek professional advice" sounds perfectly acceptable to my American ears; "I recommend him to try the cake" sounds (to us) like you are nominating "him" to be the person who will serve as designated cake tester. Interesting difference between AE and BE usage.


----------



## James2000

Chris K said:


> _"_You are strongly recommended to seek professional advice" sounds perfectly acceptable to my American ears; "I recommend him to try the cake" sounds (to us) like you are nominating "him" to be the person who will serve as designated cake tester. Interesting difference between AE and BE usage.



I'd agree with this opinion.  Replacing 'recommended' with 'advised' however, the sentences would seem fine to me.  I had no idea grammar books were recommending sentence like those quoted by Istriano.


----------



## James2000

juandiego said:


> So, my question is if "_It was recommended that I *were* there but I couldn't"_ would be defensible as valid.



Here's an interesting article on this exact issue.  The summary is that it would not be defensible.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4049


----------



## Chris K

James2000 said:


> Here's an interesting article on this exact issue.  The summary is that it would not be defensible.
> 
> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4049



I agree that "It was recommended that I *were* there but I couldn't" is not defensible, but not for reasons that are addressed in that article, as far as I can tell. The question isn't whether to use "were" or "was," but whether to use "were" or "be."


----------



## James2000

Chris K said:


> I agree that "It was recommended that I *were* there but I couldn't" is not defensible, but not for reasons that are addressed in that article, as far as I can tell. The question isn't whether to use "were" or "was," but whether to use "were" or "be."



True.  Perhaps 'exactly' was misleading.  A good read nevertheless.


----------



## juandiego

James2000 said:


> Here's an interesting article on this exact issue.  The summary is that it would not be defensible.
> 
> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4049


 Thanks for that, James. It was a nice read.


> But his title is a botch that I think must be due to the myth that English has a "past subjunctive" (which it does not).
> 
> Consider how were is normally used in the 1st person singular and 3rd person singular. When I say _I wish I were with you right now_, I'm talking about the situation in an alternative unreal world. (Hence the term "irrealis mood" in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language; we'll come back to that.) The _were_ in such cases is not a past tense form. What I'm saying is that I wish the actual world could be modified to an alternative one, mostly the same as here, except that in the alternative one I'm with you right now. The verb _were_ is talking about the present time in an alternate universe that realizes my wish.



The author, though, should be told that in the unreal subjunctive world, time is stranger than at the verge of a black hole .
In Spanish, time in the subjunctive mood doesn't necessarily correlate with real time at all: it's rather a grammar agreement matter and other niceties; and I dare to say it's the same in English, isn't it? When you say, for instance, _"It's recommended that you *be* there"_, that _be_ (present subjunctive) is not necessarily for the present but for when the time comes, most probably in the future. So regardless past subjunctive exists or not in English, I don't think lack of correlation between grammar and real time is a good approach to argue against it. Probably this correlation even doesn't necessarily take place in the indicative: _I'm here tomorrow_.


Thanks Uptown, Chris and Forero for your answers.


----------



## luisinkc

El subjuntivo "keep" es más correcto, pero la gran mayoría de la gente en los EEUU diría "keeps". Generalmente la distinción no es necesaria para entender la oración. El modo subjuntivo sin un verbo auxiliar prácticamente se ha desaparecido en el inglés norteamericano, con la excepción del verbo "ser" ("to be"). De vez en cuando se usa con otros verbos en forma positiva (e.g. "I suggested that he buy the textbook"), y es hasta menos común en una expresión negativa ("I suggested that he not buy the textbook").


----------



## Yondlivend

juandiego said:


> Hi Forero.
> 
> In Spanish, the verb of the subordinate clause would shift to the past subjunctive since the whole sentence is in the past:
> _Es recomendable que yo *esté* allí_. —> _Era recomendable que yo *estuviera* allí pero no pude_.
> 
> If I'm not wrong, past indicative and past subjunctive are the same in English except for the first person (I were). I know that this is only used when the speaker is saying something impossible, but somehow it resulted impossible as stated thereafter.
> 
> So, my question is if "_It was recommended that I *were* there but I couldn't"_ would be defensible as valid.





Forero said:


> To be fair, English used to use past subjunctive this way (but not with _couldn't_) several centuries ago.



