# If you had been..., you would have....  [subjunctive past / past perfect]



## Honki

Hi.

Sentence (1) below is what you call subjunctive past.

(1) If you were driving to the city now, you would avoid the weekend traffic.

What I would like to know is the subjunctive past perfective sentence of (1).
Look at sentence (2) below.

(2) If you had been driving to the city at that time, you would have avoided the weekend traffic.

Is this sentence (2) subjunctive past, or subjunctive past perfect?


Thanks in advance.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm not at all sure I'm with you in your first premise, Honki.  I don't think were has to be a subjunctive in the if-clause in (1).  It could perfectly well be an indicative. _I was, you were, he was, etc._

I'm not clear that there's a subjunctive in (2) either, though I've seen people argue that there is, in parallel circumstances.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't think were has to be a subjunctive in the if-clause in (1). It could perfectly well be an indicative. _I was, you were, he was, etc._


If we agree that (1) is a second conditional, then it must mean that "were driving" is Past (continuous) Subjunctive.

Similarly, in (2), "had been driving" is Past Perfect (continuous) Subjunctive.


----------



## Honki

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm not at all sure I'm with you in your first premise, Honki.  I don't think were has to be a subjunctive in the if-clause in (1).  It could perfectly well be an indicative. _I was, you were, he was, etc._
> 
> I'm not clear that there's a subjunctive in (2) either, though I've seen people argue that there is, in parallel circumstances.


In sentence (1) "were" is in the form of past tense, and "now" in the if-clause indicate the present.
So, sentence (1) is Subjunctive Past.


----------



## Honki

VicNicSor said:


> If we agree that (1) is a second conditional, then it must mean that "were driving" is Past (continuous) Subjunctive.
> 
> Similarly, in (2), "had been driving" is Past Perfect (continuous) Subjunctive.


Hi, VicnicSor

Thak you for your comment.

Your comment is very helpful.


----------



## Honki

Can I think that in sentence (2) " you *had been driving* to the city" the past perfective form of "you *are driving* to the city"?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

VicNicSor said:


> If we agree that (1) is a second conditional, then it must mean that "were driving" is Past (continuous) Subjunctive.
> 
> Similarly, in (2), "had been driving" is Past Perfect (continuous) Subjunctive.


What makes you say these things?  What makes you think they are not indicatives?

Can you think that the_ was_ in _If I was driving in the city now, I would avoid the week-end traffic_, is a subjunctive?

Granted that it's obvious, to me, that it's an indicative, how can you say that _you were_, in equivalent circumstances, *must *be a subjunctive.

Very odd subjunctive!

Are there people, or books, somewhere telling you these things?  If so, you should be questioning them.


----------



## VicNicSor

I've already said why I think they are not indicatives, TT. Most grammar sources say that, I believe. I don't know why you think it's not the subjunctive


Thomas Tompion said:


> Can you think that the_ was_ in _If I was driving in the city now, I would avoid the week-end traffic_, is a subjunctive?


If you're asking whether replacing "were" with "was" in a second conditional makes the subjunctive the indicative, I believe it's still the subjunctive mood.


----------



## Honki

Thomas Tompion said:


> What makes you say these things?  What makes you think they are not indicatives?
> 
> Can you think that the_ was_ in _If I was driving in the city now, I would avoid the week-end traffic_, is a subjunctive?
> 
> Granted that it's obvious, to me, that it's an indicative, how can you say that _you were_, in equivalent circumstances, *must *be a subjunctive.
> 
> Very odd subjunctive!
> 
> Are there people, or books, somewhere telling you these things?  If so, you should be questioning them.


According to Quirk et al. (1985), if sentence (1) is subjunctive, the sentence _If I was driving in the city now, I would avoid the week-end traffic_  will implicate that I am not driving now.
So, it seems to me that this sentence is subjunctive.


----------



## PaulQ

Honki said:


> What I would like to know is the subjunctive past perfect sentence of (1).
> Look at sentence (2) below.
> 
> (2) If you had been driving to the city at that time, you would have avoided the weekend traffic.


Yes, that is correct.

The subjunctive is not always apparent in English and a sentence can appear in the subjunctive or the indicative with no change or the only change being visible in the verb "to be" or the third person present.

The sentence "(1) If *I* were driving to the city now, I would avoid the weekend traffic." is definitely subjunctive - the speaker is speaking of an unreal situation.

When that sentence is put into the present perfect it is _"If you had been driving to the city at that time, you would have avoided the weekend traffic." _or _"Had you been driving to the city at that time, you would have avoided the weekend traffic."
_
Quirk's example is not very good - in English "now" can mean "at this moment" or "nowadays": it is the latter meaning that would call for the subjunctive.


----------



## Honki

OK,
Then, next, look at sentence (A) below:

(A) If you are standig there at about 6 o'clock tomorrow morning, you will see a very beautiful sunset.

This sentence (A) is the indicative mood.
I would like to know whether or not sentences (B) and (C) below are subjunctive mood.

(B) If you were standing there at about 6 o'clock this evening, you would see a very beautiful sunset.
(C) If you had been standing there at that time, you would have seen a very beautiful sunset.

Are sentences (B) and (C) subjunctive mood?


----------



## PaulQ

Honki said:


> Are sentences (B) and (C) subjunctive mood?


In order to answer your question, I need you to do two things:

1. Instead of using "you" as the subject, use "I"
2. Tell us what the speaker means by "*there*." Does he mean somewhere that is distant; somewhere that he was years ago, or does he mean a place that the listener can easily get to now., e.g. his garden?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

VicNicSor said:


> I've already said why I think they are not indicatives, TT. Most grammar sources say that, I believe. I don't know why you think it's not the subjunctive
> 
> If you're asking whether replacing "were" with "was" in a second conditional makes the subjunctive the indicative, I believe it's still the subjunctive mood.


I didn't say it wasn't a subjunctive.

I said it wasn't necessarily a subjunctive.

I was not asking anything.  I'm saying that_* If I was driving in the city now, I would avoid the week-end traffic* _is a perfectly good second conditional sentence in British English.  And *I was* is clearly an indicative, NOT a subjunctive.

You seem to be saying that *I was* is a subjunctive form here, but *If I were driving in the city now* would be the subjunctive form.

You can't just mention Quirk et al and a date, without giving chapter and verse.  I don't think Quirk would say that* If I was etc.* was a subjunctive, because it obviously isn't, and you need to quote him and give the page number, if you want me to believe that he made such a mistake.

Remember you said *you were* must be a subjunctive in these circumstances, but *you were* is the indicative as well as the subjunctive form.  If the indicative is fine in the first person, whatever makes you think it ceases to be fine in the second?


----------



## VicNicSor

I didn't quote Quirk, Honki did.


Thomas Tompion said:


> You seem to be saying that *I was* is a subjunctive form here, but *If I were driving in the city now* would be the subjunctive form.


Sorry I don't understand what you mean.


Thomas Tompion said:


> I didn't say it wasn't a subjunctive.
> 
> I said it wasn't necessarily a subjunctive.


You said that "were" in the OP "could perfectly well be an indicative.". And I just disagree with that.
I think this is an example of an indicative "were driving":
If you *were driving* past my house yesterday at 9 o'clock, you must have noticed the lights were on.
But this is not a conditional.


----------



## Honki

PaulQ said:


> In order to answer your question, I need you to do two things:
> 
> 1. Instead of using "you" as the subject, use "I"
> 2. Tell us what the speaker means by "*there*." Does he mean somewhere that is distant; somewhere that he was years ago, or does he mean a place that the listener can easily get to now., e.g. his garden?


OK. I will change my qustion.
Are sentences (D) and (E) below subjunctive mood?
"there" in sentences (D) and (E) is a place that the listener can easily get to now.

(D) If he were standing there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he would see a very beautiful sunset.
(E) If he had been standing there at that time, he would have seen a very beautiful sunset.


----------



## Loob

Honki said:


> (D) If he were standing there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he would see a very beautiful sunset.
> (E) If he had been standing there at that time, he would have seen a very beautiful sunset.


I can't see any grounds for calling "had been standing" a subjunctive: why would you want to do that, Honki?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Honki said:


> OK. I will change my qustion.
> Are sentences (D) and (E) below subjunctive mood?
> "there" in sentences (D) and (E) is a place that the listener can easily get to now.
> 
> (D) If he were standing there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he would see a very beautiful sunset.
> (E) If he had been standing there at that time, he would have seen a very beautiful sunset.


