# Subjunctive: The children insisted that she read them a story every night.



## Hela

Dear teachers,

Would you please tell me if my analysis is correct?

"The children insisted that she read them a story every night." 

Is "read" here a mandatory present subjunctive which looks like a bare infinitive and not a simple past? It does not describe an unreal situation, does it?

Thank you in advance for your help.
Hela


----------



## aefavant

It is certainly not mandatory.
Actually, if you give a second look that statement may come a bit confusing. "read" may take the past sense in that, so that the children insisted in the fact that "she" used to tell them stories every night, in direct speech.
To sove that you could say: The children insisted that she should read them a story every night.


----------



## rodoke

I agree with aefavant on one point.  Outside of fixed phrases (e.g. God save the Queen, whatever it be, etc.) the subjunctive mood in English is always optional. Certain educated registers preserve the use of the subjunctive in certain cases though--one of them being with verbs of demanding and wishing.

As I read it, _read_ your sentence is a subjunctive because of the verb _insist_, which is a way of asking or demanding something.


----------



## aefavant

sove = solve in my last post

Using "should" allows you to not use the subjunctive, as rodoke well mentioned.


----------



## Hela

So "read" in the sentence above can be pronounced either /ri:d/ (as in the infinitive) if we consider it a subjunctive, or /red/ if we consider it a past habitual event. Correct?


----------



## palomnik

...maybe.

To my ears /red/ sounds wrong here.  The verb "insist" indicates to me in no uncertain terms that the subjunctive is what is expected, either in its plain form "read" or in the composite form "should read".  

If you're implying that it should be /red/ since the action took place in the past, bear in mind that the subjunctive has no tense.

The only way that I could see it being /red/ is to understand that this is not a subjunctive usage and the speaker is intentionally trying to refer to things in the past tense.

Which may be admissable...maybe.  But it sounds strange to me.


----------



## AWordLover

> The children insisted that she should *read* them a story every night.


 


aefavant said:


> sove = solve in my last post
> 
> Using "should" allows you to not use the subjunctive, as rodoke well mentioned.


 
It is my understanding that using "should" eliminates the possibility that we are talking about a habitual past act (read rhyming with red), and forces "read" to be understood as subjunctive.

I understand that AE speakers use the subjunctive more than BE speakers. I would surely use the subjunctive here.

Example without using the subjunctive:
The children insisted that she *reads* them a story every night. [I wouldn't say it but many would.]

The children insisted that she *should reads* them a story every night. [This seems much worse to me.]

I think the alternative would sound odd.


----------



## JamesM

Hela said:


> So "read" in the sentence above can be pronounced either /ri:d/ (as in the infinitive) if we consider it a subjunctive, or /red/ if we consider it a past habitual event. Correct?


 
Yes, but they are insisting to two different people, depending on how you read it:

If you read it as the past tense, they are insisting to someone else (unspecified) that their mother was in the habit of reading to them every night.

For example:

"Their teacher said that the children had been neglected by their mother, but the children insisted that their mother read them a story every night.  How could this be called neglect?"


If you read it as the subjunctive, they are speaking to their mother when they insist that she read to them every night.

"The children loved the stories from their mother's old book of fairy tales and would jump at any opportunity to be lost in that magical world.  The children insisted that she read them a story every night."


----------



## aefavant

AWordLover said:


> It is my understanding that using "should" eliminates the possibility that we are talking about a habitual past act (read rhyming with red), and forces "read" to be understood as subjunctive.
> 
> I understand that AE speakers use the subjunctive more than BE speakers. I would surely use the subjunctive here.
> 
> Example without using the subjunctive:
> The children insisted that she *reads* them a story every night. [I wouldn't say it but many would.]
> 
> The children insisted that she *should reads* them a story every night. [This seems much worse to me.]
> 
> I think the alternative would sound odd.



