# Subjunctive with modal verbs ?



## Macunaíma

There are very few instances in which the subjunctive is used in English nowadays (i.g. "*I suggest he see a doctor*", "*If he were older he would be arrested*", etc.), but there are some constructs formed with modal verbs that seem to be used to express some sort of subjunctive:

I hope he may like the gift I've sent him.
It's unbelievable that she should have behaved so.
It was inevitable that they should win.
May he rest in peace.
"All this would be improved if Your Majesty would agree to marry" ( this sentence I picked from the film Elizabeth I )
We all expect that he shall be appointed.
He sang loudly so that his voice would drown out the racket in the wing.

These are all examples taken from books and films. Surprisingly, this use is not mentioned in my grammar book as subjunctive. 

My question is: does it work like subjunctive? What are the "rules" I should know about when using these verbs to express conjecture, possibility, probability, wish, etc. ? I would appreciate if someone could provide me with a link to a website where I could find further explanation.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## roxcyn

This thread may help you.  I know I learnt a lot from it 

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=270027


----------



## Macunaíma

Thanks for the link, Roxcyn.

Elroy had told me about the subjunctive being used in English more often than people realized. I think I'm slowly getting to grips with the subject. However, I'd really like to know a litlle more about those constructions I mentioned above. Do they sound literary? Are they possible and correct?
It's amazing that I cannot find anything about the stuff in any grammar book.


----------



## Joelline

Hi,

I honestly don't know many AE speakers who would actually say the following:
I hope he may like the gift I've sent him.
We all expect that he shall be appointed.

Both of these sentences sound stiff and artificial.  The first seems particularly awkward.  Why wouldn't one simply say, "I hope that he likes the gift I've sent him"?  The second will create a problem for many AE natives who tend to avoid "shall" at all costs in all situations (unless we are mocking our BE cousins, of course).

Regarding other sites on this topic, I find this one to be informative and amusing:
God Save the Subjunctive!  http://www.ceafinney.com/subjunctive/index.html
(be sure to visit the links at the top of the home page)


----------



## cuchuflete

Macunaíma said:


> There are very few instances in which the subjunctive is used in English nowadays (i.g. "*I suggest he see a doctor*", "*If he were older he would be arrested*", etc.),   Please note that the instances may be few, in terms of specific applications which are described by grammar rules, but the frequency of use of these forms is great.  These are not rare constructions.  but there are some constructs formed with modal verbs that seem to be used to express some sort of subjunctive:
> 
> I hope he may like the gift I've sent him.  Arcane...you are not apt to hear or read this in AE.
> It's unbelievable that she should have behaved so.  Get rid of 'so' at the end, substitute 'that way', and you might hear it in AE.
> It was inevitable that they should win. Possible, but uncommon. Most AE speakers would say 'would win.'
> May he rest in peace. Common, at least at funerals.
> "All this would be improved if Your Majesty would agree to marry" ( this sentence I picked from the film Elizabeth I ) This construction is not uncommon. "The Red Sox would have a stronger lineup if they would agree to the slugger's salary demands."  It would be far more common to hear this without the second 'would'.
> We all expect that he shall be appointed. Not in AE.
> He sang loudly so that his voice would drown out the racket in the wing. She worked faster so that her work would be completed on time.  Yes...this is also a reasonable construction in AE.


Are these subjunctive or conditional or something else?  I don't know.


----------



## roxcyn

Regards to "shall"  To my ears if you say:

"We all expect that he will be appointed...." it sounds better, but I am sure with British English that shall would be fine


----------



## jabogitlu

I always thought that verbs like "should go," "would go" etc. were just that - verb phrases.  To say "He should go..." instead of "He should goes..." is just how you conjugate it.  I'm not sure these are subjunctive.


----------



## Macunaíma

jabogitlu said:


> I'm not sure these are subjunctive.


 
Neither am I. But they DO look like subjunctive, don't they? At least they translate as subjunctive into my native language, and that's why I'm keen on becoming familiar with them. 90% of my mistakes when producing in English are caused by attempts to translate my idea of subjunctive.