(D) is in the subjunctive, in my view.

I think opinions differ about (E).  The forms are identical, so it's hard to say.

You'll find some intelligent people who would say (E) is subjunctive.  When the forms are the same, I avoid being categorical.  I don't see any point in giving an indicative form a fancy name.


----------



## Honki

Thomas Tompion said:


> (D) is in the subjunctive, in my view.
> 
> I think opinions differ about (E).  The forms are identical, so it's hard to say.
> 
> You'll find some intelligent people who would say (E) is subjunctive.  When the forms are the same, I avoid being categorical.  I don't see any point in giving an indicative form a fancy name.


The if-clause of (D) is the past form of "if he is standing there"
So, sentence (D) is subjunctive mood.

On the other hand, the if-clause of (E) is the past perfective form of "if he is standing there".
So, it seems that sentence (E) may be judged as subjunctive past perfective.

Everyone, what do you think about this idea?


----------



## e2efour

Honki said:


> (D) If he were standing there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he would see a very beautiful sunset.
> (E) If he had been standing there at that time, he would have seen a very beautiful sunset.



The only "subjunctive" here is with _were_ (which is found in the first and third persons only). _You were_ is a past indicative tense liike any other verbs in English.

But any talk about subjunctives is not helpful. What is important is the time referred to (i.e. past or present/future).

Sentence D can only refer to a hypothetical/unreal situation in the future (because of _he were_). It cannot refer to the past.
If we said _If you were standing there this evening_, _you would see the sunset_, we have two interpretations:
a) a reference to the past (if the person was standing there at that time).
b) a reference to the future (a hypothetical situation).

In sentence E we have a past time reference. The situation may be hypothetical/unreal (i.e. he was not standing there at the time) or a real condition (i.e. we do not know whether he was standing there or not). This sentence pattern is usually reserved for hypothetical situations. For real situations in the past, we usually say _If he was standing there_ or _If he stood there_.


----------



## Loob

What value does it add to call (E) "subjunctive", Honki? Certainly, there are other languages where the subjunctive is used in similar contexts; equally, there are other languages where the form is quite clearly the indicative.

 English doesn't have a special past perfect subjunctive form; and it only has a special form of the past subjunctive for the first and third person singular of the verb "be".

Why postulate a subjunctive where you can't see it or hear it?


----------



## siares

This long discussion might interest you, Honki:Subjunctive mood doubt


----------



## DonnyB

Honki said:


> Are sentences (D) and (E) below subjunctive mood?
> "there" in sentences (D) and (E) is a place that the listener can easily get to now.
> 
> (D) If he were standing there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he would see a very beautiful sunset.
> (E) If he had been standing there at that time, he would have seen a very beautiful sunset.


There is no doubt in my mind that the verb in (D) is a past subjunctive.  The indicative (simple past) would be "(D1) If he was standing there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he would see a very beautiful sunset." and_ in my opinion_ would be wrong in that sentence.

In (E) the verb is a pluperfect indicative, for the simple reason that English doesn't_ have_ an identifiable corresponding pluperfect subjunctive form.  I don't want to cloud the issue unnecessarily, but in a language such as Italian which _does _have a pluperfect subjunctive, that's what I would use in that sentence.  But in English it's just a plain ordinary pluperfect.


----------



## Honki

e2efour said:


> The only "subjunctive" here is with _were_ (which is found in the first and third persons only). _You were_ is a past indicative tense liike any other verbs in English.
> 
> But any talk about subjunctives is not helpful. What is important is the time referred to (i.e. past or present/future).
> 
> Sentence D can only refer to a hypothetical/unreal situation in the future (because of _he were_). It cannot refer to the past.
> If we said _If you were standing there this evening_, _you would see the sunset_, we have two interpretations:
> a) a reference to the past (if the person was standing there at that time).
> b) a reference to the future (a hypothetical situation).
> 
> In sentence E we have a past time reference. The situation may be hypothetical/unreal (i.e. he was not standing there at the time) or a real condition (i.e. we do not know whether he was standing there or not). This sentence pattern is usually reserved for hypothetical situations. For real situations in the past, we usually say _If he was standing there_ or _If he stood there_.


That sentence (D) is subjunctive mood is already solved.

A sentence in question is sentence (E).
In my view, sentence (E) can be used in the two situations : hypothetical/unreal (i.e. he was not standing there at the time) or a real condition (i.e. we do not know whether he was standing there or not), as you stated. " hypothetical/unreal (i.e. he was not standing there at the time) condition" here corresponds to what you call subjunctive past perfect.

I have already reslised that native speakers of English do not usually use if-clauses like (E).
Probably it is because a past perfect progressive form is used in an if-clause; native speakers of English will feel that this form is awkward.

Hoever, may I regard that sentence (E) can be used as subjuncitve mood?


----------



## VicNicSor

e2efour said:


> The only "subjunctive" here is with _were_ *(which is found in the first and third persons only)*. _You were_ is a past indicative tense liike any other verbs in English.


The fact that in the second person the subjunctive doesn't differ from the indicaive doesn't make "you were" in a second conditional indicative.


Loob said:


> I can't see any grounds for calling "had been standing" a subjunctive: why would you want to do that, Honki?


For example, the author of this grammar book talks about this kind of subjunctive:
Past perfect continuous subjunctive in the third conditional | Grammaring - A guide to English grammar
Past perfect subjunctive | Grammaring - A guide to English grammar
Wikipedia says that "A pluperfect subjunctive may be considered to exist" (in English).


----------



## Loob

Seriously, Vic, I can't see any logic in what the grammaring links are suggesting. I'm not sure about the Wiki one: it may be suggesting that the past perfect can have an "irrealis" meaning.*

The bottom line, for me, is:
- there is no "past perfect subjunctive" verb form in English.
- there's no reason to hypothesise an "invisible" subjunctive.

* I can't find the sentence you quote.


----------



## e2efour

VicNicSor said:


> The fact that in the second person the subjunctive doesn't differ from the indicaive doesn't make "you were" in a second conditional indicative.


Perhaps you could give an example of a "second conditional" using _you were_?
The use of the past tense in a conditional sentence may or may not have a past reference, depending on the context.


----------



## Honki

DonnyB said:


> There is no doubt in my mind that the verb in (D) is a past subjunctive.  The indicative (simple past) would be "(D1) If he was standing there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he would see a very beautiful sunset." and_ in my opinion_ would be wrong in that sentence.
> 
> In (E) the verb is a pluperfect indicative, for the simple reason that English doesn't_ have_ an identifiable corresponding pluperfect subjunctive form.  I don't want to cloud the issue unnecessarily, but in a language such as Italian which _does _have a pluperfect subjunctive, that's what I would use in that sentence.  But in English it's just a plain ordinary pluperfect.


Here I do not deal with the indicative mood.
What I seek is whether or not sentence (E) can be interpreted as subjunctive.

(E) If he had been standing there at that time, he would have seen a very beautiful sunset.

In short, does sentence (E) implicate that he was not standing there at that time?


----------



## e2efour

It depends on the context.
To bring in an imaginary mood like the subjunctive to describe _he had been standing_ is irrelevant.

Your question should be whether it is a real or an unreal conditional.


----------



## VicNicSor

Loob said:


> - there's no reason to hypothesise an "invisible" subjunctive.


For example, from Wikipedia:


> The *past subjunctive* exists as a distinct form only for the verb _be_, which has the form _were_ throughout:
> 
> Past indicative
> _I *was*, you were, he *was*, we were, they were_
> Past subjunctive
> _(that) I *were*, (that) you were, (that) he *were*, (that) we were, (that) they were_


And I see a good reason for that:
If *you were* driving to the city now, you would avoid the weekend traffic.
*You were* driving to the city when she called.
These two are absolutelly defferent "were".

As well as these two "had been V+ing", different too:
If you* had been driving *to the city at that time, you would have avoided the weekend traffic.
You *had been driving* to the city for two hours when I called you.


e2efour said:


> Perhaps you could give an example of a "second conditional" using _you were_?





Honki said:


> (1) If you were driving to the city now, you would avoid the weekend traffic.


