# It's crucial that he arrive/arrives on time. BrE vs. AmE (the subjunctive)



## zaffy

AmE:   It's crucial that *he arrive* on time.
BrE:     It's crucial that *he arrives* on time.

AmE:   I insist that *she apologize* to your mom.
BrE:     I insist that *she apologises* to your mum.


Grammar sources say the subjuncitve mood is disappearing today, although still more popular in AmE. So do those two examples (made up by me) show the difference between AmE and BrE in this respect?


----------



## heypresto

The subjunctive may be disappearing, but you will hear 'he arrive' and 'she apologise' in BE, so I don't think you can form any hard and fast rules about this _quite _yet. Just be aware that 'he arrives' and she apologises' exists and is more than acceptable.


----------



## zaffy

heypresto said:


> The subjunctive may be disappearing, but you will hear 'he arrive' and 'she apologise' in BE, so I don't think you can form any hard and fast rules about this _quite _yet. Just be aware that 'he arrives' and she apologises' exists and is more than acceptable.



And would the language register matter? Which form would you use/hear while talking to your close friend or, say, to your boss?


----------



## kentix

It doesn't seem like it's disappearing in AE to me. But maybe I'm old.

I have also read comments from some people saying that they think it's filtering back into BE a bit from AE.


----------



## Egmont

I use it in AE, but only in formal sentence structures such as those in your examples. If I was speaking to a close friend about the need for a wedding guest to arrive today in order to participate in a rehearsal, I'd probably say something like "He really has to get here today" and avoid the issue completely.


----------



## zaffy

heypresto said:


> The subjunctive may be disappearing, but you will hear 'he arrive' and 'she apologise' in BE, so I don't think you can form any hard and fast rules about this _quite _yet. Just be aware that 'he arrives' and she apologises' exists and is more than acceptable.


I asked a Brit from South Molton. He prefered choosing the standard tense forms. 







_* I've highlighted the ones I would use. *_


----------



## heypresto

I prefer it too, but as I said, you'll hear both.


----------



## You little ripper!

I'm usually one to flout grammar rules if I can get away with it, but in this instance I prefer the subjunctive form. That could be because the subjunctive is alive and well in Italian, a language I used to speak reasonably fluently.


----------



## zaffy

_It's crucial that *he arrive* on time. 
I insist that *she apologise* to your mum._


And do you sense those forms as infinitives or plural verb forms?


----------



## heypresto

They are subjunctive forms, aren't they?


----------



## zaffy

They are, but I was interested how English natives sense them, if it is at all possible to say.  Non-natives are told to use the infinitive form of verbs, as it is just easier for them to remember . But I was wondering whether they perhpas are, in fact, the plural forms. Why? Becuase "If I were you...." is, I believe,  a subjunctive form too and it uses the plural form for the first person singular.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

zaffy said:


> _It's crucial that *he arrive* on time.
> I insist that *she apologise* to your mum._
> 
> 
> And do you sense those forms as infinitives or plural verb forms?


More than 90% of native English speakers would probably have no idea at all whether something is an infinitive, a subjunctive or anything else. Remember that we do not learn formal English grammar as part of the standard school curriculum. We learn to read, write, spell, and punctuate (if we're lucky) and our teachers will correct us if we say something horribly ungrammatical, but we do not generally learn any 'rules' of grammar and we certainly aren't taught the terminology.  You have to realise that the clever folks you meet here on WRF are among the tiny percentage of native English speakers who actually do understand how the language works and know the terminology to describe it.

The vast majority of anglophones simply go by instinct about what 'sounds right'. And it definitely 'sounds wrong' to most people to say _he arrive_ - that's why they tend to avoid it. Your famous friend from South Molton (who told you that 'Nor am I' was American English) is presumably one of this majority.


----------



## Keith Bradford

It's quite difficult to trace the proportional preferences for these term at all, let alone compare British and American usage.  The reasons are several:

The subjunctive is only visible in the third person singular;
It only comes into play after a jussive (a verb or phrase that expresses a command), not after just any instance of "that";
Some of those jussives are in themselves ambiguous -- does "I insist", for instance, mean _I command_ or _I assert_?_  "It is crucial"_ is one of these;
It forms long phrases, and Ngrams have a maximum phrase-length of five words;
The British alternatives are various: the indicative, the subjunctive, auxiliaries like _should _or _must_...
So most of us are from South Molton: we can only give our personal opinions and have few facts to base a dispassionate judgment on.  My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the subjunctive is as good as dead in current British English; I have never heard it in conversation*.  However, it still thrives in committees, where there is a massive and important difference between "I say that Joanne Smith *is *elected secretary" and "I say that Joanne Smith *be* elected secretary". Thus it lives more in the printed than the spoken word.

*Excepting, of course, in set phrases, relics like_ be that as it may, if I were you, God save the Queen._..