Chuchufete, thanks for your comments. Joelline, thank you for the link.

I have just found these sentences in my old high-school English textbook, written by a Professor of English from Cambridge University who's written a lot of school books for native speakers of Portuguese:

" May can be used to express an end, a purpose:
- *He'll come early so that he may get a first-row seat*;
hope, fear, probability:
- *I hope he may be right*;
- *I fear that we may be mistaken*;
- *I'm afraid I may have lost the keys*. "

However, there is nothing about _should _or _would_.

I guess this is one of those things which you have to learn as you meet them.

English is a fascinating language.


----------



## cuchuflete

Macunaíma,
I'm sorry that I cannot tell you if the "would" expressions are subjunctive in English.  Many of them certainly would be 
translated using the subjunctive in SP and PT, so your question has good logic to it.  

I'll hunt around for more information about this.

This click
is among the more clearly written descriptions I have seen.  It tells me that the "would" use is not considered subjunctive in English.  Rather, I assume it to be conditional in English, although it demands the subjunctive in some Romance languages.


----------



## Aupick

You might be interested in this thread from the past in considering sentences two and three: putative should. Post #8 is (perhaps) rather interesting (if you're in the mood for that kind of thing). Some of the links in other posts might also be useful. 

Something I read after reading that thread (but which I can't find now) suggested that the use of modals in place of the subjunctive or as subjunctives was a growing tendency in British (but not American) English in the middle of the 20th century, but one that has receded in the last couple of decades.


----------



## mplsray

Macunaíma said:


> There are very few instances in which the subjunctive is used in English nowadays (i.g. "*I suggest he see a doctor*", "*If he were older he would be arrested*", etc.), but there are some constructs formed with modal verbs that seem to be used to express some sort of subjunctive:
> 
> I hope he may like the gift I've sent him.
> It's unbelievable that she should have behaved so.
> It was inevitable that they should win.
> May he rest in peace.
> "All this would be improved if Your Majesty would agree to marry" ( this sentence I picked from the film Elizabeth I )
> We all expect that he shall be appointed.
> He sang loudly so that his voice would drown out the racket in the wing.
> 
> These are all examples taken from books and films. Surprisingly, this use is not mentioned in my grammar book as subjunctive.
> 
> My question is: does it work like subjunctive? What are the "rules" I should know about when using these verbs to express conjecture, possibility, probability, wish, etc. ? I would appreciate if someone could provide me with a link to a website where I could find further explanation.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


 

_A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language_ by Randolph Quirk et al. identifies two uses of _may_ in what they call a _quasi-subjunctive,_ one which parallels the formulaic subjunctive (that is, the subjunctive in "frozen forms"): 

"_May_ God bless you! [= God bless you!]" 

and one used in subordinate clauses of concession or purpose (_might_ also is used in this fashion): 

"Strange as/though it _may_ seem..."
"Christ died, that we _might_ live."


----------



## B.B.James

Hi

I agree that the subjunctive is used more often in English (or at least should be) than people realise, however don't confuse it with simple modal verbs and the conditional tense.

Verbs formed with would/should are in the conditional form, could/may are modal verbs used to express permission/ability etc.

Some popular words/phrases derived from or using the subjunctive:

'albeit'
"I wouldn't do that if I were you"
"Till death do us part"
"If I were a rich man"
"I hate the heat, whether it be here or overseas"

BB


----------



## Macunaíma

I have found this explanation about the uses of should+infinitive as subjunctive in the BBC Learning English website and I will leave it here in case somebody else is interested.

Thanks for your posts and merry Christmas to you guys!


----------



## jabogitlu

> "Till death do us part"



I wonder why we use subjunctive here?

Eurgh - English subj. gives me a headache! May I never have to see it again!


----------



## chitown curious

Hello, Everyone-
Roxcyn confirms my experience. We Statesiders love "will" rather than "shall". A strong willed people, eh?