----------



## Loob

Honki said:


> Hoever, may I regard that sentence (E) can be used as subjuncitve mood?


Honki, can you explain in other words what you mean by this question?
I have the feeling that you may not be asking about subjunctive verb forms. Perhaps you're asking about the use of the past perfect (indicative) to talk about unreal or hypothetical situations?


----------



## Loob

VicNicSor said:


> As well as these two "had been V+ing", different too:
> If you* had been driving *to the city at that time, you would have avoided the weekend traffic.
> You *had been driving* to the city for two hours when I called you.


The usage is different, but the form is the same; and for me  the terms "subjunctive" and "indicative" crucially involve *form*.


----------



## e2efour

> "VicNicSor, post: 16700613, member: 617858"
> If *you were* driving to the city now, you would avoid the weekend traffic.
> *You were* driving to the city when she called.
> These two are absolutelly defferent "were".


Of course they are, but in both cases the past indicative is used.
Instead of saying above _If you were driving to the city_, you could also say _If you drove to the city. _In neither case is there a past reference.

The use of the past indicative in an _if-_clause often expresses modal remoteness (a hypothetical or imaginary situation, like _if I won the lottery_). Why on earth would one want to say that _you were_ is not the past indicative?

Use the "duck" test (for _duck_, read _indicative_):
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."


----------



## VicNicSor

Loob said:


> * I can't find the sentence you quote.


It's here:
English subjunctive - Wikipedia


> A pluperfect subjunctive may be considered to exist; its form (_had_ with past participle) does not differ from the corresponding indicative, but a distinction can be sought in the possibility of inversion: _had I sung…_ (equivalent to _if I had sung_). A compound pluperfect subjunctive can be formed with _were_ followed by _to have_ and the verb's past participle; consequently, the previous example can be expressed as such: _if I were to have sung_.[_citation needed_]


----------



## DonnyB

Honki said:


> Here I do not deal with the indicative mood.
> What I seek is whether or not sentence (E) can be interpreted as subjunctive.
> 
> (E) If he had been standing there at that time, he would have seen a very beautiful sunset.
> 
> In short, does sentence (E) implicate that he was not standing there at that time?


To answer the last part of the question first, yes: it does clearly suggest to me that he was not standing there and consequently did not see the sunset.  I would class that an unreal or counterfactual conditional.  However, that does not, in English, make it a subjunctive.

If I may say so, what's coming across here is that you're using the term "subjunctive" to mean "hypothetical conditions".  The subjunctive is a mood, or a *verb form,* and is characterized by different inflections, typically "were" instead of "was" for the past tense forms.  Because, as I tried to explain in post #22, the English pluperfect tense doesn't have an identifiable corresponding subjunctive, it's inaccurate in my opinion to interpret (E) as a subjunctive.


----------



## Loob

VicNicSor said:


> It's here:
> English subjunctive - Wikipedia


Thanks, Vic! All I can say is  - I disagree

PS I agree with Donny's post 34


----------



## Honki

OK. Please look at a pttern below:

(A1) If he* is standig* there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he will see a very beautiful sunset.
(D)  If he* were standing* there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he would see a very beautiful sunset.
(E)  If he *had been standing* there at that time, he would have seen a very beautiful sunset.

The sentences above is progressive forms.
Sentence (A1) is indicative mood.
Sentence (D) is the subjunctive past of the if-clause in (A1).
And, sentence (E) is the sujunctive past perfect on the if-clause in (A1).

In my opinion, progressive forms in the subjunctive should be in a clear pattern.

So, sentence (E) needs to be interpreted as subjunctive.

Have you understood my view?


----------



## VicNicSor

e2efour said:


> Of course they are, but in both cases the past indicative is used.
> Instead of saying above _If you were driving to the city_ you could also say _If you drove to the city. _In neither case is there a past reference.
> 
> The use of the past indicative in an _if-_clause often expresses modal remoteness (a hypothetical or imaginary situation, like _if I won the lottery_). Why on earth would one want to say that _you were_ is not the past indicative?


Sorry, I don't understnad your logic "Past reference" and "past subjunctive" are different things. "Past subjunctive" refers to the present.


----------



## Loob

Honki said:


> OK. Please look at a pttern below:
> 
> (A1) If he* is standig* there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he will see a very beautiful sunset.
> (D)  If he* were standing* there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he would see a very beautiful sunset.
> (E)  If he *had been standing* there at that time, he would have seen a very beautiful sunset.
> 
> The sentences above is progressive forms.
> Sentence (A1) is indicative mood.
> Sentence (D) is the subjunctive past of the if-clause in (A1).
> And, sentence (E) is the sujunctive past perfect on the if-clause in (A1).
> 
> In my opinion, progressive forms in the subjunctive should be in a clear pattern.
> 
> So, sentence (E) needs to be interpreted as subjunctive.
> 
> Have you understood my view?


Well, I think I understand where you're coming from.

But here are my reactions:

A1) If he* is standing* there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he will see a very beautiful sunset. _Indicative: present continuous _
(D)  If he* were standing* there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he would see a very beautiful sunset. _Past subjunctive_
(D+)  If he* was standing* there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he would see a very beautiful sunset. _Indicative: past continuous _
(E)  If he *had been standing* there at that time, he would have seen a very beautiful sunset. _Indicative: past perfect continuous _


----------



## Honki

Loob said:


> Well, I think I understand where you're coming from.
> 
> But here are my reactions:
> 
> A1) If he* is standing* there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he will see a very beautiful sunset. _Indicative: present continuous _
> (D)  If he* were standing* there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he would see a very beautiful sunset. _Past subjunctive_
> (D+)  If he* was standing* there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he would see a very beautiful sunset. _Indicative: past continuous _
> (E)  If he *had been standing* there at that time, he would have seen a very beautiful sunset. _Indicative: past perfect continuous _



Sentence (E) should be interpreted as not only indicative but also subjunctive .
In fact, DonnyB has stated that sentence (E) does clearly suggest that he was not standing there and consequently did not see the sunset (an unreal or counterfactual conditional).

Can't you interpret sentence (E) as implicating that he was not standing there at that time?


----------



## Loob

Honki said:


> Can't you interpret sentence (E) as implicating that he was not standing there at that time?


Yes, of course I can!

But that doesn't mean I see the verb form as subjunctive....

As I've said before, I think you may be confusing the form of the verb ("subjunctive"/"indicative") with the meaning of the clause.


----------



## VicNicSor

Honki said:


> Sentence (E) should be interpreted as not only indicative but also subjunctive .


It's either indicative or subjunctive. Since "subjunctive" is not generally acknowledged for the "unreal or counterfactual" Past Perfect yet, better stick to "indicative"

x-posted with Loob


----------



## karlalou

It seems Michael Swan in his "Practical English Usage" supports what the natives are saying here.


> "Older English had subjunctives, but in modern English they have mostly been replaced by uses of should, would and other modal verbs, by special uses of past tenses, and by ordinary verb forms. English only has a few subjunctive forms left:  third-person singular present verbs without -(e)s. (e.g. she see, he have) and special forms of be (e.g. I be, he were). Except for I/he/she/it were after if, they are not very common." (§567, 1, Michael Swan, Practical English Usage)


I've read somewhere that there's a way of explaining about conditional clauses as the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

The 1st is simple conditional clauses, and so it's indicative.
The 2nd conditional clauses talk about a present 'unreal' thing.
So, the subjunctive clauses like "If I were you" or "I wish I were a bird" is included here, but, I think, the natives are saying if it's not using the special verb form, it's not 'subjunctive'.

And the 3rd conditional clauses talk about a past 'unreal' thing, and it takes the form of past perfect, so this isn't a 'subjunctive' clause.

< Discussion of Japanese removed.  Cagey, moderator >


----------



## Thomas Tompion

It might be worth saying that, in exactly similar circumstances, French, which has more highly developed discrete subjunctive forms, uses the indicative.

They used to use past subjunctives in cases like sentence (E) but have very largely stopped doing so.  You'll find it in Proust, but not much in modern writing.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

This is an instructive thread, for me at least, and it caused me to do a little further reading. The Wikipedia article is very interesting and I found a Reddit blog in which the members discuss the different usages in Romance languages. It's fascinating how complex the systems are. I studied German so I always interpreted English sentences by translating them into German.