Although the first example seems pretty plausible to my ears, the second (I believe) would never happen... "should reads" I mean.
As you said, in AE the subjunctive construction should appear quite often.
Anyway, most of the time I run away from that and use "should" instead.
The possibiliies [ ri:d / red] being reduced to one (subj.) comes down to one word "insists" which requires the subjunctive (in accordance to good grammar). But does not eliminate the other possibilities.
Or does it? I hope not, for literature´s sake.


----------



## mplsray

Hela said:


> Dear teachers,
> 
> Would you please tell me if my analysis is correct?
> 
> "The children insisted that she read them a story every night."
> 
> Is "read" here a mandatory present subjunctive which looks like a bare infinitive and not a simple past? It does not describe an unreal situation, does it?
> 
> Thank you in advance for your help.
> Hela



If the meaning of the sentence is that the children were requesting or ordering that they be read a story every night, then _read_ would be pronounced "reed" and would indeed be a mandatory subjunctive.

Kenneth G. Wilson begins his article "INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE" in _The Columbia Guide to Standard American English_ by saying:

"These terms apply to the mood of verbs: an _indicative_ verb is one that makes a factual or actual statement, as contrasted with a verb in the _subjunctive mood,_ which makes a doubtful, conditional, or hypothetical statement or one contrary to fact or in some sense subordinate to another statement."

_Read_ (pronounced "reed") in _that she read them a story every night_ is indeed subordinate to the statement _the children insisted._ Something else occurs to me, however. When the verb in the main clause is in the present tense, a following subjunctive clause does in fact refer to an unreal condition. A person can insist (in the sense of "give an order") all he wants to, but doing so is no guarantee that his order ends up being carried out, no matter who he is. This is often true when the verb in the main clause is in the past tense as well: _The king insisted that the sun stand still.

_In a sentence such as _The children insisted that she read _[pronounced "reed"]_ them a story every night._ the person reading the sentence will most likely assume that the girl or woman did indeed habitually obey the children, which would mean that the subjunctive no longer represented an unreal condition, but one which had in fact occurred.

The verb _insisted_ does not guarantee that the verb following is in the subjunctive. Given an appropriate context, the written sentence _The children insisted that she read them a story every night._ could indicate that the children were reporting on something which had happened, so that_ read_ would be pronounced "red." Compare_ The children insisted that she spoke French._ The problem with _read_ pronounced "reed" is that it can be confused with _read_ pronounced "red," but this ambiguity exists only in writing, not in speech, and even in writing the ambiguity can effectively disappear in certain contexts.


----------



## Loob

Hela said:


> Dear teachers,
> 
> Would you please tell me if my analysis is correct?
> 
> "The children insisted that she read them a story every night."
> 
> Is "read" here a mandatory present subjunctive which looks like a bare infinitive and not a simple past? It does not describe an unreal situation, does it?
> 
> Thank you in advance for your help.
> Hela


 
Hi Hela

However you look at it, "read" is in practice subjunctive.

It might be past subjunctive (indistinguishable from past indicative) - pronounced like the colour _red._

Or it might be present subjunctive (distinguishable in the third person singular by the absence of "s") - pronounced like "reed".

Which would I choose? I don't know! But the present subjunctive always sounds slightly formal in British English, although not (I think) in American English. So if your context is BrE, you might want to opt for the "read= _red" _version. 

Loob

_EDIT: please ignore this message. mplsray put me right in the message below_


----------



## mplsray

Loob said:


> Hela said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear teachers,
> 
> Would you please tell me if my analysis is correct?
> 
> "The children insisted that she read them a story every night."
> 
> Is "read" here a mandatory present subjunctive which looks like a bare infinitive and not a simple past? It does not describe an unreal situation, does it?
> 
> Thank you in advance for your help.
> Hela
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Hela
> 
> However you look at it, "read" is in practice subjunctive.
> 
> It might be past subjunctive (indistinguishable from past indicative) - pronounced like the colour _red._
> 
> Or it might be present subjunctive (distinguishable in the third person singular by the absence of "s") - pronounced like "reed".
> 
> Which would I choose? I don't know! But the present subjunctive always sounds slightly formal in British English, although not (I think) in American English. So if your context is BrE, you might want to opt for the "read= _red" _version.
> 
> Loob
Click to expand...