As Forero and others have said, this usage is no longer current, but it was indeed used historically.  Take this example from a letter from 1463 from Thomas Mull to Thomas Stonor (I modernized the spelling for the convenience of reading; the words and word order have been left unchanged.  The document with original spellings can be found at the Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse here):



> Yet to remember you of things which should concern you, I would not that ye, nor none of your well-willers, took no things but such as might be to your worship etc. …”



I take would here to be the indicative past of will meaning "to desire, to want, to wish."


----------



## juandiego

luisinkc said:


> El subjuntivo "keep" es más correcto, pero la gran mayoría de la gente en los EEUU diría "keeps". Generalmente la distinción no es necesaria para entender la oración. El modo subjuntivo sin un verbo auxiliar prácticamente se ha desaparecido en el inglés norteamericano, con la excepción del verbo "ser" ("to be"). De vez en cuando se usa con otros verbos en forma positiva (e.g. "I suggested that he buy the textbook"), y es hasta menos común en una expresión negativa:
> _"I suggested that he *not buy* the textbook"_.


Good to be reminded the negative form of the subjunctive, luisinkc.
So, I guess the negative form for this thread's examples should be:
_"It is recommended that the customer *not keep* a set of critical spares on-site"
"It is recommended that I *not be* there"_.


Yondlivend said:


> As Forero and others have said, this usage is no longer current, but it was indeed used historically.  Take this example from a letter from 1463 from Thomas Mull to Thomas Stonor (I modernized the spelling for the convenience of reading; the words and word order have been left unchanged.  The document with original spellings can be found at the Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse here):
> 
> 
> 
> Yet to remember you of things which should concern you, I would not that ye, nor none of your well-willers, took no things but such as might be to your worship etc. …”
> 
> 
> 
> I take would here to be the indicative past of will meaning "to desire, to want, to wish."
Click to expand...

It took me some time but finally got it, Yondlivend —at least the structure since I'm not fully sure of the _took_ meaning.
Definitively it would be in the past subjunctive in Spanish: _No quería que Usted aceptara/llevara ¿? ninguna cosa ..._


----------



## SevenDays

It might be useful to differentiate *modality *from *mood.* _Modality_ is the attitude of the speaker as to what's stated in the sentence. _Mood_ is the _grammatical representation_ of modality. Modality is about *meaning*; mood is about *form*. While the subjunctive _mood_ now may be restricted to certain uses, the subjunctive _modality_ is alive and well, and quite robust. In _It is recommended that the customer keep a set of critical spares on-site_, the choice of mood (indicative or subjunctive) in the subordinate clause is largely irrelevant because the subjunctive modality is already established by "recommended" in the main clause_ it is recommended_. The meaning of the main clause (_desire_, _urgency_, etc.) carries throughout the sentence, so it makes little difference to choose either "that the customer keep" or "that the customer keeps." In other words, the _form_ (_mood_) can be either indicative or subjunctive because the _meaning_ (_modality_) is firmly subjunctive. What difference there is can be summed up thus: the indicative mood presents modality _factually_, _objectively;_ the subjunctive mood presents modality with _added _urgency. 

Using the subjunctive mood here gives us a clue as to one of its modern syntactic uses: the *bare form* of the verb (in subordinated clauses). In other words, the subjunctive mood _isn't conjugated_. That's why the base form does't change to mark time if the main clause changes from present to past:_ it *is* recommended that the customer *keep*_; _it *was* recommended that the customer *keep*_.  It is for that reason misleading, or perhaps not entirely clear, to call "were" in "If I were king" "subjunctive." To be precise: "were" isn't subjunctive in *form *(that would be _If I *be* king_, with the bare form "be"), but it is subjunctive in *meaning*. Similarly, "was" (_If I was king_) isn't subjunctive in form, but it is in meaning. 

There may be a tendency to do away with the subjunctive *form *(the subjunctive in all its conjugations) to simplify the language, but the subjunctive *meaning* remains.
Cheers


----------



## Forero

_If I be king_ (something like "si yo fuere rey", dealing with a dubious future) is a different kind of subjunctive than _if I were king_ ("si yo fuese rey", dealing with a dubious present or past).

_If I was king_ has two interpretations:

1. An alternative form for _If I were king_ ("si yo fuera rey").
2. A past indicative ("si yo era rey").


----------



## Chris K

Coincidentally, there is a full-page advertisement in the _New York Times_ today that urges readers to "demand that DirectTV *brings* back" two dozen cable channels. There's no question in my mind that "brings" is wrong, but it's an indication of how far the subjunctive has decayed. The writers of the ad apparently thought that readers would find "bring" either confusing or affected. (That's assuming that the writers weren't simply ignorant of the rule.)


----------