It strikes me that we still have hypothetical sentences though the subjunctive _form_ has all but disappeared. There are sentences which use "if" but are not hypothetical. That may be Mr. Tompion's point in post #2. Others seem to argue that if the verb doesn't change form, then it is not subjunctive. So my question is whether any of you might still term it a hypothetical.

Example of what might be a non-hypothetical i.e. indicative use: _If he was driving on Maine Street our cameras will have caught him. _(He may well have been driving on Maine Street.)


----------



## RedwoodGrove

And I see now that karlalou has brought up "conditional" which may be a better term than hypothetical.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

RedwoodGrove said:


> That may be Mr. Tompion's point in post #2.


My point there was that the form used could just as easily be an indicative as a subjunctive, and in cases where the forms are the same I see little point in talking about subjunctives.

I carefully avoid terms like hypothetical and unreal in talking about these things, and certainly wouldn't use 'conditional' as you suggest.  Where they are clear what they are saying, I find people mean different things by these words and this quickly puts them at cross-purposes.


----------



## PaulQ

Honki said:


> (D) If he were standing there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he would see a very beautiful sunset.
> (E) If he had been standing there at that time, he would have seen a very beautiful sunset.


In D, "were" is the subjunctive. It can be justified by circumstance/context:
A [After the funeral]: "It is a pity Harry died - it is wonderful afternoon."
B: "Yes, I can imagine him outside on the terrace. If he were standing there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he would see a very beautiful sunset. That was the sort of thing that pleased him."

The following does not seem to work grammatically: the second clause requires the past perfect.

A [After the funeral]: "It is a pity Harry died - it is wonderful afternoon. If he had only not run across the road..."
B(i): "Yes... and if he had been standing there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he would have seen a very beautiful sunset... but that is not the way things worked out."
B(i): "Yes... and had he been standing there at about 6 o'clock this evening, he would have seen a very beautiful sunset... but that is not the way things worked out."


----------



## Loob

I suspect karlalou's right, and the problem here has something to do with the translation into English of a Japanese grammatical term.

Honki, if you were suggesting in post 1 that both
_(1) If you were driving to the city now, you would avoid the weekend traffic._
and
_(2) If you had been driving to the city at that time, you would have avoided the weekend traffic._​could be described as *hypothetical*, I would not disagree.

And if you were asking whether (2) was the past perfect version of (1), I would say "yes".


----------



## siares

Loob said:


> I suspect karlalou's right, and the problem here has something to do with the translation into English of a Japanese grammatical term.


That could be, but for completeness' sake here are some quotes from a native speaker. They are from the thread I linked to above, but I'm sure I saw these views more times on the forum. (Which is why 'subjunctive' as a term can be as confusing as 'hypothetical', 'contrafactual' etc.)


Einstein said:


> In my view the main characteristic of the *past subjunctive* is the backward shift in tenses: past tense for a hypothetical present and past perfect (double past) for a hypothetical past:
> _I am poor (pres. ind.). If I were rich (past subj.) I’d be happier._
> _He was poor (past ind.). *If he had been rich* (past perf. subj.) he’d have been happier...._
> ...
> There are plenty of cases where identical forms don’t confuse us. To give some childish examples, there are irregular verbs whose past is the same as the present, but in a sentence like “I hit my brother” we understand from the context which tense we are using.





Einstein said:


> Where we differ is in our definition of the subjunctive. You start out from the form of the verb and deduce the mood; I deduce the mood from the role that the verb has in the sentence and the form is a consequence of this.


----------



## Loob

Yes, I used to see "invisible subjunctives" too, siares: I don't any more.


----------



## siares




----------



## RedwoodGrove

Loob said:


> "invisible subjunctives"


----------



## srk

I'm with Einstein as quoted by siares:


Einstein said:


> Where we differ is in our definition of the subjunctive. You start out from the form of the verb and deduce the mood; I deduce the mood from the role that the verb has in the sentence and the form is a consequence of this.





Loob said:


> Yes, I used to see "invisible subjunctives" too, siares: ....


I've been waiting for that admission.

Some BE speakers are shocked — shocked! — to find that "had" in a conditional beginning with "If I had a dollar ..." is thought of as subjunctive.  I have believed in my heart that they were taught in school, as I was, that this "had" is subjunctive.  Am I wrong?  Is it instead that the subjunctive is so rare in BE that "had" as subjunctive is not taught and the idea rejected out of hand?  Is "I were" taught just as an aberration and not as part of a greater scheme?   Or did someone and their breakthrough book convert them to the new thinking?*


e2efour said:


> Why on earth would one want to say that _you were_ is not the past indicative?


Because the same circumstances that lead to _I were_, which is clearly subjunctive, lead to _you were_.  Because "If _you were_ to pay better attention" is clearly not past indicative, but subjunctive.


Loob said:


> Yes, I used to see "invisible subjunctives" too, siares: I don't any more


I still do.

*I suspect it was the same twit that decided there is really no such thing as a gerund.  Just call that word that ends in "ing" the ing-form of the verb. (Oooh, I see that our dictionary is woefully out of date.  It says that "dog" can be either a noun or a verb.  Actually, "dog" is simply the dog-form of the word "dog."  Sometimes it has actiony attributes, sometimes thingy ones.)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

srk said:


> Because the same circumstances that lead to _I were_, which is clearly subjunctive, lead to _you were_.


I feel you should deal with the parallel objection that the same circumstances which lead to_ I was_, in_ If I was in Paris_, lead to_ you were_.

That point has already been put.

Of course if you reject _If I was in Paris_ as idiomatic, we are speaking different languages, which may well be at the heart of our potential disagreement.

I don't think anything here is likely to shock me, for what that's worth.


----------



## Loob

Re post 53: srk, BrE-students are *definitely* not taught that the "had" in _If I had been_ is subjunctive - at least, they weren't in my day.

I used to see it as subjunctive, probably because I'd learnt Spanish, where it would be.  Then one day two things struck me: that in French, the other language I knew best, it would definitely be indicative, not subjunctive; and that there was no need to postulate an "invisible" subjunctive in English.

So, for me, "If I had ..." is indicative.


----------



## srk

Thomas Tompion said:


> I feel you should deal with the parallel objection that the same circumstances which lead to_ I was_, in_ If I was in Paris_, lead to_ you were_.


I reject "If I was now in Paris, I would be happy" as idiomatic.  I also reject "If I was in Paris ...." with "now" implied.  If you accept it, then we do speak different languages.  I do accept "If I was in Paris, I must have seen Montmartre."  The if clause there is not subjunctive.

I would like to know if you were once taught that "had" in "If I had a dollar, I would give it to you" is subjunctive.  If you were, have you since decided that it is not?

I see that Loob has answered the gist of my question to you.


----------



## Loob

srk said:


> I reject "If I was now in Paris, I would be happy" as idiomatic.


It's idiomatic in BrE, srk.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

srk said:


> I reject "If I was now in Paris, I would be happy" as idiomatic. I also reject "If I was in Paris ...." with "now" implied. If you accept it, then we do speak different languages.


Exactly.  We do.  And we must accept that they are different in this regard.

Back in the early parts of the thread, I tried to be clear that I was speaking for British English.

Many Americans have been surprised - not shocked - when we say that, for us, these things are not subjunctives.

For this reason some original posters sensibly specify whether they want answers appropriate to one language or the other.


----------



## karlalou

Oh, so it's another difference between the UK and the US?
I know Michael Swan is British, and this grammar book I have was written with an assistance of American Professor.


----------



## srk

Thomas Tompion said:


> Many Americans have been surprised - *not shocked* - when we say that, for us, these things are not subjunctives.


Don't get nazzy with me, Thomas, just because I'm slow.  "Shocked" was an imitation of Claude Raines' reaction to gambling in Rick's Cafe, just before he was handed his winnings.  (the film Casablanca)


----------



## Loob

karlalou said:


> Oh, so it's another difference between the UK and the US?...


Actually, I'm not sure it is....

It may simply be that BrE-speaking members of this forum are happier to accept that it's acceptable.


----------



## karlalou

OK. Thanks, Loob.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

srk said:


> Don't get nazzy with me, Thomas, just because I'm slow.  "Shocked" was an imitation of Claude Raines' reaction to gambling in Rick's Cafe, just before he was handed his winnings.  (the film Casablanca)


I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be nazzy.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I ought perhaps to repeat that I don't like using the indicative for conditions which would be impossible to meet - I wouldn't say* if I was you*, for instance.