----------



## billj

zaffy said:


> _It's crucial that *he arrive* on time.
> I insist that *she apologise* to your mum._
> And do you sense those forms as infinitives or plural verb forms?


_It's crucial that he arrive on time. 
I insist that she apologise to your mum._

"Arrive" and "apologise" are *plain form *verbs, the same form that is used in imperatives and infinitivals.

Incidentally, such expressions are best called the subjunctive 'construction', not 'mood', since Present-day English does not have an inflectional mood system of the verb.


----------



## Keith Bradford

billj said:


> ... such expressions are best called the subjunctive 'construction', not 'mood', since English does not have an inflected mood system.


So how come this "construction" only occurs in the ending of the third person singular in the present tense?  Surely it's the remnant of a once more widely-used inflected system?


----------



## zaffy

_It was crucial that *he arrive* on time.
It was crucial that *he arrived* on time.

I insisted that *she apologise* to your mum._ 
_I insisted that *she apologised* to your mum._


And in the past tense, the story is the same, right? Both forms used, but BE would perhaps prefer the real tense forms, that is, 'arrived' and 'apologised', right?


----------



## DonnyB

zaffy said:


> _It's crucial that *he arrive* on time.
> I insist that *she apologise* to your mum._
> 
> And do you sense those forms as infinitives or plural verb forms?


To me, they're both present subjunctives, but if other people want to call them something different, that's up to them. I can't readily think of a scenario in which I would actually use either of those examples but then I don't do a lot of formal writing these days.


----------



## Keith Bradford

DonnyB said:


> To me, they're both present subjunctives, but if other people want to call them something different, that's up to them...



  I'd use "should" in both cases.


----------



## zaffy

Keith Bradford said:


> I'd use "should" in both cases.


So do the 'should' versions sound more natural in everyday language? Less formal?

_It's crucial that *he should arrive* on time.
I insist that *she should apologise* to your mum._


----------



## DonnyB

zaffy said:


> So do the 'should' versions sound more natural in everyday language? Less formal?
> 
> _It's crucial that *he should arrive* on time.
> I insist that *she should apologise* to your mum._


It's very common in BE, yes, although I _believe_ speakers of AE have said they don't use it much.


----------



## zaffy

DonnyB said:


> It's very common in BE, yes, althogh I _believe_ speakers of AE have said they don't use it much.


And how about the past tense in #17? Would you use 'should' as well?


----------



## kentix

DonnyB said:


> It's very common in BE, yes, althogh I _believe_ speakers of AE have said they don't use it much.


To me, these two sentences have different meanings:

- I insist that she apologize to your mom.​- I insist that she should apologize to your mom.​
So I can't substitute one for the other.


----------



## DonnyB

zaffy said:


> And how about the past tense in #17? Would you use 'should' as well?


It was crucial that *he should arrive* on time.
I insisted that *she should apologise* to your mum. 
both work for me, yes.

However, to echo kentix's point (post 23) the use of 'should' in the second sentence strongly implies _"ought to"_ and thus fudges the question of whether 'she' actually did or not.


----------



## zaffy

DonnyB said:


> It was crucial that *he should arrive* on time.
> I insisted that *she should apologise* to your mum.
> both work for me, yes.



And besides the 'should' version, would you say 'arrive' or 'arrived'? 'Apologise' or 'apologised'?


----------



## zaffy

kentix said:


> o me, these two sentences have different meanings:
> 
> - I insist that she apologize to your mom.- I insist that she should apologize to your mom.
> So I can't substitute one for the other.



What kind of a diffrence do you sense? And would you use a tense form, that is, "I insist that she apologize*s* to your mom."


----------



## kentix

In the second sentence, "should" represents an opinion. In truth, it doesn't make perfect sense. It's saying, "I insist that this is my opinion."

In the first sentence, the person is basically stating, "I will not drop this matter until the apology happens." It's not about what should happen, it's about what will happen if the speaker has their way. (It's a form of "I won't take 'no' for an answer.")


----------



## Keith Bradford

Kentix, you're confusing the two meanings of the verb "insist".  I warned against this in #13.  It's a bad sample sentence to base any discussion on; "I demand..." would have been better.


----------



## kentix

I'm speaking of American English. That's what it means. "I insist that <something happens>" is a demand.

"I insist that she go." - I will not let this matter of her being here rest until she leaves. ("You should never have brought her here.")

"I insist that she go." - You can't deny her a place on the outing because of something that was not her fault. I will not let this matter drop until you relent and allow her to join the trip. (Longer version: I insist that she be allowed to go.)

"I insist that she cover the cost of the damages she caused." - I will not let the matter rest until she pays the money.



Keith Bradford said:


> where there is a massive and important difference between "I say that Joanne Smith *is *elected secretary" and "I say that Joanne Smith *be* elected secretary".


That doesn't even make sense to me. I don't know what it means.