----------



## SoupleCommeLeVent

roxcyn said:


> Regards to "shall"  To my ears if you say:
> 
> "We all expect that he will be appointed...." it sounds better, but I am sure with British English that shall would be fine



You would be much more likely to hear "he will" or just "he'll" in this sentence in the UK as well!  

"Shall" in this sentence sounds overly formal to me.


----------



## B.B.James

Hi

Yes I agree the subjunctive is a strange mood to use for the phrase, "Till death do us part" given that the subjunctive is supposed to express doubt, denial, or possibility.  Since death is pretty certain, the implication is that something else might part the couple - surely no one was thinking when they wrote the traditional wedding vows to include little grammatical disclaimers??

May I also clear up will v shall?

'Shall' as a future auxiliary should be used in the first person (I shall, we shall) and 'will' should be used in all other cases.  Does this sound weird?  Well what about this - when expressing emphasis the two should switch (I WILL, we WILL) and SHALL becomes the emphatic auxiliary for the others.

It's an old rule which no one really minds one not adhering to, but here are some examples:

"We WILL do our best" (from the Cub Scout promise)
"You SHALL go to the ball" (Cinderella's fairy godmother, I believe)

OK, unusual examples but correct ones nevertheless  

BB


----------



## jazyk

The subjunctive in English is simply the base form of the verb (the one you find in the dictionary, no s's, ed's, ing's, etc., appended) without the word to.
I suggested she see a specialist.
God save the queen.
It is important that we all be here on time.

And so on and so forth.


----------



## Outsider

B.B.James said:


> Yes I agree the subjunctive is a strange mood to use for the phrase, "Till death do us part" given that the subjunctive is supposed to express doubt, denial, or possibility.  Since death is pretty certain, the implication is that something else might part the couple - surely no one was thinking when they wrote the traditional wedding vows to include little grammatical disclaimers??


Yet that's precisely what we do in Romance languages: _até que a morte nos separe_ (_separe_ is subj.) 

A (possible) explanation is that the moment of death is unknown and unforeseeable, hence in a sense "uncertain".


----------



## panjandrum

B.B.James said:


> [...]
> May I also clear up will v shall?
> [...]


Not really necessary - at least not in this thread.  Previous clearing up discussions include:
*Where is "SHALL" used?*


----------



## jaxineau

B.B.James said:


> Hi
> 
> I agree that the subjunctive is used more often in English (or at least should be) than people realise, however don't confuse it with simple modal verbs and the conditional tense.
> 
> Verbs formed with would/should are in the conditional form, could/may are modal verbs used to express permission/ability etc.
> 
> Some popular words/phrases derived from or using the subjunctive:
> 
> 'albeit'
> "I wouldn't do that if I were you"
> isnt this conditional?
> "Till death do us part"
> shouldnt this be do we part since us cannot act because its an object?
> "If I were a rich man"
> conditional, present untrue statement
> "I hate the heat, whether it be here or overseas"
> 
> BB


 
i think there is an overlap in subjunctive and conditional tenses.


----------



## winklepicker

roxcyn said:


> Regards to "shall" To my ears if you say:
> 
> "We all expect that he will be appointed...." it sounds better, but I am sure with British English that shall would be fine


 
Not really. BE would also prefer 'will' in this context. See the previous thread(s) on shall and will.

More elegant, perhaps, is "We all expect him to be appointed...."


----------



## winklepicker

"Till death do us part"
shouldnt this be do we part since us cannot act because its an object?

No. It's a poetical form of "Till death do part us" or "Till death parts us". _Us_ is fine as the object: _we_ would be the subject.


----------



## Outsider

The subject in "till death do us part" is "death". "Us" is the object.


----------



## mplsray

jazyk said:


> The subjunctive in English is simply the base form of the verb (the one you find in the dictionary, no s's, ed's, ing's, etc., appended) without the word to.
> I suggested she see a specialist.
> God save the queen.
> It is important that we all be here on time.
> 
> And so on and so forth.