----------



## SevenDays

Honki said:


> Hi.
> 
> Sentence (1) below is what you call subjunctive past.
> 
> (1) If you were driving to the city now, you would avoid the weekend traffic.
> 
> What I would like to know is the subjunctive past perfective sentence of (1).
> Look at sentence (2) below.
> 
> (2) If you had been driving to the city at that time, you would have avoided the weekend traffic.
> 
> Is this sentence (2) subjunctive past, or subjunctive past perfect?
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance.



Keep in mind that the English "subjunctive" is not _morphologically_ derived, as it is in other languages. In Spanish, for example, the <--> suffix clearly tells you that a verb is "subjunctive" <--> regardless of where that verb appears in a sentence. However, there's nothing in "were" or "had been driving," no suffixes, that allows you to call them "subjunctive." For that reason, many grammarians question the use of the terms "subjunctive" or "subjunctive mood" in English, though, as you well know, such term commonly appear in English grammar books. More to the point, you may speak of subjunctive _modality_, which is the linguistic expression of _possibility, certainty, willingness, obligation, necessity,_ etc. (though some question the use of the term "subjunctive" there too). In English, _possibility, certainty, willingness_, etc. is expressed through various linguistic means, including modal verbs (_might, may, could_), the past indicative (_if I *was*, If I *had*, If I *met*_), and adverbs/adverbial phrases (_perhaps, maybe, as soon as possible_). So, in (1) and (2) you have the past indicatives "were" and "had been" expressing the modality of possibility/likelihood in the context of _conditional sentences_. If you wanted to be more specific, "were driving" in (1) is the past progressive/continuous, and "had been driving" is the past perfect progressive/continuous; in other words, you have the combination of _tense_ ("past") and _aspect_ ("progressive").

< Spanish removed. Cagey, moderator >


----------



## Thomas Tompion

SevenDays said:


> [...]However, there's nothing in "were" or "had been driving," no suffixes, that allows you to call them "subjunctive."


There isn't in the examples in the OP, but when we say *I were* or *he were*, there is.


----------



## Einstein

From grammarist.com:
_The indicative mood is used to make factual statements, ask questions, or express opinions as if they were facts._

If we agree with the above definition, then we can't say that "had" in "if I had known, I'd have told you" is indicative.
I can understand a point of view that wants to do away with both definitions - indicative and subjunctive - and limits itself to talking about the "past tense" (waiting for "If I were" to fade away as an archaic form). What I can't understand is that those who deny that a verb is subjunctive insist that it must therefore be indicative, even if it doesn't fit grammarist's definition.

I personally don't propose to do away with the concepts of indicative and subjunctive as they're a help to those studying other languages.


----------



## Loob

The "do away with the distinction" position is where I'd like to be, Einstein; what stops me is the fact that the _present_ subjunctive seems to getting stronger rather than fading away.


----------



## SevenDays

Thomas Tompion said:


> There isn't in the examples in the OP, but when we say *I were* or *he were*, there is.



Yes, but to be precise, that "were" is a remnant of the Old English subjunctive that still survives today, not an indication that there's a "subjunctive mood" in modern English. As it stands, that "were" is restricted to certain uses, such as contrary-to-fact statements and certain fixed expression. In fact, in structures where you would expect to see something that could be called "subjunctive" (as in mandative "that" constructions), what shows up is the bare infinitive (_I demand that she *be* on time_), which is the non-conjugated based form of the verb. Some prefer the term _irrealis mood_ rather than _subjunctive mood_, and _realis mood _instead of _indicative mood, _but I suspect that the terms "indicative mood" and "subjunctive mood" are so ingrained in our discourse, that they'll be hard to displace.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

SevenDays said:


> . In fact, in structures where you would expect to see something that could be called "subjunctive" (as in mandative "that" constructions), what shows up is the bare infinitive[...]


What difference is there between saying that the present subjunctive of _to be_ is _I be, you be, he be, we be, you be, they be_, and saying that _be_ in that use is the bare infinitive?

In most languages there is a relationship between the subjunctive form and some other form or forms; at what point do you think it becomes a discrete subjunctive rather than one of the other forms abbreviated or extended or unchanged?

I'm inclined to grant _I be_ status as a subjunctive because when I hear someone say_ I demand that she be on time_ - I'd be unlikely to say this myself - I'd think it a very strange bare infinitive which had attached itself to a subject pronoun.


----------



## Loob

I'm with you, SevenDays!


----------



## Einstein

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm inclined to grant _I be_ status as a subjunctive because when I hear someone say_ I demand that she be on time_ - I'd be unlikely to say this myself - I'd think it a very strange bare infinitive which had attached itself to a subject pronoun.


I sometimes wonder if "I demand that she be on time" contains an understood auxiliary verb and actually means "I demand that she should be on time". Consider also the fact that in the past it remains "be": "He demanded that she be (not _were_) on time". We don't use a past subjunctive in this construction, as we would in some other languages. This is more understandable if we insert "should": "He demanded that she should be on time" (it's already well-established that "should" remains "should" in the past).


----------



## karlalou

What I see here agrees with what I've been reading or hearing.
As a Japanese, I've been also taught just like Honki and VicNicSor.


Honki said:


> What I would like to know is the subjunctive past perfective sentence of (1).
> Look at sentence (2) below.
> 
> (2) If you had been driving to the city at that time, you would have avoided the weekend traffic.
> 
> Is this sentence (2) subjunctive past, or subjunctive past perfect?





VicNicSor said:


> Most grammar sources say that, I believe. I don't know why you think it's not the subjunctive
> If you're asking whether replacing "were" with "was" in a second conditional makes the subjunctive the indicative, I believe it's still the subjunctive mood.



I vaguely recall I've read that there's a couple of different thinkings about 'subjunctive mood' regardless of the UK or the US.

We definitely have the problem with the choice of the term for 'subjunctive mood' in Japanese, but now I understand that it's because of the grammarians' view.

We've been taught all the 'subjunctive mood' with the term <Japanese removed>  and it literally says 'hypothesis law'. It's used to explain not only the 2nd conditional such as "If I were you" and the 3rd conditional such as "If I had had", *but also the infinitives as in "I propose we be quiet" or "Lest he fall". *The use of 'should' before the infinitive in the UK is also written in every grammar book. [* I've been including this word in this same way to make it, for one thing, to be true to the source. I've been writing in the way that the readers only need to recognize how it looks, but at the same time of course to make it obvious at least for English learners of my native language, and the OP is one of them. Delete here, these blue letters, if you really need to, but I don't think there's any right or need to delete the whole post or the whole passage.]

I've found in an officially made proposal by a teacher that there's another term,<Japanese removed> and I guess it's been in use for 'subjunctive mood' of other languages. This one says 'law of expressing thoughts' that it's much like 'subjunctive'. Adopting this term in English should make things clear up, and I think the change will be made.

I'm happy to know that my grammar book saying  <Japanese removed>(Subjunctive Mood)' for the 2nd and 3rd conditional clauses <Japanese removed> is not wrong under the current situation, but the fact that the Japanese and the English don't say the same thing is still true.

<This is *English Only*.  Cagey, moderator >


----------



## boozer

Oh, how sweet. Another subjunctive thread.  
So much has been said, that I will just add that, according to some, conditionals use their own mood and verb tenses. I have even come across arguments in favour of the existence of the so called "conditional mood". I might be prepared to accept such arguments.
In any case, I do not see the subjunctive mood in post 1 and the examples there. If that is not the conditional mood (many will reject its existence), then it must be the indicative.


----------



## SevenDays

Thomas Tompion said:


> What difference is there between saying that the present subjunctive of _to be_ is _I be, you be, he be, we be, you be, they be_, and saying that _be_ in that use is the bare infinitive?
> 
> In most languages there is a relationship between the subjunctive form and some other form or forms; at what point do you think it becomes a discrete subjunctive rather than one of the other forms abbreviated or extended or unchanged?
> 
> I'm inclined to grant _I be_ status as a subjunctive because when I hear someone say_ I demand that she be on time_ - I'd be unlikely to say this myself - I'd think it a very strange bare infinitive which had attached itself to a subject pronoun.