----------



## Keith Bradford

In British usage, "I insist that Shakespeare is a great playwright" = "I assert/maintain/repeat that Shakespeare..."  Doesn't it have that meaning in the US?


----------



## zaffy

kentix said:


> In the second sentence, "should" represents an opinion. In truth, it doesn't make perfect sense. It's saying, "I insist that this is my opinion."



And how about the past tense? Which work for you in AE? From what in understood, all of them work in BE.

It was crucial that he should arrive on time.
It was crucial that he arrive on time.
It was crucial that he arrived on time.

I insisted that she should apologize to your mom.
I insisted that she apologize to your mom.
I insisted that she apologized to your mom.


----------



## kentix

Keith Bradford said:


> In British usage, "I insist that Shakespeare is a great playwright" = "I assert/maintain/repeat that Shakespeare..."  Doesn't it have that meaning in the US?


I suppose technically that meaning does exist but I wouldn't expect to hear it, really. I'm not sure I ever have in living memory.

Any of these would be far more common, I think:

"I assert/maintain/repeat that..." Especially "maintain".

Or, "It's clear that...", "It's obvious that...", "It goes without saying that..."

But the default higher register would be "maintain".


----------



## kentix

DonnyB said:


> but then I don't do a lot of formal writing these days.


As Donny B alluded to, these often have a tendency toward a more formal sound, so they aren't used in all situations.

It was crucial that he should arrive on time.
It was crucial that he arrive on time.
It was crucial that he arrived on time.

I would use that one in a situation that met those circumstances.

If not, I think you'd have a completely different sentence.

"It was very important that he get there on time."

(Oops. Did it again! )

"It was very important for him to get there on time."


----------



## zaffy

kentix said:


> "It was very important that *he get* there on time."


I see. Looks like grammar books tell the truth. The subjunctive is used a lot in AE. And would some Americans go the BE way and use the tense form? 

"It was very important that *he got* there on time."


----------



## Keith Bradford

kentix said:


> I suppose technically that meaning does exist but I wouldn't expect to hear it, really. I'm not sure I ever have in living memory...


OK, AE is your language, not mine.  But it's everyday BE.  And even Merriam-Webster (for whom I hold no torch) gives:

_2.  [+ object] : to say (something) in a way that is very forceful and does not allow disagreement                                                                                                                                                                                                                        _

_She insists the money is hers.
                                                                       — usually + that    _
_She kept insisting that she was right._
_He insists that these problems are not his fault._
_Both men insist that they are innocent._

Insist - Definition for English-Language Learners from Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary


----------



## zaffy

I asked the same Brit about the past forms and he didn't like the subjunctive and the should version.


----------



## Keith Bradford

No, I'm sorry, we fall back into the same tangle. "I insisted that she apologised to your mum. You may not believe me, but it was true, I insisted several times and I have witnesses. She *did* apologise, she *did*!"

 Let's try to clarify.  The word "insist" has two very common meanings in British English, even though Kentix has only ever encountered one of them on his side of the Atlantic.  They are:

To assert repeatedly:  _I insist that I saw the accused running down the street._
To demand:  _I insist that you pay me the money you owe me._
Likewise "crucial" has two meanings, depending largely on whether we speak with hindsight or plan for the future:

Very significant.  _It was crucial to the army's success in 1943 that it had good supply-lines_
Essential. _ It is crucial that you get to that exam tomorrow._
To avoid ambiguity, you have two options:

Use a different verb: _assert _or _demand_, for instance.
Use a following construction that makes the meaning clear,
Your friend cited in #35 doesn't seem to care whether his answer is ambiguous or not, so he chooses to shun both options.  In my view, that does not lead to clarity of style and I hope you'll forgive me if I reject his advice.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

zaffy said:


> _It was crucial that *he arrive* on time.
> It was crucial that *he arrived* on time.
> 
> I insisted that *she apologise* to your mum.
> I insisted that *she apologised* to your mum._
> 
> 
> And in the past tense, the story is the same, right? Both forms used, but BE would perhaps prefer the real tense forms, that is, 'arrived' and 'apologised', right?


The present subjunctive would be bizarre in British English in the second of those two pairs of sentences.  We'd mostly say things like _I insisted that *she apologised* to your mum. _


zaffy said:


> [...]
> Grammar sources say the subjuncitve mood is disappearing today


You say this in your opening post.  I wonder what 'grammar sources' you have been consulting, because famously _*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*_.

As you are interested in this idea, you might like to look at this paper which explores the issue: http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/CL2003/CL2001 conference/papers/serpolle.pdf

The point is that British English is influenced by the American English we meet everyday, hearing Americans speak, reading what they write, and watching American films.  Their use of subjunctive forms may well be causing speakers of British English to use the mandative subjunctive more: that's the idea explored in the paper.

Looking at the ngrams, and altering them for British English, American English, and English fiction, is interesting, and causes one to be hesitant about statements concerning general trends. It's worth reading that article.