 
That's true of the tense called the _present subjunctive._ The other subjunctive tense is the _past subjunctive_ (so named because it uses a past verb form), also known as the _were_-subjunctive (because it differs in form from the indicative only when _was_ is replaced by _were_).

The _subjunctive mood_ is another matter. Some authorities would consider _I suggested she should see a specialist_ and _May God save the Queen_ to be in the subjunctive mood, even though they don't use the subjunctive tense but instead use the modal verbs _should_ and _may._ And some would consider _I suggested that she sees a specialist_ and _If I was you..._ to be in the subjunctive mood, even though they also do not use the subjunctive tense.


----------



## Outsider

mplsray said:


> The _subjunctive mood_ is another matter. Some authorities would consider _I suggested she should see a specialist_ and _May God save the Queen_ to be in the subjunctive mood, even though they don't use the subjunctive tense but instead use the modal verbs _should_ and _may._ And some would consider _I suggested that she sees a specialist_ and _If I was you..._ to be in the subjunctive mood, even though they also do not use the subjunctive tense.


It seems to me that it's mostly authorities on English grammar who do that. In continental European languages, "if it doesn't walk or quack different, it's still the same duck".


----------



## winklepicker

Outsider said:


> The subject in "till death do us part" is "death". "Us" is the object.


 
Quite right. I misspoke. I meant that if us were the subject it would be we. If you see what I mean.


----------



## Outsider

winklepicker said:


> Quite right. I misspoke. I meant that if us were the subject it would be we. If you see what I mean.


I understood what you said perfectly, and I think you were right. I just wanted to add something which was missing from your explanation, which was that "death" is the subject of the sentence. (You spoke only about "we/us".)


----------



## jaxineau

winklepicker said:


> Quite right. I misspoke. I meant that if us were the subject it would be we. If you see what I mean.


 
I don't understand why death is the subject. I think the sentence is trying to say that it's not that death parts us but we part because of death. Wouldn't it make more sense if "we" were used?


----------



## jaxineau

Outsider said:


> It seems to me that it's mostly authorities on English grammar who do that. In continental European languages, "if it doesn't walk or quack differently, it's still the same duck".


 
This can be explained with the conditional tense better. This is a present and future true fact. The fact that it doesn't walk differently makes it still the same duck. Hence, one uses the present simple tense.


----------



## B.B.James

jaxineau said:


> "I wouldn't do that if I were you"
> isnt this conditional?
> "Till death do us part"
> shouldnt this be do we part since us cannot act because its an object?
> "If I were a rich man"
> conditional, present untrue statement
> 
> i think there is an overlap in subjunctive and conditional tenses.


 
Hi

"I wouldn't do that" is in the conditional, "if I were you" is the subjunctive.

Various partners in crime have already dealt with 'till death do us part' but basically it is an old weird version of a traditional phrase used regularly (more for some than others) which happens to derive from the subjunctive, thus use of the word 'do' instead of its conjugated form 'does'.  Death is the subject because it is given a manifestation, we often see death as becoming like an active being and able to choose when to part the couple.

"If I were a rich man" is not in the conditional tense - it's in the past subjunctive. However, any subordinate relative clause attached to it would appear in the conditional, "If I were rich, I would buy a Ferrari", for example.

Hope this helps!

BB


----------



## gaer

Outsider said:


> It seems to me that it's mostly authorities on English grammar who do that. In continental European languages, "if it doesn't walk or quack different, it's still the same duck".


I disagree.

If you say "I wish I was king…" the meaning is the same as if you "I wish I were king…". The "mood" is the same, isn't it?

My biggest problem with this whole subject is separating conditional from subjunctive.

For instance:

_I suggested she [should] see a specialist._

Without "should", "she see" uses the structure described as subjunctive, but what is it really?  

Gaer


----------



## jaxineau

gaer said:


> I disagree.
> 
> If you say "I wish I was king…" the meaning is the same as if you "I wish I were king…". The "mood" is the same, isn't it?
> 
> My biggest problem with this whole subject is separating conditional from subjunctive.
> 
> Gaer


 
I see that too. Conditional is denoted by a subjunctive tense?
For that was/were thing, was is everyday English, were is the real way to say it.