 
Well, the whole subject of the subjunctive is full of confusion and controversy. A while back I tried researching the subject and found that many grammars and style guides disagreed a great deal about what constituted the subjunctive. To give just one example: Is there a subjunctive in _The children insisted that she *should speak* French?_ Some sources said yes, others called such _should-_constructions substitutes for the subjunctive, with at least one source referring to the _should-_construction as a _quasi-subjunctive_ in order to indicate that it was not actually a subjunctive.

There are other controversies, but this all leads up to my saying the following: I don't have a clue what you might have meant above when you said that in the sentence in question, "However you look at it, 'read' is in practice subjunctive."

To my mind, if _read_ is pronounced "red" in the sentence _The children insisted that she read them a story every night._ it has only one possible meaning. In that case, _read_ is an example of the past indicative and the sentence concerns children reporting on matters which occurred in the past and has nothing to do with any requests the children might have made.


----------



## Loob

I've reflected further in the light of mplsray's comment - and, yes, mplsray is right and I was wrong.

"Read" in Hela's sentence is either past indicative (pronounced like "red") or present subjunctive (pronounced like "reed").

Loob


----------



## AWordLover

Hi All,

I too have been pondering mspray's excellent comments concerning the murkiness of thought and description surrounding the subjunctive. My prior comments should be read with the understanding that I believe should takes the subjunctive, not avoids it.



> Well, the whole subject of the subjunctive is full of confusion and controversy. A while back I tried researching the subject and found that many grammars and style guides disagreed a great deal about what constituted the subjunctive. To give just one example: Is there a subjunctive in _The children insisted that she *should speak* French?_ *Some sources said yes*, others called such _should-_constructions substitutes for the subjunctive, with at least one source referring to the _should-_construction as a _quasi-subjunctive_ in order to indicate that it was not actually a subjunctive.


 

I added the red to the quote.

AWordLover


----------



## Thomas Tompion

If we eliminate the read read problem by using another verb, where the present subjunctive has a different form to the past indicative, does that help? :

1. The children insisted that she see the elephant.

2. The children insisted that she saw the elephant.

What's the difference? 1. sounds more bookish than 2., and 2. could mean *the children insisted that she had seen the elephant *(they told people afterwards, they insisted: she really did see the elephant, she saw it), a meaning which is closed to 1.


----------



## kenny4528

Hi,
To avoid this ambiguity, I think if we shoud not omit ''should'' in present subjunctive wording?

"The children insisted that she should _read_ them a story every night."


----------



## aefavant

kenny4528 said:


> Hi,
> To avoid this ambiguity, I think if we shoud not omit ''should'' in present subjunctive wording?
> 
> "The children insisted that she should _read_ them a story every night."



See, this is exactly what I meant in my first post. IF you omit the "should" construction, you will indeed come to the ambiguity [reed versus red] [ri:d/red]. 
The only way to eliminate ambiguity, and so set a clear line as to which tense (mood) is in the writer´s mind, is to use "should" instead of the bare subjunctive. The _quasi-subjuntive_ with "should" isn´t just a possible option to convey the idea that _the children were asking to be read [red] a story every night_, but also a very usual and natural way of saying that, even in writing.


----------



## kenny4528

aefavant said:


> but also a very usual and natural way of saying that, even in writing.


 
Thank you, aefavant , for a good point.
But I wonder if most of native-speakers really like keeping should in this situation?(I learned from my book that _should_ is always omitted.)


----------



## JamesM

The "should" is not comfortable for me in this situation. I don't know if that's a personal preference, an AE/BE difference, or simply a lack of education. 

I have no problem with something like: "It's strange that he should act that way towards her; I thought he was in love with her." This is a different use of "should", to me. 

"insisted that she should" is an odd combination to me. 

The man insisted that she contact the police immediately. 
The man insisted that she should contact the police immediately. ???