----------



## zaffy

I asked another Brit. He didn't like the subjunctive either.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

zaffy said:


> [...]
> "If I were you...." is, I believe, a subjunctive form too and it uses the plural form for the first person singular.


I think this might be misleading.

This is not a plural form in the imperfect subjunctive.  The imperfect subjunctive of _*to be*_, is, like most English subjunctives, invariable - _I were, you were, he were, we were, you were, they were. _

The fact that we say_ If I were you_ means that we are using the subjunctive.  The indicative would be the sub-standard, but sometimes heard, _If I was you._


----------



## abluter

I'm British and I like the subjunctive, but very few of my (fairly elderly) friends use it.  In church (Church of England) you hear prayers that invariably avoid the subjunctive by saying  "O God, we pray that you _would_ look with mercy on  etc"  instead of ". . .we pray that you look, (subjunctive)"  The "would " sounds clumsy to me.


----------



## Uncle Jack

I might use any of the three forms (present subjunctive, present/past indicative or should + infinitive).

Very few people I know use the present subjunctive. I am sure that, apart from a couple of friends who studied language at university, and young people who are either still in or have just left school, hardly anyone I know even knows what the subjunctive is or how to use it. They might have some vague awareness of the past subjunctive in hypothetical conditionals ("If I were a rich man..."), but for most of them, the present subjunctive would have passed them by entirely. Even in schools, where subjunctive verb forms are now taught, pupils don't appear to be taught or encouraged to actually use the subjunctive mood, merely to recognise it.

"Should" tends not to be used much in speech, but I think it is moderately common in writing in BrE, presumably used by writers who know the subjunctive mood should be used but worry that their writing will sound overly formal, old-fashioned or just plain odd if they use the present subjunctive.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

abluter said:


> [...]
> ". . .we pray that you look, (subjunctive)" The "would " sounds clumsy to me.


Hi Abluter.

What makes you think this is a subjunctive?

In the second person the forms are the same.


----------



## Forero

Keith Bradford said:


> In British usage, "I insist that Shakespeare is a great playwright" = "I assert/maintain/repeat that Shakespeare..."  Doesn't it have that meaning in the US?


Yes, approximately, or "I insist it is a fact that Shakespeare is a great playwright."

And "It's crucial that he *arrives* on time" means "(The fact) that he arrives on time is crucial."

It is not at all equivalent to "It's crucial that *he arrive* on time", which means "It's crucial for him to arrive on time."


----------



## kentix

Keith Bradford said:


> Let's try to clarify. The word "insist" has two very common meanings in British English, even though Kentix has only ever encountered one of them on his side of the Atlantic.


I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to this before now. I've been meaning to. I don't actually have the proper time right now, but you've forced my hand. 

My main point is that you completely overlooked the specifics of what I said.



Keith Bradford said:


> Kentix, you're confusing the two meanings of the verb "insist". I warned against this in #13. It's a bad sample sentence to base any discussion on; "I demand..." would have been better.





kentix said:


> I'm speaking of American English. That's what it means. "I insist that <something happens>" is a demand.
> 
> "I insist that she go." - I will not let this matter of her being here rest until she leaves. ("You should never have brought her here.")


I very clearly said I was talking about the usage "I insist that <something happens>".*  That _is_ a demand in American English, it is not a mistake and it is used in that sense every day.

* "I insist that <something> is true." is a different use.

But instead of talking about "insist" in relation to forcing an action to occur, which was the direct topic of the OP and the specific case I was talking about, ("AmE: I insist that *she apologize* to your mom.), as the words I've highlighted above in green show, you started talking about a completely different use, and picked an example so bizarre to my mind that I didn't even recognize your intent. Yes, we have that use. No, we wouldn't say it in that sort of weird sentence.

"I insist that Shakespeare is a great playwright."

That's like saying, "I insist that people eat food." Yeah, you could say it, but what's the point?

These examples from Merriam-Webster you found are far less bizarre and illustrate its real use in AE much more clearly.

_She insists the money *is* hers.
— usually + that_

_She kept insisting that she *was* right._
_He insists that these problems *are* not his fault._
_Both men insist that they *are* innocent._
There is actually something real to insist about that is in dispute and the resolution of which will have real consequences.

But in any case, all of them are about the _state_ of truth and facts in a situation. They are all "is" and "was" and "are". None of them are about a specific action that someone wants taken, so they are basically irrelevant to the meaning of the OP, which is about _doing_ something, not claiming something.

Added: As you can see from those MW examples, we don't generally use insist for pure opinions. "I'm innocent" is not really an opinion. As I said in another answer, "maintain" would be a far more likely word choice in that context. So would "believe". So would "It's my claim that..." or "It's my firm belief that..." We definitely wouldn't feel the need to "insist" on something that's not in dispute.