----------



## Outsider

jaxineau said:


> I don't understand why death is the subject. I think the sentence is trying to say that it's not that death parts us but we part because of death. Wouldn't it make more sense if "we" were used?


No, the meaning of the sentence is "until death separates us from each other".

And thanks for the grammatical correction, but I was being deliberately colloquial. 



gaer said:


> If you say "I wish I was king…" the meaning is the same as if you "I wish I were king…". The "mood" is the same, isn't it?


I would say no. "Mood" is not just a semantic notion; it's also about morphology. See here how different moods (and tenses!) can be used to convey the same idea.

Well, I know that English language grammarians and modern linguists don't analyse it like this, but this is how we traditionally did it in the continent, and my language actually has a living subjunctive.


----------



## gaer

jaxineau said:


> I see that too. Conditional is denoted by a subjunctive tense?
> For that was/were thing, was is everyday English, were is the real way to say it.


Sorry. I added a question. The difference between conditional and subjunctive is something I've never completely understood. I think that there are "gray" areas.


----------



## B.B.James

Hi

Saying "I wish I were king" is a simple subjunctive phrase, whereas "I wish I was..." anything is technically grammatically incorrect.  I blame all the pop artists for their continued use!

The conditional uses an auxiliary (usually 'would') and the conditional and the subjunctive can be used separately (I would love an ice cream/I wish I were rich) or together (If I were rich I would buy an ice cream).

They are therefore distinct from each other, but is common to find them paired together.

BB


----------



## Outsider

gaer said:


> For instance:
> 
> _I suggested she [should] see a specialist._
> 
> Without "should", "she see" uses the structure described as subjunctive, but what is it really?


What is what really, sorry?


----------



## gaer

B.B.James said:


> Hi
> 
> Saying "I wish I were king" is a simple subjunctive phrase, whereas "I wish I was..." anything is technically grammatically incorrect. I blame all the pop artists for their continued use!
> 
> The conditional uses an auxiliary (usually 'would') and the conditional and the subjunctive can be used separately (I would love an ice cream/I wish I were rich) or together (If I were rich I would buy an ice cream).
> 
> They are therefore distinct from each other, but is common to find them paired together.
> 
> BB


Okay, but what about "should"?

"I should get more sleep tonight."

Gaer


----------



## mplsray

B.B.James said:


> Hi
> 
> Saying "I wish I were king" is a simple subjunctive phrase, whereas "I wish I was..." anything is technically grammatically incorrect. I blame all the pop artists for their continued use!


 
Whether _I wish I was..._ is "technically grammatically incorrect" depends upon what you mean by _grammatically incorrect._ From a linguistic point of view, _I wish I was..._ is grammatically incorrect in some dialects of English and grammatically correct in others, since there are dialects which do not use the _were_-subjunctive but use _was_ instead. That is, _I wish I was..._ is a statement which correctly conforms to the grammar of those dialects, and so could be called "grammatically correct."

I know what you were trying to say, of course, but in my opinion using the word _technically_ in an attempt to refer to either (1) standard as opposed to nonstandard grammar or (2) formal standard grammar as opposed to informal standard grammar is something best avoided.

And you needn't blame the pop artists. They are following, rather than leading.


----------



## panjandrum

Usual comment about subjunctives, pop artists and kids.
WMPG, aged almost seven, sings along to "I wish I was a punk-rocker ..." with "I wish I were a punk-rocker ..."
It's not gone yet.


----------



## gaer

panjandrum said:


> Usual comment about subjunctives, pop artists and kids.
> WMPG, aged almost seven, sings along to "I wish I was a punk-rocker ..." with "I wish I were a punk-rocker ..."
> It's not gone yet.


To the extent that it is gone, it's BEEN gone for at least a couple hundred years.


----------



## Erutuon

gaer said:


> Okay, but what about "should"?
> 
> "I should get more sleep tonight."


 
That's a different use, synonymous with "ought to", expressing obligation.


----------