To me, the second sentence comes off sounding like "she was obligated by duty or ethics (or her own best interests) to contact the police". This is a different communication compared to the first sentence's meaning, which is to me: "He demanded that she immediately contact the police." There is no appeal to any outside standards or motivation in the first sentence for me, but there is in the second sentence. The only reason given for her contacting the police in the first sentence, for me, is that he insists on it.

I do wonder if it's an AE/BE difference, but I don't have any basis on which to state that it is.


----------



## kenny4528

Now I really got a little confused.

My books indicates some verbs or adjectives that convey the connotation of ''urgent'' or ''demand'', the second verb has to be simple form, like:

Seon's parents insists that he _be_ home by midnight.(should is left out naturally)
And if "The children insisted that she read them a story every night." is the usage my book said, _*read*_ here should be treated as the infinitive, right?


----------



## mplsray

kenny4528 said:


> Thank you, aefavant , for a good point.
> But I wonder if most of native-speakers really like keeping should in this situation?(I learned from my book that _should_ is always omitted.)


 
Kenneth G. Wilson appears to say the same thing in the article I referred to previously:

"Standard English also continues to require the subjunctive in _that_ clauses following verbs such as _move, request, command, insist,_ and the like: _I move that the secretary cast one ballot."_


----------



## AWordLover

Hi All,

I agree with JamesM.
It takes some effort to imagine children for whom the reported speech ends up "The children insisted that she should read to them every night."

What did the children originally say in an insistent fashion.
"You *should* read to us every night." [I strongly doubt it.]

Maybe they said, "Read to us! Read to us! You have to read to us every night." [This seems much more believable to me.]

In JameM's other example with the policeman



> The man insisted that she contact the police immediately.
> The man insisted that she should contact the police immediately. ???


 
It is possible that the man said either of the above, but the second is quite unlikely.
The man insisted that she *must* contact the police immediately. 
The man insisted that she *had to* contact the police immediately.


----------



## aefavant

JamesM said:


> The "should" is not comfortable for me in this situation. I don't know if that's a personal preference, an AE/BE difference, or simply a lack of education.
> 
> I have no problem with something like: "It's strange that he should act that way towards her; I thought he was in love with her." This is a different use of "should", to me.
> 
> "insisted that she should" is an odd combination to me.
> 
> The man insisted that she contact the police immediately.
> The man insisted that she should contact the police immediately. ???
> 
> To me, the second sentence comes off sounding like "she was obligated by duty or ethics (or her own best interests) to contact the police". This is a different communication compared to the first sentence's meaning, which is to me: "He demanded that she immediately contact the police." There is no appeal to any outside standards or motivation in the first sentence for me, but there is in the second sentence. The only reason given for her contacting the police in the first sentence, for me, is that he insists on it.
> 
> I do wonder if it's an AE/BE difference, but I don't have any basis on which to state that it is.



You touched a very important point there! Personally, I suppose there really is a difference between the two meanings. Using "should" as subjunctive can, otherwise will, change the meaning of the sentence a little.
One thing that I might be wrong about,,, but I think you got your first example wrong. The *"It's strange that he should act that way towards her; I thought he was in love with her." *comes off sounding just like the _quasi-subjunctive "should" _we are talking of. 
Now, in  *The man insisted that she contact the police immediately*, you really have reason in saying the whole meaning changes, since there may be considered an urge for "obligation" when using "should".

* The man insisted that she contact the police immediately. *
It´s almost an order. Otherwise it is, an order!
* The man insisted that she should contact the police immediately. ???*
It´s a recommendation equivalent to "ought to" but lesser . There is no guaranty that "she" is going to contact the police.

I believe in practice they will resume into usage, because if you (should you  stop and analyse *should *by itself, then you are looking for older still and more idiomatic uses of shall/will. *God save the Queen *is 100% no-doubt different from *God should save the Queen*, although as we can see, both of them bring the subjunctive idea.
I don´t know I managed to make myself clear. Please tell me...


