# lest you should catch cold



## Garbuz

Are there any other structural verbs that can be used in clauses with 'lest' besides 'should'?

Button your coat lest you _should_ catch cold.

Is it possible to use 'might', 'would', or other verbs in this sentence?

Thanks.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

> Button your coat lest you _should_ catch cold.



 I don't think _should_ is correct  and I doubt any of the others could be used either. 
Button your case lest you catch cold
He should button his coat lest _he catch_ cold

I think it is a subjunctive after 'lest', but 'lest' is rarely used in everyday speech. I don't think I ever use it. We'd say 'in case he catches cold', 'so (that) he doesn't catch cold'



Hermione


----------



## Barque

I am not sure that "should" or "might" should not be used. 

Google produced quite a few examples of lest used with "should" and "might". But the word is old-fashioned and few of the examples seemed to be from present-day literature.


----------



## natkretep

I agree with Hermy that _lest_ should normally go with the subjunctive

lest we forget
lest he forget

though I also agree with Barque that you might see 'lest we should forget' or even 'lest he forgets', though these would be less common and maybe less acceptable.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

As someone who does use the word, as economical and avoiding a lot of verbiage, I have a view about this.

There's a difference between the two:

1.  _Button your coat lest you catch cold_ - an instruction to someone going out into the cold.

2.  _Button your coat lest you should catch cold_ - a general rule given to someone who may have no intention of going out for several weeks.  It's the kind of thing a mother might say to her son when they are parting at the start of winter.


----------



## Ivan_I

Is it possible to use "can" after "lest"?

He locked the door lest uninvited guests can get inside.
or
He locked the door lest uninvited guests be able to get inside.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

"He locked the door lest uninvited guests can/be able to get inside." That sounds like a fancy way of saying "He locked the door so uninvited guests couldn't get in.", though.

(Edit: I've just seen U J's post, and I agree.)


----------



## Uncle Jack

Ivan_I said:


> Is it possible to use "can" after "lest"?
> 
> He locked the door lest uninvited guests can get inside.
> or
> He locked the door lest uninvited guests be able to get inside.


"Can" sounds completely wrong, but I think "be able" is okay, although I don't see any need for it.


----------



## velisarius

_Lest uninvited guests should get inside...  _

I haven't seen "lest" used with _can_, and the examples I found with _be able to_ strike me as suspect, since they are few and they date from the 20th century. 

"Lest" is not often used today, so it seems odd to introduce a new usage that lacks a foundation in the older literature.


----------



## natkretep

Uncle Jack said:


> "Can" sounds completely wrong, but I think "be able" is okay, although I don't see any need for it.


Yes, I think we expect a (present) subjunctive clause with _lest_.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

There are 403 recent examples of constructions with _*lest*_ in the British Corpus, so I don't think the form should be presented as rare in use, though it certainly can sound formal or literary.


natkretep said:


> Yes, I think we expect a (present) subjunctive clause with _lest_.


However past forms are certainly possible:

_The worst problem was to try to explain quarantine regulations to the black-clothed mothers who would not go away from the main gates and wailed bitterly' Oh! mio bambino! mio bambino!' till Mr Rideout had to have Dr Hill's attendance lest he too became a patient. Oh! sister I saw the bells go down._ Frances Saunders-Veness, Lewes, East Sussex: The Book Guild Ltd, 1989.

The should-form is quite usual (about 20% of examples).  I couldn't resist quoting this: _Hearing plays a vital part in the tiger's hunting equipment. In some parts of the East, trackers used to cut the hairs in their nostrils lest the noise of air passing through these as they breathed should alert the tiger to their presence_. _Kingdoms of the East_. Colin Willock, London: Boxtree, 1991.

The OP asked whether 'might' could be used: _The fee, in all the circumstances, was one of the BBC's greatest bargains, but Lord Rothschild was very concerned lest he might be offered a lower fee. Tell them I'm on my way_. A.Goodman, London: Chapmans Pubs Ltd, 1993.

Or 'would': _Sometimes, when it snowed heavily, the filmmakers were terrified lest she would not get back from London in time._ _Dustin Hoffman_. Ronald Bergan, London: Virgin, 1992.

There is no example with 'can'.

