# Is it a subjunctive?



## LQZ

Despite expecting Bin Laden to put up a fight, Mr. Brennan said the assault team had made contingency plans for capturing, rather than killing him. “_If we had the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, if he didn’t present any threat, the individuals involved *were able* and prepared to do that_,” he said.  New York Times (subscription, not free)

Dear all,

To my mind of thinking, Mr Brennan is talking something contrary to the fact that they didn't have the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, so subjunctive is applied to the part in brown. Could you please tell me whether my understanding is correct? If yes, should there be "would be able", rather than "were able", in the latter part? Thanks. 


LQZ


----------



## boozer

That's an interesting question, LQZ.

But no, this is not counter-factual. It simply tells us in the past tense what they were actually prepared to do if those conditions were fulfilled. The implication is that if they had to do it now, they would still act in the same way. Now, it surely is not any of the standard conditionals - 1st, 2nd or 3rd. 

You also have a point that probably this should be a counter-factual statement because the whole world now knows Osama was killed and he did present a threat:
If we had had the opportunity, we would have been able to take him alive.

(Could you please explain what you mean by "subjunctive"? My understanding of the subjunctive mood in English seems to be totally different and would only be applied to conditionals in a very limited number of cases...)


----------



## natkretep

I don't think the subjunctive is used with the _if_ clauses. I think Mr Brennan is reporting what they were thinking _before _the actual capture. Only because it is now reported, it is set in the past tense (*free indirect speech*): it is a reported form of



> He thought, 'If we have the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, if he doesn't present any threat, we are able and prepared to do that.'


----------



## LQZ

boozer said:


> That's an interesting question, LQZ.
> 
> But no, this is not counter-factual. It simply tells us in the past tense what they were actually prepared to do if those conditions were fulfilled. The implication is that if they had to do it now, they would still act in the same way. Now, it surely is not any of the standard conditionals - 1st, 2nd or 3rd.
> 
> You also have a point that probably this should be a counter-factual statement because the whole world now knows Osama was killed and he did present a threat:
> If we had had the opportunity, we would have been able to take him alive.
> 
> (Could you please explain what you mean by "subjunctive"? My understanding of the subjunctive mood in English seems to be totally different and would only be applied to conditionals in a very limited number of cases...)


Thanks, boozer. 

After reading your reply, I turned to find the difference between conditional and subjunctive. That may be a huge question.  

The following is what I found. 



> The past tenses of the Subjunctive, and the auxiliary *would*, can also be used in order to indicate that conditions being expressed are false or improbable.
> e.g. If I were rich, I would travel around the world.
> If he had been here, he would have been glad to see you.
> 
> In the first example, the use of the Simple Past Subjunctive *were* and the Simple conjugation with *would* indicates that the condition expressed in the clause *If I were rich* is false or improbable. In the second example, the use of the Past Perfect Subjunctive *had been*, and the Perfect conjugation with *would*, indicates that the condition expressed in the clause *If he had been here* is false.
> http://www.wordpower.ws/grammar/gramch09.html


 
I think the opportunity is improbable, so "*would*" can be used.


----------



## LQZ

natkretep said:


> I don't think the subjunctive is used with the _if_ clauses. I think Mr Brennan is reporting what they were thinking _before _the actual capture. Only because it is now reported, it is set in the past tense (*free indirect speech*): it is a reported form of


 Thanks, natkretep, I've got it.


----------



## boozer

Yeah, that's more or less what I know about the connection between conditionals and the subjunctive mood. To me, however, the subjunctive mood is limited to counterfactual if-clauses containing "were":
_If I were rich (now, but I'm not rich), I would travel the world._ - present counter-factual
_If I was rich, I would travel the world._ - the difference between this one and the subjunctive one is very subtle, if at all there is any difference. 

_If he had been here, he would have been glad to see you._ 
The example given above is, to me, a simple third conditional. If there is anything subjunctive in it, it surely is indistinguishable from the third conditional  But it's fine, it hardly matters as long as we use grammar correctly. 

I think Nat's explanation makes sense and is convincing, although reporting your own way of thinking in the first person plural sounds a bit strange and there's nothing like "we thought" or a similar phrase to suggest reporting (It did cross my mind, but I did not even dare put forward such a hypothesis  )


----------



## LQZ

boozer said:


> Yeah, that's more or less what I know about the connection between conditionals and the subjunctive mood. To me, however, the subjunctive mood is limited to counterfactual if-clauses containing "were":
> _If I were rich (now, but I'm not rich), I would travel the world._ - present counter-factual
> _If I was rich, I would travel the world._ - the difference between this one and the subjunctive one is very subtle, if at all there is any difference.
> 
> _If he had been here, he would have been glad to see you._
> The example given above is, to me, a simple third conditional. If there is anything subjunctive in it, it surely is indistinguishable from the third conditional  But it's fine, it hardly matters as long as we use grammar correctly.
> 
> I think Nat's explanation makes sense and is convincing, although reporting your own way of thinking in the first person plural sounds a bit strange and there's nothing like "we thought" or a similar phrase to suggest reporting (It did cross my mind, but I did not even dare put forward such a hypothesis  )