My point is that we should leave the terms “present subjunctive” and “past subjunctive” for languages where the subjunctive is an _inflectional_ category of the verb, which is not the case in modern English (though it was in Old English). So, no, I don’t see any sentence structure where “I be” represents something that can be called “present subjunctive.”  

We commonly find what’s traditionally called “subjunctive” in mandative _that-clauses_ following verbs such as _demand, ask, insist, require, etc_.: _I demand that she __ on time_. (Some use the term “impositive predicates” to refer to these _that-clauses_, given that the speaker sets to influence the behavior of the hearer.) What we actually find in the _that-clause_ is an _untensed_ verb, not conjugated to show grammatical “time,” because that which is demanded of the hearer is an _unrealized_ speech act (in other words, her “being on time” hasn’t occurred). The untensed form _is_ the infinitive, as infinitives do not signal “tense;” they are intrinsically independent of grammatical time: _I demand that she *be* on time_. Calling this “be” _present subjunctive _is, in my view, misguided and creates confusion.

What the infinitive and the subjunctive have in common is that they refer to what’s _unrealized_, so they cover the same _semantic_ ground. In fact, as the morphological subjunctive began to fade away, already seen by late Old English, the infinitive and modal verbs began to convey the _meanings_ that had been associated with the inflected subjunctive mood. Accordingly, it’s no surprise that, for these _that-clauses_, the infinitive is used in modern English (or a combination modal verb + infinitive: _I demand that she should be on time_), while the subjunctive is used in languages, such as mine, where we do continue to _conjugate_ the subjunctive. Either way, with the infinitive or the subjunctive, the same idea of "unrealized" is transmitted.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

SevenDays said:


> What the infinitive and the subjunctive have in common is that they refer to what’s _unrealized_, so they cover the same _semantic_ ground.


Thank you for trying to make this clear.

When I say _I let him tease the cat all day_.  _Tease_ is a bare infinitive, but there's no sense in which the teasing is unrealized.  Ask the cat.


----------



## PaulQ

Thomas Tompion said:


> What difference is there between saying that the present subjunctive of _to be_ is _I be, you be, he be, we be, you be, they be_, and saying that _be_ in that use is the bare infinitive?


Mainly the fact that an infinitive does not have a subject.


SevenDays said:


> My point is that we should leave the terms “present subjunctive” and “past subjunctive” for languages where the subjunctive is an _inflectional_ category of the verb, which is not the case in modern English (though it was in Old English).


I was with you right up to this point. 

You seem to be suggesting that the "were" in "If I were you, I'd sell that car." can be called subjunctive but "Had he any idea about electricity, he would not have done that." cannot.

The thing about the subjunctive in English (as opposed to second languages) is that from somewhere in the 1950/60s, the subjunctive was never taught - mainly, I feel because someone, somewhere, either did not think it was necessary, or that is was "too hard" or "too time consuming."

However, not being taught about the subjunctive, does not make it non-existent: it merely makes people unaware of the reason for some language patterns. Fortunately, for most of us, we do not have to know why a verb is as it is or if it has a different nuance in order to speak the language - we are clever monkeys and copy things well.

Loob (unwittingly?) takes this stance in 


Loob said:


> what stops me is the fact that the _present_ subjunctive seems to getting stronger rather than fading away.


Perhaps even despite the lack of awareness of the fact that they are using the subjunctive - people use it.

The idea that "it should be distinguishable", is a very weak argument - our language is filled with words each with distinct or slightly nuanced meanings but which are spelled exactly the same way. If we look at other languages, it is not a requirement that all parts of the subjunctive must differ from all other forms. 

The subjunctive exists - you may not be able to distinguish it by sight, but you should be able to distinguish it by context.


----------



## Loob

I'm not sure what stance it is that you're suggesting I'm taking, Paul; but for me the idea that the subjunctive "should be distinguishable" is a very _strong_ argument.


----------



## boozer

I suppose it is also a question of whether we apply a synchronic or diachronic approach to analysing whatever it is we analyse.
Diachronically, we are inevitably bound to stumble upon some Anglo/Franco/Saxon/Latin, etc. remnants of the actual subjunctive that was once used. And we can argue they still exist, albeit indistinguishable or barely distinguishable.
Synchronically, if those forms are not distinguishable from the indicative forms that are widely used and if we are not able to recognise them when they convey the meaning that was once conveyed by their subjunctive counterparts, then, by all means, they must be extinct.

So why teach them?  Bury their bones and walk on. English is what it is because it has shaken off the subjunctive (and other cumbersome constructions) and is, today, one of the most "advanced", ergo simplified, modern languages. That makes it easier to learn. That makes it the only international language!


----------



## srk

boozer said:


> and other cumbersome constructions


Then, is there an indicative mood?  If there is nothing to contrast with it, why bother with a name? Why not bury the bones and walk on?


boozer said:


> If that is not the conditional mood (many will reject its existence), then it must be the indicative.


----------



## boozer

srk said:


> Then, is there an indicative mood?  If there is nothing to contrast with it, why bother with a name? Why not bury the bones and walk on?


Because we still have the imperative, interrogative and subjunctive moods.
The subjunctive lives on on a limited scale with certain verbs that require its use, e.g. suggest, demand, wish, etc. As well as the subjunctive 'were', which is not the 'were' used in the original post


----------



## srk

Well, the imperative mood is indistinguishable from indicative in terms of verb form.  So is the interrogative. I recognize those moods from usage, not by the form of the verb, but by its role.  That's how I can recognize "had" as subjunctive in the OP.


----------



## boozer

I see your point. Moods are generally an unnecessary complication. All the more so when their forms become indistinguishable. I agree.


----------



## srk

I'm sure you know I was not arguing for abandoning the concept of mood in English.  (Smiley faces aren't meant for sarcasm.)


----------



## boozer

No sarcasm. 
Still, it is common sense: when forms become indistinguishable but meaning is still conveyed, is it not time to reconsider the concept? (As mainstream British English grammar did years before I began to study it?)


----------



## Vronsky

Einstein said:


> I sometimes wonder if "I demand that she be on time" contains an understood auxiliary verb and actually means "I demand that she should be on time".


Yes, it does.

[...] After many of the above expressions, the word "should" is sometimes used to express the idea of subjunctiveness. This form is used more frequently in British English and is most common after the verbs "suggest," "recommend" and "insist."

Examples:
The doctor recommended that she should see a specialist about the problem.
Professor William suggested that Wilma should study harder for the final exam.
(englishpages.com)


In fact we use the subjunctive in English less and less. But in the past we used it much more to talk about possible, desirable or imaginary situations. These days we are more likely to use modal verbs such as 'should' or 'would'. However, we can still use the subjunctive in certain situations.
(bbc.co.uk)​


----------



## SevenDays

Thomas Tompion said:


> Thank you for trying to make this clear.
> 
> When I say _I let him tease the cat all day_.  _Tease_ is a bare infinitive, but there's no sense in which the teasing is unrealized.  Ask the cat.



The "timeless" nature of the infinitive (meaning that the infinitive is independent of "time," as I said earlier), means that the infinitive can be used in _unrealized_ contexts (my example, _I demand that she be on time_) and contexts that apply to _any_ and_ all_ times, so that you are not _bounded_ to a specific place in time (your example, _I let him tease the cat all day_). Of course, if this is Schrodinger's cat, I suppose we'd first have to find out if the cat is alive or not (because, if we don't check, the cat is supposedly both alive and dead at the same time ...). But you raise a good point; context matters. Suppose that Miss Moneypenny routinely showed up late for work; but, all of sudden, she is at her desk promptly at 7 am, day after day. If Bond, James Bond, turns to M and says "Why is Miss Moneypenny at her desk? It's 7 am," M could certainly reply "Because I demand that she be on time," where the infinitive is signaling _any_ and _all_ times, not just this_ one_ particular time. 



PaulQ said:


> I was with you right up to this point.
> 
> You seem to be suggesting that the "were" in "If I were you, I'd sell that car." can be called subjunctive but "Had he any idea about electricity, he would not have done that." cannot.
> ... edit ...
> The subjunctive exists - you may not be able to distinguish it by sight, but you should be able to distinguish it by context.