----------



## lentulax

Forero said:


> And "It's crucial that he *arrives* on time" means "(The fact) that he arrives on time is crucial."
> It is not at all equivalent to "It's crucial that *he arrive* on time", which means "It's crucial for him to arrive on time."



I've just read this thread , and I'm amazed that it's taken till #43 for someone (Forerero) to point this out; it applies to the other sentences too. Keith Bradford did point out in #36 the problems of meaning in 'I insisted that she apologised to your mum', but this was complicated by the issue of the use of the word 'insist'. So let's make it '*I demanded that she apologise to your mum*' and '*I demanded that she apologised to your mum*' - these *don't mean the same* ; in the first, it is a fact that 'I demanded', but whether 'she' apologised or not is unknown; in the second, there are two facts - I demanded and she apologised. I'm British, I do use the subjunctive form without thinking about it, though I think I often use the non-subjunctctive form instead; I hope (of course) that, wherever there is the possibility of ambiguity, I naturally use the form which makes my meaning clear ; but usually  in real life the context puts the meaning  beyond doubt, and removes any concern about ambiguity, so I dare say the less formal, or meticulous, use is more general ; but I belong to the older generation.


----------



## kentix

I did say this in #22. I'll switch it to "demand" in line with your examples, since there's no difference in meaning for me, except one of intensity and politeness.

To me, these two sentences have different meanings:​​- I insist demand that she apologize to your mom.​- I insist demand that she should apologize to your mom.​​So I can't substitute one for the other.​​You can add, "I demand that she apologized to your mom."


----------



## zaffy

lentulax said:


> So let's make it '*I demanded that she apologise to your mum*' and '*I demanded that she apologised to your mum*' - these *don't mean the same* ; in the first, it is a fact that 'I demanded', but whether 'she' apologised or not is unknown; in the second, there are two facts - I demanded and she apologised.



I asked two Brits and they said they only used the second option, meaning, they don't find the difference that you do.  Life is hard.


----------



## kentix

Their minds have atrophied in that area, through lack of use. 

It's like many other things in language. If the difference is significant, it will be noticed, enforced and remembered. When it's not significant, it won't.

In American English, the subjunctive is significant and (at least to me) those two sentences are not equivalent. To someone else, where the distinction is glossed over, there is no difference.

It reminds me of another thread here I saw earlier today. It's was discussing the difference in the pronunciation of the names Carrie and Kerry. The person was lamenting the fact that some people pronounce those names exactly the same way. But to those people, the pronunciations _are_ exactly the same because in their English they have the merry-marry-Mary merger (or whatever it's formally called). Those sounds have become identical and can't be distinguished in that dialect of English. A difference between those two is not noticed, enforced or remembered because there isn't one.

It wouldn't surprise me, though, if the person seeing a difference in Kerry and Carrie was unable to distinguish non-subjunctive from subjunctive. Or was a user of one of many other mergers that exist in English.


----------



## billj

zaffy said:


> I asked two Brits and they said they only used the second option, meaning, *they don't find the difference that you do.*  Life is hard.




[1] _I demanded _[_that she apologise to your mum_].

[2] _I demanded_ [_that she apologised to your mum_].

Content clause with "demand" are always mandative. [1] is a subjunctive mandative and [2] with a backshifted preterite is a covert mandative.

They both carry a strong deontic meaning: in [1] _I made it a requirement for her to apologise to your mum_, and in [2] _I made it a requirement that she apologise to your mum._


----------



## Twisty

Keith Bradford said:


> No, I'm sorry, we fall back into the same tangle. "I insisted that she apologised to your mum. You may not believe me, but it was true, I insisted several times and I have witnesses. She *did* apologise, she *did*!"



If I understand the ambiguity correctly, wouldn't it make sense to avoid it by using the past perfect? _I insisted that she had apologised to your mum? _ Surely it would be correct to use in that situation anyway? (Or you could use the present perfect instead if the information was still relevant.)


----------



## zaffy

Forero said:


> And "It's crucial that he *arrives* on time" means "(The fact) that he arrives on time is crucial."
> 
> It is not at all equivalent to "It's crucial that *he arrive* on time", which means "It's crucial for him to arrive on time."



I'm going over and over againg through that explanation and I'm still lost, that is, I still can't see the difference. Would you please set them in context to make it easier for me to see it?


----------



## zaffy

Just checked another grammar source, Practical English Usage by Swan, and he doesn't mention any difference in meanings at all. Possibly to make things easier for non-natives. And again he confirms the subjunctive mood is more often use in AE.


----------



## DonnyB

zaffy said:


> I'm going over and over againg through that explanation and I'm still lost, that is, I still can't see the difference. Would you please set them in context to make it easier for me to see it?


I'm a little lost on that, too.   