 
I usually have trouble with conditions and subjunctive mood, so I often keep my eye on them. Thanks, boozer.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

As I listened to Mr Brennan speak, I remember thinking that he had a poor grasp of the rules of sequence of tenses in conditional sentences, and that we would get questions in the forum of this kind. LQZ isn't going to let him get away with this, I thought to myself.

_If we had the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, if he didn’t present any threat, the individuals involved *were able* and prepared to do that._

Don't these eventive tenses suggest that we are being presented with open conditionals of the _if-he-does-this-I-do-that_, or _if-he-did-this-I-did-that_ kind? But how do we get round the fact, which LQZ points out, that this is counterfactual. So shouldn't it be _If he had done this, we would have done that_?  Yes, of course it should, but these guys don't talk proper AE.

Natkretep's point about the way they think is interesting. Before the event they talk to each other in open conditionals -_ if he does this, we do that_. They don't use Type I conditionals -_ if he does this, we will do that_. The open conditionals sound zappier and more purposeful.

After the event, reporting what happened, they keep the open conditional form -_ if he did this, we did that_ - because a mixture of adrenelin and bad linguistic habits has destroyed their sense of this part of the language, and because it still sounds zappier and more purposeful.

The alternative, which I don't totally discount, is that we are dealing with a clever man using language in a way which deliberately obfuscates what happened.


----------



## LQZ

Thomas Tompion said:


> As I listened to Mr Brennan speak, I remember thinking that he had a poor grasp of the rules of sequence of tenses in conditional sentences, and that we would get questions in the forum of this kind. LQZ isn't going to let him get away with this, I thought to myself.
> 
> _If we had the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, if he didn’t present any threat, the individuals involved *were able* and prepared to do that._
> 
> Don't these eventive tenses suggest that we are being presented with open conditionals of the _if-he-does-this-I-do-that_, or _if-he-did-this-I-did-that_ kind? But how do we get round the fact, which LQZ points out, that this is counterfactual. So shouldn't it be _If he had done this, we would have done that_? Yes, of course it should, but these guys don't talk proper AE.
> 
> Natkretep's point about the way they think is interesting. Before the event they talk to each other in open conditionals -_ if he does this, we do that_. They don't use Type I conditionals -_ if he does this, we will do that_. The open conditionals sound zappier and more purposeful.
> 
> After the event, reporting what happened, they keep the open conditional form -_ if he did this, we did that_ - because a mixture of adrenelin and bad linguistic habits has destroyed their sense of this part of the language, and because it still sounds zappier and more purposeful.
> 
> The alternative, which I don't totally discount, is that we are dealing with a clever man using language in a way which deliberately obfuscates what happened.


Thank you, TT, for your humorous and convincing explanation. 

Seems subjunctive doesn't only borther non-native speakers.


----------



## boozer

Thomas Tompion said:


> The alternative, which I don't totally discount, is that we are dealing with a clever man using language in a way which deliberately obfuscates what happened.


 That is really a brilliant idea, TT.


----------



## ribran

Thomas Tompion said:


> As I listened to Mr Brennan speak, I remember thinking that he had a poor grasp of the rules of sequence of tenses in conditional sentences, and that we would get questions in the forum of this kind. LQZ isn't going to let him get away with this, I thought to myself.
> 
> _If we had the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, if he didn’t present any threat, the individuals involved *were able* and prepared to do that._
> 
> Don't these eventive tenses suggest that we are being presented with open conditionals of the _if-he-does-this-I-do-that_, or _if-he-did-this-I-did-that_ kind? But how do we get round the fact, which LQZ points out, that this is counterfactual. So shouldn't it be _If he had done this, we would have done that_?  Yes, of course it should, but these guys don't talk proper AE.
> 
> Natkretep's point about the way they think is interesting. Before the event they talk to each other in open conditionals -_ if he does this, we do that_. They don't use Type I conditionals -_ if he does this, we will do that_. The open conditionals sound zappier and more purposeful.
> 
> After the event, reporting what happened, they keep the open conditional form -_ if he did this, we did that_ - because a mixture of adrenelin and bad linguistic habits has destroyed their sense of this part of the language, and because it still sounds zappier and more purposeful.
> 
> The alternative, which I don't totally discount, is that we are dealing with a clever man using language in a way which deliberately obfuscates what happened.



I think natkrep has hit the nail on the head.