----------



## mplsray

mplsray said:


> Kenneth G. Wilson appears to say the same thing in the article I referred to previously:
> 
> "Standard English also continues to require the subjunctive in _that_ clauses following verbs such as _move, request, command, insist,_ and the like: _I move that the secretary cast one ballot."_


 
I've had second thoughts. I took Wilson's quote to mean that the _should-_construction was nonstandard in the usage in question, but since other sources do indeed include the _should-_construction in _that-_clauses following the verb _insist,_ I am now not sure that Wilson meant to exclude the _should-_construction from the subjunctive.

You can decide for yourself by looking at his article, which can be seen in Google Books. Do a Google search for 

move request command insist subjunctive should

The link to the Google Books version is the third hit displayed.


----------



## JamesM

I'm afraid you lost me, aefavant. I was trying to offer a different point of view from the earlier suggestion that adding "should" to the sentence clarifies a subjunctive without changing the meaning and avoids ambiguity. I disagree. "Should", to me, changes the meaning when a "pure" subjunctive (simply using the bare infinitive) is another possible option. 

In "It's strange that he should act that way towards her", I see a use of "should" that cannot comfortably be replaced with a "pure" subjunctive, at least for me. I can't say, "It's strange that he act that way towards her." I would have to re-word it as: "It's strange of/for him _to _act that way towards her." In that example, "should" makes sense to me. (I think "would" gets used quite a bit here in the U.S. instead of "should." You might hear: "It's strange that he would act that way towards her.")

I'm not sure why you think that example is wrong, though. Can you explain what is wrong about it?  I was simply using it as contrast to the "she contact the police" example, where "should" changes the meaning for me.


----------



## aefavant

JamesM said:


> I'm afraid you lost me, aefavant. I was trying to offer a different point of view from the earlier suggestion that adding "should" to the sentence clarifies a subjunctive without changing the meaning and avoids ambiguity. I disagree. "Should", to me, changes the meaning when a "pure" subjunctive (simply using the bare infinitive) is another possible option.
> 
> In "It's strange that he should act that way towards her", I see a use of "should" that cannot comfortably be replaced with a "pure" subjunctive, at least for me. I can't say, "It's strange that he act that way towards her." In that case, "should" makes sense to me.
> 
> I think "would" gets used quite a bit here in the U.S. instead of "should."  You might hear: "It's strange that he would act that way towards her."
> 
> I'm not sure why you think that example is wrong, though. Can you explain what is wrong about it?



Ooops, not wrong, sorry! 
 "It's strange that he *should *act that way towards her; I thought he was in love with her." This is a *different use* of "should", to me. 

What I was trying to say is that your example (TO ME) wasn´t any different from, say "They insisted that she should read a story every night" (*quasi-subjunctive* instead of bare infinitive). I couldn´t manage to evince any comparable line between the *should *in your example and an *obligation.

*To my ears should bears to same meaning as the bare-infinitive would in that same sentence. 
So, what I say isn´t that I found you or the example wrong, but that consideration that they were different I found "inaccurate"... Is it not *"could" *a better choice to what you pointed?


----------



## JamesM

No.  To me, they mean different things:

"They insisted that she read a story every night"  
"They insisted that she should read a story every night"  

"He insisted that she contact the police immediately"  
"He insisted that she should contact the police immediately" 

Both of these pairs have two sentences that are grammatically correct to me but have different meanings.

This is in contrast to:

"It is strange that he act that way towards her" 
"It is strange that he should act that way towards her" 

The first sentence in this pair is not grammatically correct, in my opinion.  It is not just a matter of the two sentences meaning something different, but that the first sentence actually is not a viable sentence, as I see it.


----------



## min300

Hi everyone,

This thread is really interesting and somehow confusing for me. I used to think that we can just use infinitive form after insist.

I have seen this in a teacher's guide: 

This subjunctive form is used in _that_ clauses following these verbs: demand, insist, propose, recommend,request, suggest.
These verbs can be in the present or past tense.The subjunctive form stays the same.