I _think_ it's trying to echo the point I made in post #23: the version with the present subjunctive (It's crucial that *he arrive* on time) expresses some sort of vital requirement, but doesn't necessarily imply that 'he' eventually does or not.  Whereas the indicative, to me, gives a much clearer indication that he usually does, fulfilling the stipulation.

I wouldn't personally use the subjunctive there: I think it sounds _much_ more natural as "It's crucial *for him to arrive* on time".


----------



## zaffy

And in such formal writing, would BE use "be worn" as well or would you prefer "should be worn"? Or simply "are worn"?


----------



## billj

[1] _I demanded _[_that she apologise to your mum_].

[2] _I demanded_ [_that she apologised to your mum_].

The point is that content clause complements of "demand" are always mandative.

The subjunctive mandative [1] and the covert mandative [2] both express the content of my demand and have similar meanings in that they both carry a strong deontic meaning comparable to that expressed by the modal auxiliary "must". 

The only real difference is in the syntax, the former having a plain form verb, the latter a tensed form.


----------



## DonnyB

zaffy said:


> And in such formal writing, would BE use "be worn" as well or would you prefer "should be worn"?


I'd go with the present subjunctive there: it has the tone of a semi-official 'instruction'.


----------



## Forero

zaffy said:


> I'm going over and over again through that explanation and I'm still lost, that is, I still can't see the difference. Would you please set them in context to make it easier for me to see it?


Is his arrival something that is required for some reason, or is it an actual fact? Does somebody want him to arrive, or does he in fact arrive?

A requirement can be crucial, and a fact can be crucial, so either form makes sense.

But if we start with "I demand that" instead of "It is crucial that", the speaker is talking about a requirement, so indicative after "I demand that" does not make any sense (in my English).


----------



## billj

Forero said:


> Is his arrival something that is required for some reason, or is it an actual fact? Does somebody want him to arrive, or does he in fact arrive?
> 
> A requirement can be crucial, and a fact can be crucial, so either form makes sense.
> 
> But if we start with "I demand that" instead of "It is crucial that", the speaker is talking about a requirement, so indicative after "I demand that" does not make any sense (in my English).


But it does make sense.

The covert form is just as much mandative as the subjunctive form. Compare:

[1] _They demanded _[_that the park remain open_].................[subjunctive mandative]
[2] _They demanded _[_that the park remained open_]. ............[covert mandative]

[2] is just as grammatically correct as [1], and they both have similar meanings.


----------



## kentix

Number 2 doesn't have the same meaning to me as number 1. In fact, number 2 doesn't have much meaning to me at all. It's a goofy combination of words.

They demanded that something that occurred occurred.

Let's start from the other end.

- What happened to the park? They were thinking about permanently closing it.

- The park remained open.

That's a fact. It happened.

- They demanded that the park remained open.

Well they don't have to demand it. It did remain open. They can see that. It makes no sense to demand it. They _could_ explain it.

- They explained that the park remained open (because more money was budgeted).

It's like saying:

- They demanded that men landed on the moon.
- They demanded that the sun came up this morning.


----------



## billj

Perhaps you're confused by the fact that the covert mandative in [2] has a backshifted preterite.

Incidentally, there's another mandative form called the _should-_mandative:

_They demanded _[_that the park should remain open_]_._

This is equivalent in meaning to [1] and [2] in #58, so we have three distinct mandative forms with the same meaning.


----------



## kentix

But the point we're making is they don't often have the same meaning to the same people. There is no need to have three (or four) ways to say the same thing.

My usage would be:

They thought the park should remain open. (opinion)
They demanded that the park remain open. (command)
They demanded that the park remained open. (weird)
They thought it was important for the park to remain open. (opinion)


----------



## Twisty

Wasn't this difference between BE and AE discussed earlier in the thread? It may sound "goofy" to you, it doesn't to others. My preference would be for the subjunctive as well, though.


----------



## kentix

But that's my point. Preferences are different. We don't all use all forms. They don't all sound equally good to a single person.


----------



## zaffy

Keith Bradford said:


> I say that Joanne Smith *is *elected secretary" and "I say that Joanne Smith *be* elected secretary". Thus it lives more in the printed than the spoken word.


I insist she is elected secretary.   (In my opinion she has already been elected)
I insist she be elected secretary.  (In my opinion she should be elected)

Am I right?


----------



## zaffy

Keith Bradford said:


> No, I'm sorry, we fall back into the same tangle. "I insisted that she apologised to your mum. You may not believe me, but it was true, I insisted several times and I have witnesses. She *did* apologise, she *did*!"



I insisted she should apologise. (I strongly believed that she should apologise, we don't know if she did)
I insisted she apologised.  (I asserted she apologised, she really did.)

Am I right?


----------



## merquiades

zaffy said:


> I insisted she should apologise. (I strongly believed that she should apologise, we don't know if she did)
> I insisted she aplogised.  (I asserted she apologised, she really did.)
> 
> Am I right?