But 2 (of 403) with 'could': _These are reluctant hunters, ill at ease and inexperienced, wary lest a nervous glance could give flesh to fear -- the fear of coming face to face with a cowering countryman, the fear of finding the loaded chamber in a game of Russian roulette_. _The best of Sunday Times travel._ Richard Girling (ed.). Newton Abbot, Devon: David & Charles Pubs plc, 1988,


----------



## Roymalika

Thomas Tompion said:


> 1. _Button your coat lest you catch cold_ - an instruction to someone going out into the cold.
> 
> 2. _Button your coat lest you should catch cold_ - a general rule given to someone who may have no intention of going out for several weeks. It's the kind of thing a mother might say to her son when they are parting at the start of winter.


Can I use them interchangeably please?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Roymalika said:


> Can I use them interchangeably please?


You can do as you please.  I've told you that I think they have slightly different overtones.


----------



## Barque

You should know that it isn't a word that's used much in casual speech. You're more likely to hear it in a formal setting, whether in speech or writing.


----------



## Roymalika

Some students have been getting bad grades in the class tests. Now the final exam is at hand. Only three months are left. Today, the principal calls the students in his office and advises "It's three months left. Work hard lest you fail/should fail the final exam".

Is there any difference in meaning here in this context?


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

I gather you are asking wheher there's an difference in meaning betweeen "fail" and "should fail". I'd say there isn't, but I'd use "fail", which here is in the subjunctive, not the indictive mood.


----------



## Barque

Roymalika said:


> Work hard lest you fail/should fail the final exam".


I agree with the above answer. Also, "lest" isn't used anymore, unless you're joking around.


----------



## natkretep

Barque said:


> Also, "lest" isn't used anymore, unless you're joking around.


Sounds a bit strong to me, Barque. I think _lest _can still be pulled out for special occasions (post 11).


----------



## velisarius

I would never use_ lest, _not even in jest. It sounds hideously old-fashioned to me, but that's just my personal opinion.

_Sometimes, when it snowed heavily, the filmmakers were terrified lest she would not get back from London in time. Hmm..._Dustin Hoffman in pretentious mode?


----------



## Uncle Jack

Roymalika said:


> Some students have been getting bad grades in the class tests. Now the final exam is at hand. Only three months are left. Today, the principal calls the students in his office and advises "It's three months left. Work hard lest you fail/should fail the final exam".
> 
> Is there any difference in meaning here in this context?


I still use "lest", and, speaking BrE, I would happily use "should" as well, just because I am so used to using "should" + infinitive where the subjunctive mood is required. This use persists even when there is no difference between the present subjunctive and the present indicative, as here. "Should" appears not to be used like this in AmE, but then AmE speakers use the present subjunctive, so they have no need for it.


----------



## Barque

natkretep said:


> I think _lest _can still be pulled out for special occasions (post 11).


Yes, I guess so. I suppose I should have stuck to my earlier answer in #3, where I said it was old-fashioned.


----------



## lingobingo

I, too, would only use the subjunctive with *lest* (in the unlikely event that I used it at all).

Lexico’s explanation:
There are very few contexts in English where the subjunctive mood is, strictly speaking, required: *lest* remains one of them. Thus the standard use is “she was worrying lest he be attacked” (not “lest he was”) or “she is using headphones lest she disturb anyone” (not “lest she disturbs anyone”).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I hate this suggestion that the subjunctive is required after _*lest*_.  There are two examples in the British Corpus where the present indicative is used after _*lest*_, out of about 50 instances, and they don't sound wrong to me:

_Noticing that her hands are shaking and knowing that he has noticed she forces herself to act cool, not daring for the moment to analyse her disquiet lest she is incapable of handling the reason. _ Tales I tell my mother. Wandor, M; Miner, V; Fairbairns, Z; M Roberts; Maitland, Sara. London: The Journeyman Press, 1978.

_Menstrual blood is considered both dangerous and polluting. For the first three days of her monthly period she is segregated in a solitary place and is not allowed to touch anybody or anything lest she pollutes it._  Through the devil's gateway. Archer, L J; Joseph, A; et al; Byrne, L; Gombrich, S G. London: SPCK, 1990.

The ngrams certainly suggest that the subjunctive is preferred, but that's not the same thing.


----------



## Roymalika

Work hard lest you fail/should fail the final exam. (Sentence from my post 15)

What's the difference in meaning if I use "might", "would" or "past form"?
Work hard lest you might fail the final exam.
Work hard lest you would fail the final exam.
Work hard lest you failed the final exam.