I consider the "were" in _If I were_ a remnant of the Old English subjunctive that's still around today, not an indication that the "subjunctive" is a formal category in modern English. Why this "were" is still with us, I don't know ("why's" are often difficult in historical linguistics). By late Old English, certain unstressed subjunctive morphemes were no longer consistently distinct from those of the indicative, which is one reason that the subjunctive as a morphological category simply faded away, and perhaps Old English subjunctive "were" retained its distinctive stressed sound, so that it eventually became a fixed part of the language. But I say this with caution, and I'd let an expert in Old English shed more light on this (and correct me if my perhaps simplistic view of this is off the mark). In any event, today, this "were" is commonly replaced by the past indicative; that is, "was" in _If I was a millionaire_ is just as "past indicative" as "had" in _If I had a million dollars_, though I know that _prescriptivists_ cringe at this use of this "was." 



srk said:


> Then, is there an indicative mood?  If there is nothing to contrast with it, why bother with a name? Why not bury the bones and walk on?



Some folks have done just that, and they use the terms _realis modality _(to denote factuality) and _irrealis modality_ (for what's non-factual or non-actual) instead of "indicative mood" and "subjunctive mood" (and "modality" signals that we are talking about_ meaning_ in _sentence structure_ and not morphology). However, I'm not sure that _realis _and _irrealis_ are of common knowledge (as "subjunctive" and "indicative" certainly are).


----------



## PaulQ

Loob said:


> I'm not sure what stance it is that you're suggesting I'm taking, Paul;


You seem to be taking the stance that regardless of whether the subjunctive exists or not, people use it. From this we can say it exists. 


Vronsky said:


> In fact we use the subjunctive in English less and less.





Loob said:


> what stops me is the fact that the _present_ subjunctive seems to getting stronger rather than fading away.


And if it helps, I agree.


SevenDays said:


> M could certainly reply "Because I demand that she be on time," where the infinitive is signaling _any_ and _all_ times, not just this_ one_ particular time.


Infinitives do not have subjects...


SevenDays said:


> I consider the "were" in _If I were_ a remnant of the Old English subjunctive that's still around today, not an indication that the "subjunctive" is a formal category in modern English.





> Why this "were" is still with us, I don't know


Because we can rail about language in the same way that we can rail about the tide and the weather - they are far too large to control at this level.


Loob said:


> for me the idea that the subjunctive "should be distinguishable" is a very _strong_ argument.


This will help:
Subjunctive mood - Wikipedia


> As shown in the above table, the form of the subjunctive is distinguishable from the indicative in five circumstances:
> 
> in the third-person singular of any verb in the present form;
> in all instances of the verb "be" in the present form;
> in the first and third persons singular of the verb "be" in the past form;
> in all instances of all verbs in the present negative form.
> in the first and third persons singular of the verb "be" in the past negative form.
> However, even when the subjunctive and indicative forms are identical, their time references are usually different.


----------



## Loob

PaulQ said:


> You seem to be taking the stance that regardless of whether the subjunctive exists or not, people use it


I'm sorry if I've given that impression: that's absolutely _not_ the stance I'm taking. In fact, I don't think I've seen anyone in the thread saying anything like that.

______

Added: Now I re-read the thread, I see there is someone who has said that: you!


----------



## PaulQ

Then my interpretation of the post 





Loob said:


> The "do away with the distinction" position is where I'd like to be, Einstein; what stops me is the fact that the _present_ subjunctive seems to getting stronger rather than fading away.


 must be quite wrong. I assumed it was an acknowledgement of the continued existence of the subjunctive as evidenced by the increased frequency of use of the subjunctive, yet this was, in some way, preventing you from adopting the position of declaring the subjunctive and indicative to be the same.

To me, therefore, this acknowledges the use and existence of the subjunctive and agrees a difference between the subjunctive and indicative, albeit one that you wish were not there.


----------



## PaulQ

srk said:


> I reject "If I was now in Paris, I would be happy" as idiomatic.


Likewise. This is the very reason that the subjunctive is alive and well and living in English.


Thomas Tompion said:


> Many Americans have been surprised - not shocked - when we say that, for us, these things are not subjunctives.


I'm not surprised. It seems wrongly prescriptive. Perhaps it is the wording - I have understood "these things are not subjunctives." as "Such sentences do not *require *the subjunctive [in BE]." If this is so, [and I am not sure it is] then it follows that although they do not _*require *_the subjunctive, the subjunctive is still a valid option.

As far as I can see, the AE use of the subjunctive is more widespread and, to me, (a) entirely justified (b) far more influential - BE is simply passing through a phase, supported by apologist-type arguments, of baldly stating "the concept of the subjunctive is obsolete" in the hopes that this makes it true. 

Whatever we call the subjunctive, it will require a separate name but the concept will remain unaltered.


----------



## Vronsky

I've read the whole thread, but I can't get what the subjunctive is yet.
As far as I've understood,

"If I were you, ... " - the subjunctive
"If you were me, ... " - the indicative

"The doctor recommended that she see a specialist about the problem." - the subjunctive
"The doctor recommended that she should see a specialist about the problem." - the indicative

Am I right?


----------



## PaulQ

Vronsky said:


> As far as I've understood,
> 
> "If I were you, ... " - the subjunctive
> "If you were me, ... " - the indicative


Then you have misunderstood. The subjunctive is an expression of function, not necessarily of form.


Vronsky said:


> "The doctor recommended that she see a specialist about the problem." - the subjunctive
> "The doctor recommended that she should see a specialist about the problem." - the indicative


Yes. This example is not helped by both being reported speech.


----------



## Loob

srk said:


> I reject "If I was now in Paris, I would be happy" as idiomatic.


Interestingly, (to me), I've just come across this in an _American Heritage Dictionary Usage Note:_
With all deference to the traditional rules governing the use of the subjunctive, it should be noted that a survey of the prose of reputable writers over the past 200 years would reveal a persistent tendency to use the indicative _was_ where the traditional rule would require the subjunctive _were._ A sentence beginning _If I was the only boy in the world,_ while not strictly correct, is wholly unremarkable.​


PaulQ said:


> The subjunctive is an expression of function, not necessarily of form.


In your view, Paul : not in mine.


----------



## PaulQ

Without any archness, I would be genuinely interested to know how a such a concept as the subjunctive mood is necessarily dependent upon a particular morphology.

As examples of my view, 

"You have three apples." can change from a statement into a question merely by tone.
In "I fell", the tense could be present or past.


----------



## karlalou

PaulQ said:


> "You have three apples." can change from a statement into a question merely by tone.
> In "I fell", the tense could be present or past.


Wow. I see your point.


----------



## Loob

PaulQ said:


> Without any archness, I would be genuinely interested to know how a such a concept as the subjunctive mood is necessarily dependent upon a particular morphology.


Well, for me, the only argument for the existence of a subjunctive mood in today's English is that there are "non-indicative" verb forms which exist alongside the "indicative" verb forms.

The "non-indicative" verb forms are
(1) for the verb BE
..... 1st and 3rd person singular "were" (past subjunctive)
..... All persons  "be" (present subjunctive)
(2) for other verbs
..... 3rd person singular present tense minus "-s" (present subjunctive)

There are various ways to explain the existence of these verb-forms.  I prefer the ones that see them as historical remnants.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Vronsky said:


> In fact we use the subjunctive in English less and less.


See the opening of 
*The mandative subjunctive* *in British English seems to be alive and kicking... Is this due to the influence of American English?*
Noëlle Serpollet
Lancaster University
1.
Introduction
Johansson & Norheim (1988: 34) wrote at the end of their 1988 paper: “results from elicitation tests [...] suggest that the mandative subjunctive may be on the increase in British English.

and later on 

My results confirmed previous studies (Övergaard, 1995 - Hundt, 1998) and showed that the use of the mandative subjunctive is increasing, whereas the use of mandative should is declining...

Source
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.424.6695&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Certainly this has been the message of most of the scholarly articles I've read on the subject.


----------



## PaulQ

Loob said:


> Well, for me, the only argument for the existence of a subjunctive mood in today's English is that there are "non-indicative" verb forms which exist alongside the "indicative" verb forms.


I am a little uncertain of your answer as you use "*there are* "non-indicative" verb forms" rather than "*it* [i.e. the subjunctive]* is* a "non-indicative" verb form..." - I assume you are saying that the subjunctive is alive and well (and, confirmed by TT's post above, that it is growing in popularity.