I insisted she should apologize.   Apologizing is something she ought to do.  It was my recommendation
I insist she should apologize.    Apologizing is something she ought to do.  It is my recommendation.
I insisted she apologize.   I forced her to apologize.
I insist she apologize.  I am forcing her to apologize.

I insisted she apologized.  The meaning is completely different.  I reiterate, keep repeating that I know she did apologize in the past.

It is crucial she arrive on time.  Normal every day in AE.
It is crucial she arrives on time.   Sounds like a grammar mistake to me.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

merquiades said:


> I insisted she apologize. I forced her to apologize.





merquiades said:


> I insisted she apologized. The meaning is completely different. I reiterate, keep repeating that I know she did apologize in the past.


I'm not sure I agree. 

I'd be reluctant to use the first and would use the second with the meaning you give for the first.

I'd say _I insisted she apologized_ to mean I compelled her to apologise.


----------



## Forero

zaffy said:


> I insist she is elected secretary.   (In my opinion she has already been elected)
> I insist she be elected secretary.  (In my opinion she should be elected)
> 
> Am I right?


Yes.


zaffy said:


> I insisted she should apologise. (I strongly believed that she should apologise, we don't know if she did)
> I insisted she aplogised.  (I asserted she apologised, she really did.)
> 
> Am I right?


Yes.

_I insisted she apologize._ [It was my opinion she should apologize.]

These are approximate glosses that show the differences between these constructions. To be accurate, we have to say that insisting is more than having an opinion, strongly believing, or asserting.

But I would not go so far as to say that insisting is forcing.

Insisting has to do with sticking with an idea even if others disagree. With indicative, the idea is a fact the speaker is sure of; with subjunctive, the idea is something the speaker demands or wants.


----------



## kentix

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'd say _I insisted she apologized_ to mean I compelled her to apologise.


And I wouldn't say that at all. It has no logical meaning to me.


----------



## zaffy

And do you agree with these two interpretations?

I insist that the money is hers. ( I assert that the money belongs to her.)
I insist that the money be hers. ( I assert that the money should be given to her.)


----------



## zaffy

merquiades said:


> I insisted she apologized. The meaning is completely different. I reiterate, keep repeating that I know* she did apologize in the past*.


One thing puzzles me. She clearly apologised before my asserting so why not the past perfect? It would make it much easier for non-natives.  _"I insisted she had apologized."_


----------



## merquiades

zaffy said:


> One thing puzzles me. She clearly apologised before my asserting so why not the past perfect? It would make it much easier for non-natives.  _"I insisted she had apologized."_


I insisted that she had already apologized?
For me that is fine.
It would make it easier for non-natives of course, but unfortunately the language is made by and for natives.

I insist the money is hers.  It's grammatically correct but sounds a bit odd.  I have to really think about it before I can give a meaning.  Maybe "I insist on the fact that the money belongs to her and not you".


----------



## Steven David

zaffy said:


> AmE:   It's crucial that *he arrive* on time.
> BrE:     It's crucial that *he arrives* on time.
> 
> AmE:   I insist that *she apologize* to your mom.
> BrE:     I insist that *she apologises* to your mum.
> 
> 
> Grammar sources say the subjuncitve mood is disappearing today, although still more popular in AmE. So do those two examples (made up by me) show the difference between AmE and BrE in this respect?



Subjunctive, as shown in these two examples, is definitely not disappearing in American English.

Though limited in contexts in which it is used, subjunctive, again, as shown in these two examples, is very much alive and not going away.

Present subjunctive, as shown in these examples, appears in the United States news media every day.

Present subjunctive, the type of subjunctive shown in these examples, also occurs in daily conversation. Native speakers of English usually don't know that they are using present subjunctive. Nonetheless, we hear it and recognize it in conversation.

It occurs infrequently, but infrequent usage does not mean disappearing usage.


----------



## zaffy

merquiades said:


> I insist the money is hers. It's grammatically correct but sounds a bit odd. I have to really think about it before I can give a meaning. Maybe "I insist on the fact that the money belongs to her and not you".


I see. So can this have the two meanings that I mentionted? "I insist that the money be hers."
That is, 
1. I assert that the money belongs to her.
2. I assert that the money should be given to her.


----------



## zaffy

Well, I've gone all over again this thread and I can see there's been lots of confusion and controversy even between native speakers because of two meanigns of " insist". So let me make up other examples with different verbs and I guess they are all fine. Are they?

AmE: I suggest she *call* her mom and *apologize*. 
BrE:  I suggest she *calls* her mum and *apologises*.
BrE:  I suggest she* should call* her mum and* apologise*.

AmE: I recommend that your sister *get* some professional advice. 
BrE: I recommend that your sister *gets* some professional advice. 
BrE: I recommend that your sister *should get* some professional advice.


----------



## kentix

Those (AE) I can agree with except that I would usually include "that".