I insist that she leave tomorrow.
I insisted that she leave tomorrow.

But now I am having a second thought about using should or even past form here.

I have also another question.
Is it correct to say  ' *I insist her to leave tommorow.*'?

Thank you in advance for answering this.


----------



## JamesM

min300 said:


> I have also another question.
> Is it correct to say ' *I insist her to leave tommorow.*'?


 
No. "insist" doesn't take an object in that way.  You can't "insist" anyone.


----------



## tanager

I insist that she leave tomorrow.
I insisted that she leave tomorrow.

But now I am having a second thought about using should or even past form here.

Both underlined sentences sound fine to me. "I insist/ed that she leave tomorrow" is an indirect command. "I insist that she should leave tomorrow" is a little more ambiguous to me: it's either a softened indirect command or it underscores that you believe that she ought to do it.


----------



## kenny4528

Hi, 
I hope that I will not make thing complicated, but so far it seems that we only discussed the positive sentence, _i.e. The children insisted that she read them a story every night._ I wonder in negative sentence, *i.e. Peter insisted we not leave late.*----Does this wording sound Ok to you or will you use it in spoken English?

Many thanks.


----------



## JamesM

kenny4528 said:


> I wonder in negative sentence, *i.e. Peter insisted we not leave late.*----Does this wording sound Ok to you or will you use it in spoken English?
> 
> Many thanks.


 
It sounds fine to me.  I would probably add "that".... "Peter insisted that we not leave late."


----------



## kenny4528

JamesM said:


> It sounds fine to me.  I would probably add "that".... "Peter insisted that we not leave late."


 
Thank you.


----------



## Loob

kenny4528 said:


> Hi, I hope that I will not make thing complicated, but so far it seems that we only discussed the positive sentence, _i.e. The children insisted that she read them a story every night._ I wonder in negative sentence, *i.e. Peter insisted we not leave late.*----Does this wording sound Ok to you or will you use it in spoken English?
> 
> Many thanks.


 
I hesitate to re-enter this discussion - but I don't think the red sentence would work in my version of British English. For me, it would need to be _*Peter insisted we shouldn't leave late.*_


Loob


----------



## min300

JamesM said:


> No. "insist" doesn't take an object in that way.  You can't "insist" anyone.



I had this question for a long time in mind. Thank you for  your  answer.


----------



## Arrius

In *Hela's* original sentence "The children insisted that she read them a story every night." the subjunctive verb read (/ri:d/) which I myself would still use in speech as well as writing, has become so rare, that a German colleague of mine whose written English was considerably better than that of many well-educated native speakers had never heard of it, and disputed its existence when I argued the point. This although the man was well versed in the English Classics written at a time when the English subjunctive had been in better health and had written a thesis on the metaphors in Dickens!


----------



## liliput

This thread also discusses the subjunctive and the use of should:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=528709
The example sentence "It seems strange that he should call her so often." really doesn't work without "should", and any other form of the verb "call" changes the meaning.
The example sentence in the current post "The children insisted that she read them a story every night." looks fine to me, and in it's written form can indeed be interpreted as a subjunctive or past tense, the meanings of course being very different. It would be clear from the full context which it was. The addition of "should", in this case, would imply obligation.


----------



## Hela

But would it be correct to say: "It seems strange that he call*S* her so often." or "The children insisted that she read*S* them a story every night." ?


----------



## HistofEng

Hela said:


> But would it be correct to say: "It seems strange that he call*S* her so often." or "The children insisted that she read*S* them a story every night." ?


 

The first one sounds fine to me while the second just sounds plain wrong to my ears.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

HistofEng said:


> The first one sounds fine to me while the second just sounds plain wrong to my ears.


 
Even if when the second means? :-  The children (who are staying overnight with friends) insisted that she (their mother) reads them (normally reads them) a story every night (and so they ought to be read to tonight because that's what they are used to)?

Unless I misunderstood him, JamesM in post 8 suggested that The children insisted that she read*S* them a story every night would be fine in AE in that sense.