----------



## Barque

None of those work for me.
_
Work hard lest you fail the final exam. 
Work hard lest you should fail the final exam._

I prefer the first. But, as people have said above, it isn't a word people use much nowadays. Don't use it lest you're considered either old-fashioned or pretentious, or not understood. In the right company of course it could be fine.


----------



## Roymalika

Barque said:


> None of those work for me.


But the examples Thomas gave in post 11 use "might", "would" and "past form".



> The OP asked whether 'might' could be used: _The fee, in all the circumstances, was one of the BBC's greatest bargains, but Lord Rothschild was very concerned lest he might be offered a lower fee. Tell them I'm on my way_. A.Goodman, London: Chapmans Pubs Ltd, 1993.
> 
> Or 'would': _Sometimes, when it snowed heavily, the filmmakers were terrified lest she would not get back from London in time._ _Dustin Hoffman_. Ronald Bergan, London: Virgin, 1992.
> 
> However past forms are certainly possible:
> 
> _The worst problem was to try to explain quarantine regulations to the black-clothed mothers who would not go away from the main gates and wailed bitterly' Oh! mio bambino! mio bambino!' till Mr Rideout had to have Dr Hill's attendance lest he too became a patient. Oh! sister I saw the bells go down._ Frances Saunders-Veness, Lewes, East Sussex: The Book Guild Ltd, 1989.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Roymalika said:


> But the examples Thomas gave in post 11 use "might", "would" and "past form".


None of the examples you give in #24 work for me either.

This is a delicate matter of emphasis and register.  The sentences can't be constructed like building blocks or Lego.

Why are we scratching around for near-impossible examples anyway?


----------



## Oswinw011

Since lest is old fashioned, I use in case as a replacement. Does it work? 
Button your coat* in case *you should catch cold.

If not, how would you say it in normal modern way? Thanks.


----------



## velisarius

Roymalika, your examples don't work, mainly because they are imperative.

_ Lord Rothschild *was* very concerned lest he *might* be offered _ 

In the present tense, that would be _Lord Rothschild *is* very concerned lest he *may *be offered..._
I don't think "may" is necessary there, but you could say it makes the likelihood of his being offered a lower fee more remote. I think _lest _or _may _by themselves would be adequate to convey the meaning.

_Work hard, lest you may fail your exam!  _Such everyday situations are not very good context for the use of " lest". It might have its place in more elegant or flowery writing.


----------



## Roymalika

Thomas Tompion said:


> Why are we scratching around for near-impossible examples anyway?


I just want to know what the meaning of  "would" is in this example. Is it just the past form of "will"? (Like, if this example was in the present, the sentence would be: _Sometimes, when it snows heavily, the filmmakers are terrified lest she will not get back from London in time._)

Or 'would': _Sometimes, when it snowed heavily, the filmmakers were terrified lest she would not get back from London in time._ _Dustin Hoffman_. Ronald Bergan, London: Virgin, 1992.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm wondering whether the mood after _*lest*_ might be influenced by the time period concerned.

Take a sentence where the writer has preferred the infinitive:

_Noticing that her hands are shaking and knowing that he has noticed she forces herself to act cool, not daring for the moment to analyse her disquiet lest she* is *incapable of handling the reason._ 

Would there be a difference had she chosen the subjunctive?

_Noticing that her hands are shaking and knowing that he has noticed she forces herself to act cool, not daring for the moment to analyse her disquiet lest she *be* incapable of handling the reason._

I'm wondering if the first is referring to a state already understood - she *is* incapable of handling it - whereas in the second we are wondering if she will show herself to be like that - she *will turn out to be* incapable of handling it.

The problem with the suggestion is that _*lest*_, of itself, implies that we don't know something, so the idea that the indicative might be preferred because of greater certainty seems far-fetched.

It's just a suggestion.  Throw brickbats at will.  Why did the writer prefer the indicative?  Sheer illiteracy?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Roymalika said:


> I just want to know what the meaning of  "would" is in this example. Is it just the past form of "will"? (Like, if this example was in the present, the sentence would be: _Sometimes, when it snows heavily, the filmmakers are terrified lest she will not get back from London in time._)
> 
> Or 'would': _Sometimes, when it snowed heavily, the filmmakers were terrified lest she would not get back from London in time._ _Dustin Hoffman_. Ronald Bergan, London: Virgin, 1992.