Loob said:


> There are various ways to explain the existence of these anomalous verb-forms.


It may be distracting to widen the topic. If we keep to the subjunctive, you say 





> I prefer the ones that see them as historical remnants.


 and this seems strange, surely it is an "argumentum ad verbum"  - denigrating the subjunctive, rather than a solid reason for whatever remedial action you would like to see.


----------



## Loob

Sorry, Paul, I didn't understand your comments

I expect it's time for me to pull out....


----------



## SevenDays

PaulQ said:


> Without any archness, I would be genuinely interested to know how a such a concept as the subjunctive mood is necessarily dependent upon a particular morphology.
> 
> As examples of my view,
> 
> "You have three apples." can change from a statement into a question merely by tone.
> In "I fell", the tense could be present or past.



There's nothing in the composition of the word "fell" that allows us to view it as "subjunctive." In and of itself, we interpret "fell" as the past tense of "fall." In fact, the indicative is the unmarked tense, or the dominant form that manifests itself without any context, precisely because we don't have a "subjunctive" category anymore. 9And the fact that we interpret "I fell" as the past tense of "to fall" (something "realized" in time-past) is a pretty good indication against the claim of some that the subjunctive has _merged_ with the indicative.) For "I fell" to convey this idea of "subjunctive" that we all have in mind, it has to be _marked_ as such; in other words, it needs to be put in the proper sentence structure, such as a conditonal sentence (_If I fell_), where "if" signals supposition, ahd "fell" is no longer indicating past time. In other words, the subjunctive in modern English is contextual (expressed through various linguistic means) and not morphological.


----------



## PaulQ

SevenDays said:


> precisely because we don't have a "subjunctive" category anymore.


Yes we do.  Who said we didn't?

My sincere apologies for using "fell" I have no idea why I did that.  Take, instead, the example of "I set the table" there really is no difference between the simple present and the simple past, yet nobody would say "Set has no simple past tense." You may call "set" (past simple) any name you care to, but at the end of the day, it remains the simple past.


----------



## Loob

PaulQ said:


> Who said we didn't?


Well,  I for one don't think we do.
I have the feeling that you and I are travelling on parallel never-to-meet paths, Paul.


----------



## PaulQ

Probably, but a description of the view from your path would be helpful.


----------



## Einstein

boozer said:


> English is what it is because it has shaken off the subjunctive (and other cumbersome constructions) and is, today, one of the most "advanced", ergo simplified, modern languages.


The disappearance of the subjunctive doesn't just mean its replacement by the indicative. What goes out of the door often comes back in through the window. What about these sentences? - 
a. The idea *of him doing that* is absurd 
b. It's unusual *for him to do* that.

These two (and other) constructions have substituted the subjunctive "that he do that". I find that inexperienced Italian translators tend to produce rather odd and incomprehensible translations and don't recognise that they should use the subjunctive in their own language. These "simplifications" often turn out to be complications.
Obviously I'm not saying that these constructions shouldn't exist (I use them very often myself), but they show that life without the subjunctive is not necessarily so much easier.


----------



## boozer

Einstein said:


> What goes out of the door often comes back in through the window. What about these sentences? -


Very well said, Albert.  
I am quite happy to agree with that.
I only argued that in many instances, e.g. in the original post, the subjunctive and the modern English periphrastic conditional mood should not be mixed or confused. Even when historically, if one goes back a few hundred years, one could stumble upon remnants from the original old subjunctive that still exists today in Romance languages. I have argued so because from today's perspective the mention of 'subjunctive' when faced with a regular 2nd conditional is hardly helpful. Or widely accepted, for that matter. The only real overlap between the conditional and subjunctive moods are cases like 'If I were you' where the subjunctive 'were' expresses the impossibility of the proposition. 
Also, the fact that what once may have been subjunctive has now come to coincide almost completely with the indicative proves that the subjunctive in English, as a general concept, has been on the decline for a long time. Except for certain cases where certain verbs still partially require the use of the subjunctive (e.g. She demanded that he go). But even here the prevalent BE practice seems to be to insert a 'should' and dispense with the subjunctive. All in all, though, I never said it was completely dead even when I said 'bury the bones and walk on'


----------



## karlalou

I think Einstein and some others are saying that the form indeed does not appear in "If I was there" or "If you were there" or "If I had been there", but the sense of subjunctive is still there because these are to say something contradicting the fact of past [edit to add: or present]. They are different from simple conditions such as "If you do this for me". The form might be as real as the sense, but the things are that the forms have been just replaced with another that now they look the same as the 'indicative'. But the senses are still there.

OP's two sentences are both subjunctive.


> (1) If you were driving to the city now, you would avoid the weekend traffic.
> (2) If you had been driving to the city at that time, you would have avoided the weekend traffic.


I don't know the common grammatical terms for them in English, but
#1 is in past tense talking about something contradicts the present fact, and
#2 is in past perfect tense talking about something contradicts the past fact.

Am I wrong?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

karlalou said:


> I don't know the common grammatical term for them in English, but
> #1 is in past tense talking about something contradicts the present fact, and
> #2 is in past perfect tense talking about something contradicts the past fact.


I  understand you to be saying that these sentences present conditions which cannot be met, and that this means that the verb in the if-clause must be in the subjunctive mood.

I'm not clear why you think the one follows from the other.


----------



## karlalou

...the one follows from the other? 
Excuse me, but could you rephrase it? What are the 'one' and 'the other' you referring to?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

karlalou said:


> ...the one follows from the other?
> Excuse me, but could you rephrase it? What are the 'one' and 'the other' you referring to?


The one - the verb in the if-clause must be in the subjunctive mood.
The other - these sentences present conditions which cannot be met.


----------



## PaulQ

To remind ourselves:

OED:





> 1. a. Grammar. Designating or relating to a verbal mood that refers to an action or state as conceived (rather than as a fact) and is therefore used chiefly to express a wish, command, exhortation, or a contingent, hypothetical, or prospective event. Also: (of a verb or form) belonging to this mood.


 
And Subjunctive mood - Wikipedia


> As shown in the above table, the form of the subjunctive is distinguishable from the indicative in five circumstances:
> 
> in the third-person singular of any verb in the present form;
> in all instances of the verb "be" in the present form;
> in the first and third persons singular of the verb "be" in the past form;
> in all instances of all verbs in the present negative form.
> in the first and third persons singular of the verb "be" in the past negative form.
> 
> However, even when the subjunctive and indicative forms are identical, their time references are usually different.
> 
> If you had been..., you would have....  [subjunctive past / past perfect]


 
It also appears “in person” in such sentences as “Had we more time, we could have visited the waterfall.” (I hear this construction with increasing frequency - perhaps as a rhetorical device.)

“God save us/the Queen”

When discussing the subjunctive, there is little clarity in choosing the second person when the third person present of all verbs demonstrates the existence.


----------



## karlalou

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm not clear why you think the one follows from the other.


That is mainly because I've been taught so. I don't know what 'subjunctive' is to natives, and am getting the feel that it's actually more of 'form' than 'sense', but can "If you were driving to the city now" be also the word to someone who may be actually doing so?

I think if the speaker don't know what the driver is actually doing right now, then it will be "If you are driving to the city now". I think it's because the speaker knows it's not the case, a hypothesis, which contradicts the fact, is needed, and "If you were driving to the city now" is spoken.



PaulQ said:


> When discussing the subjunctive, there is little clarity in choosing the second person


Right. I understand the forms are not there. I don't know why OP made the question, but maybe that was the point the OP wanted to know.


----------



## boozer

karlalou said:


> That is mainly because I've been taught so. I don't know what 'subjunctive' is to natives, and am getting the feel that it's actually more of 'form' than 'sense'...


I would say: just the other way round. But since sense is carried by form...


----------



## srk

"Who's on first?"
"Because there is no difference between an indicative and interrogative "is," I'm going to assume you mean the indicative one.  You are incorrect.  A person named Who is on second."

With a lot of editing, that became the start of a very successful comedy routine.

"If we had some ham, we could have some ham sandwiches."
"Because there is no such thing as a subjunctive "had," your if clause must be in the indicative.  We did indeed have some ham last Saturday, so please make the sandwiches."
"Oh, I can't, because we don't got no bread."

That one never would have worked very well, except that "Walk this way!" was added at the end.  (At least it always made _me_ laugh.)


----------