----------



## Arrius

Originally Posted by *Hela* 
_But would it be correct to say_: "It seems strange that he call*S* her so often."_ or_ "The children insisted that she read*S* them a story every night." ?

Originally Posted by *HistofEng*
_The first one sounds fine to me while the second just sounds plain wrong to my ears._

Agreed, with a slight reservation, in respect of British English too:
In _No.1,_ *calls* refers to an on-going _fact_, so no need for a subjunctive and consequent loss of the third person *S* . 
_No. 2_ , *The children insisted that she readS them a story every ni*ght, would be right only if the sense is that the occurrence of such reading is in dispute,and the children fervently allege that they still do get read to every night. (Perhaps it is a question of sacking Mary Poppins for dereliction of duty much to the chagrin of her protesting juvenile charges).

*Loob*'s sentence *Peter insisted we not leave late*, I personally feel to be grammatically correct but very odd-sounding because of its staccato brevity. If one lengthens it to *Peter insisted that we not leave too late*, it sounds rather formal but considerably more authentic (at least to me).


----------



## liliput

Hela said:


> But would it be correct to say: "It seems strange that he call*S* her so often." or "The children insisted that she read*S* them a story every night." ?


 
The sentence "It seems strange that he call*S* her so often." makes sense, but the point is that it doesn't have quite the same meaning as "It seems strange that he should call her so often." The subjunctive here conveys the speaker's attitude about the likelihood or factuality of the situation - she is considering the possible reasons why he might call so often. This connotation is lost if you replace "should call" with "calls".
The difference between "The children insisted that she read*S* them a story every night." and "The children insisted that she read them a story every night." is even greater, as I believe has already been pointed out.


----------



## mplsray

liliput said:


> The difference between "The children insisted that she read*S* them a story every night." and "The children insisted that she read them a story every night." is even greater, as I believe has already been pointed out.


 
In a previous thread, I pointed out a substitution of the indicative for the subjunctive which can act as a shibboleth between British English and American English. In a sentence such as _I would have recommended that he *was* promoted if he hadn’t stolen from the register._ no speaker of American English, no matter what his level of education, would use the indicative _was_ but would instead use _be_--and would use the subjunctive form (bare infinitive) in other sentences of this type--but such a sentence is acceptable to some standard speakers of British English. Unless I am missing some subtle point, then, some standard speakers of British English would find it acceptable to say _The children insisted that she *reads* them a story every night._ with the same meaning as _The children insisted that she *read* them a story every night._

(Note that I am also aware that there are standard speakers of British English who would never allow such a use of the indicative for the subjunctive to pass their lips.)


----------



## cycloneviv

mplsray said:


> Unless I am missing some subtle point, then, some standard speakers of British English would find it acceptable to say _The children insisted that she *reads* them a story every night._ with the same meaning as _The children insisted that she *read* them a story every night._




Personally, definitely not. Those two sentences have a very different meaning, as has been described in earlier posts.

Of course, I can't speak for all BE/AusE speakers, but I'd find it very odd indeed if someone thought those sentences meant the same thing.


----------



## mplsray

A section of a book in which the British use of the indicative in place of the mandative subjunctive is discussed can be found by doing the following:

Do a Google search for 

"British English" "indicative" "subjunctive" "that he leaves"

Click on the link to the Google Books version of _British or American English?: A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns_ by John Algeo.

Google oddity: I just did the same search using a friend's computer. On her computer, for some reason, Google did not show the Algeo book among the hits for those search terms. However, under the Google logo in the upper left-hand corner of the page there were the words "Web" and "Books," with the latter being a link. When I clicked on "Books," it that took me to a Google page which included a link to the Google Books version of the Algeo book in which mandative constructions are discussed.


----------



## Loob

A year on and a year braver, I would stick with what I wrote in my first post in this thread


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Even the bit at the bottom about how we ought to ignore the post, Loob?  I've probably missed a point again.


----------