No, for me, it has modal force, which it wouldn't have as the past tense of _*will*_.

I'd actually prefer_* might*_ in that instance.


----------



## Roymalika

Thomas Tompion said:


> No, for me, it has modal force, which it wouldn't have as the past tense of _*will*_.


Can you please indicate this use of "would" in the dictionary? I mean which dictionary meaning of "would" is this?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Roymalika said:


> Can you please indicate this use of "would" in the dictionary? I mean which dictionary meaning of "would" is this?


Look at the WR dictionary's meaning 6 -  (used to express lack of certainty):It would appear that he is guilty.


----------



## Roymalika

Thomas Tompion said:


> Look at the WR dictionary's meaning 6 -  (used to express lack of certainty):It would appear that he is guilty.


That's is what I wanted to know. Thanks.
And in this example, is the use of "became" the past of "become" (Like, if this was in present, it would be: .... _Mr Rideout has to have Dr Hill's attendence lest he becomes a patient_.)?

_The worst problem was to try to explain quarantine regulations to the black-clothed mothers who would not go away from the main gates and wailed bitterly' Oh! mio bambino! mio bambino!' till Mr Rideout had to have Dr Hill's attendance lest he too became a patient. Oh! sister I saw the bells go down._ Frances Saunders-Veness, Lewes, East Sussex: The Book Guild Ltd, 1989.


Or is it just fixed usage? As in _It's high time we went out_? (here, the past "went" is fixed.)


----------



## lingobingo

As per the Oxford quote in #22, the now rare word *lest* is one of the few remaining words in English that only takes the subjunctive. Nevertheless, just like everything else in the language, it gets misused/used differently. In such a case, the typical format is the unnecessary addition of the modal *should*, e.g. _lest he should misunderstand_, rather than the conventional _lest he misunderstand_. Collins includes a couple of examples of this (Lest definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary), and seems to classify it as British usage – which is unsurprising since the subjunctive is more common in American English.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

lingobingo said:


> [...]
> Nevertheless, just like everything else in the language, it gets misused/used differently. In such a case, the typical format is the unnecessary addition of the modal *should*, e.g. _lest he should misunderstand_, rather than the conventional _lest he misunderstand_.


Hello Lingobingo,

When you say _*in such a case*_, are you meaning _*misused*_, or _*used*_?  And why are we talking about unnecessary words here?  Unnecessary for what purpose? 

We don't often speak of common forms of English as unnecessary; we talk as we do because we deem it right, we make choices.  Who is to say that those choices are wrong, when they are idiomatic and grammatically unimpeachable?

There are quite a few examples of the should-form after_* lest*_ in the American Corpus, and the ngrams suggest it's not less favoured in the American English than in British.


----------



## lingobingo

I’m trying not to be judgemental about it. I’m just trying to explain the facts about the word.

Obviously the addition of *should* or *might* or whatever modal is not _necessary_ after *lest* since the bare infinitive that follows it works perfectly well as the subjunctive that Oxford says is still the right way to use *lest*.

lest he [should/might] be / go / take / have / etc.​


----------



## Thomas Tompion

lingobingo said:


> I’m trying not to be judgemental about it. I’m just trying to explain the facts about the word.


Fine. Those judgemental words (misuse, unnecessary) in your post misled me about this.

I'm not sure you are right to suggest that the Americans are more reluctant than we are to use the should-form after_* lest*_.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm not sure you are right to suggest that the Americans are more reluctant than we are to use the should-form after_* lest*_.


Do AmE speakers use should-forms at all? Since AmE speakers always seem to be willing to use the present subjunctive, I cannot think that "should" serves any purpose. For BrE speakers, for whom the present subjunctive sounds odd, but who have been taught that the present indicative is wrong, "should" provides a useful alternative. Although "should" might seem unnecessary in "Button your coat lest you catch cold", where the present indicative and the present subjunctive are the same, if you are used to using "should" to indicate the subjunctive mood in the third person singular, it is likely you will use it whatever the subject of the verb.


----------



## london calling

The present subjunctive doesn't sound odd to me...


----------



## Hermione Golightly

> I cannot think that "should" serves any purpose.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Uncle Jack said:


> Do AmE speakers use should-forms at all?


The American Corpus is full of examples.


----------