"I suggest that she *call* her mom and *apologize*."


----------



## Steven David

Speaking of confusion with the verb insist, here are some notes about that. Also, the same idea could possibly exist with other verbs in which present subjunctive is used depending on context. 

I believe that most "scholars" and good linguists would see it this way as well. 

There are some other points here in which it seems that others would disagree. Nonetheless, they're still worth posting.

1) I insisted that she apologize. <

This is an example of present subjunctive. She may or may not have apologized. Only context tells us this.

2) I insisted that she apologized.

3) I insisted that she had apologized.

The last two examples above are not present subjunctive and not subjunctive. These last two sentences are assertions of what the speaker or writer believes to be a fact.

I insist that she tells the truth.

I insist that she tell the truth.

The first sentence above is an assertion of what the speaker believes to be a fact.

The second sentence above is subjunctive in that the speaker believes that maybe she's not going to tell the truth. Therefore, the speaker uses subjunctive to highlight the urgency of this requirement.

Present subjunctive has a rhetorical effect.

She must apologize and must tell the truth.

I insist that she apologize and tell the truth.

Yes, the force of present subjunctive and must are similar. Or the meaning and feel they convey are similar. They are not, however, the same.

If we say I insisted, and then the rest of the sentence, it is still present subjunctive. The dependent clause does not change tense with present subjunctive.

Here's a relevant page that may interest you.

The English subjunctive: scholarly opinions 

I am in agreement with the writers of these pages.


----------



## zaffy

And how about the negatives? This is how it would work, wouldn't it?

AmE: I suggest she *not* *call* her mom and *apologize*.
BrE: I suggest she *doesn't* *call* her mum and *apologises*.
BrE: I suggest she* shouldn't call* her mum and* apologise*.


----------



## kentix

The AE  version is okay.


----------



## Steven David

zaffy said:


> And how about the negatives? This is how it would work, wouldn't it?
> 
> AmE: I suggest she *not* *call* her mom and *apologize*.
> BrE: I suggest she *doesn't* *call* her mum and *apologises*.
> BrE: I suggest she* shouldn't call* her mum and* apologise*.



In American English, as a negation for present subjunctive, the first sentence is correct.

Though an unlikely sentence, I read the second sentence as an assertion of what the speaker believes to be a fact.

I read the third sentence as something the speaker merely thinks is a good idea or that is advice. I do not read it as subjunctive. British English speakers may view this differently. However, this would be the interpretation for American English speakers. And last, most native speakers just don't even get to the point of thinking about things like this. So the point of this whole thing is to, of course, help non-native speakers better understand exactly what a native speaker of English is saying in consideration of contexts in which present subjunctive is used with what we can supposedly call mandative verbs.



zaffy said:


> I see. So can this have the two meanings that I mentionted? "I insist that the money be hers."
> 
> That is,
> 
> 1. I assert that the money belongs to her.
> 
> 2. I assert that the money should be given to her.



Sentence number one is an indication that people are trying to settle an argument. Who does the money belong to? I say it belongs to her. What is the truth here?

Sentence number two means that the speaker believes it's a good idea for her to get the money.

For British English speakers, sentence number two may have subjunctive force. As an American English speaker, I wouldn't read it that way.

I suggest that she get the money.

I suggest that the money be given to her.

These two are, of course, present subjunctive.


----------



## merquiades

I can agree that the American example you give sounds normal to me. I would never say the two sentences you put for BE. They sound wrong to my ears.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Speaking generally I can't see the point of adding 'should'.
If I say 'I insist that she call her mum' it includes a should idea.


----------



## Uncle Jack

zaffy said:


> I insist she is elected secretary. (In my opinion she has already been elected)


This makes no sense to me. If she has already been elected, you cannot use the present tense. If "elected" is an adjective, then you need an article because "secretary" is a countable noun.

Of course, in BrE, we happily use the indicative instead of the present subjunctive with "insist" (=strongly urge), so this sentence is fine if the meaning is "I strongly urge that she be elected secretary", but that is beside the point.


zaffy said:


> BrE: I suggest she *doesn't* *call* her mum and *apologises*.
> BrE: I suggest she* shouldn't call* her mum and* apologise*.


The first one needs "apologise"; "doesn't" applies to both verbs.

"Shouldn't" would not be taken as the subjunctive "should" here (remember that the subjunctive should is rare in modern English), and it sounds very odd with "suggest" ("I suggest she didn't ought to call her mum..." )


----------



## zaffy

I know this is not the subjunctive. This is stating the fact. Does it work in both BE and AE?

"The two men insist they are innocent."


----------



## Steven David

zaffy said:


> I know this is not the subjunctive. This is stating the fact. Does it work in both BE and AE?
> 
> "The two men insist they are innocent."



Yes, this is so. There's no reason to believe that there's a difference with respect to American English and British English here or any other kind of English.


----------