Thomas Tompion,

You make no objection to the use of open conditionals in the present tense, so why do you consider it a "bad habit" to shift them into the past tense? I agree with you that a sentence of the form, "If he did this, we did that," such as, "If we hit him, he fled," is a poorly constructed sentence, but the original sentence is not of that form. Yes, "we were able to..." in isolation could express the completion of an act, but paired with "...and prepared to...", as it is in the original sentence, it clearly expresses a state.

Boozer,

You said, 


> I think Nat's explanation makes sense and is convincing, although reporting your own way of thinking in the first person plural sounds a bit strange and there's nothing like "we thought" or a similar phrase to suggest reporting.



You may find this style strange, but I am very familiar with it. It seems to me perfectly natural.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

ribran said:


> [...]Thomas Tompion,
> 
> You make no objection to the use of open conditionals in the present tense, so why do you consider it a "bad habit" to shift them into the past tense?


Because in the present, with its future implication, he may do both this and that; several possibilities are open. But in the past, there in the compound, he only did one thing.


----------



## boozer

ribran said:


> Boozer,
> You may find this style strange, but I am very familiar with it. It seems to me perfectly natural.



Oh, but I am also very familiar with it. And I find it quite natural in novels, documentaries and the like, where the story goes in the past tense and the author really reports the thoughts, doubts and uncertainties of his/her characters, e.g.
 
_John was prepared to open fire if that door opened_...
 
Saying that, the author actually means to keep us in suspense - we must not know whether the door opened, not just yet - we are going to find out in the next few lines, probably. At the same time he/she tells us what John thought 
 
So is Mr. Brennan really using this kind of literary style to make us explode with impatience? Hardly - we already know what actually happened.
 
Is he, then, simply reporting their thoughts, as Nat says, without giving any hint that he is, indeed, reporting? Maybe, who knows... But I still find it strange because of the seemingly factual sounding of his words and the lack of any indication of reporting. And because, as TT rightly points out, they only did one thing.
 
Maybe Mr. Brennan is trying to obscure the meaning of his words as suggested in post 8  
 
Or maybe, still, the implication is that they usually take non-resisting targets alive and shoot to kill if the target puts up resistance, which is what they were prepared to do with Osama as well. (This was my take on it).
 
I suppose Mr. Brennan is the only one who could tell just what on earth he meant to say and why he didn't say it said it like this.


----------



## ribran

boozer said:


> Oh, but I am also very familiar with it. And I find it quite natural in novels, documentaries and the like, where the story goes in the past tense and the author really reports the thoughts, doubts and uncertainties of his/her characters, e.g.
> 
> _John was prepared to open fire if that door opened_...
> 
> Saying that, the author actually means to keep us in suspense - we must not know whether the door opened, not just yet - we are going to find out in the next few lines, probably. At the same time he/she tells us what John thought
> 
> So is Mr. Brennan really using this kind of literary style to make us explode with impatience? Hardly - we already know what actually happened.
> 
> Is he, then, simply reporting their thoughts, as Nat says, without giving any hint that he is, indeed, reporting? Maybe, who knows... But I still find it strange because of the seemingly factual sounding of his words and the lack of any indication of reporting. And because, as TT rightly points out, they only did one thing.
> 
> Maybe Mr. Brennan is trying to obscure the meaning of his words as suggested in post 8
> 
> Or maybe, still, the implication is that they usually take non-resisting targets alive and shoot to kill if the target puts up resistance, which is what they were prepared to do with Osama as well. (This was my take on it).
> 
> I suppose Mr. Brennan is the only one who could tell just what on earth he meant to say and why he didn't say it said it like this.



I do not consider it out of place to use certain literary techniques in casual recounts of experiences. We Texans have a real penchant for storytelling; we do not allow such pesky details as the truth to get in the way of a good story. We gesticulate with verve and embellish without shame in an effort to  bring our stories to life. 

We have been given only one sentence. Perhaps Mr. Brennan uttered this sentence while recounting the operation.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

_"if he didn’t present any threat, the individuals involved *were able* and prepared to do that_,"

I remain very unhappy about this.

In open conditionals _if_ effectively means _when_.

_If he comes, I see him_ - on those occasions when he comes, I see him.
_If he came, I saw him_ - on those occasions when he came, I saw him.

I have no problem with this, though I don't see them as true conditionals, as there is no hypothetical element in the sentence.

Mr Brennan wasn't actually using an open conditional of this kind in his sentence; he wasn't saying _On those occasions when he didn't present any threat, the individuals involved *were able* and prepared to do that. _That would have been an absurd thing to say, because he was only talking about one occasion.

I agree with part of LQZ's typically percipient analysis of this. We are dealing with a counterfactual, and Brennan clearly means _if he hadn’t presented any threat, the individuals involved *would have been able* and prepared to do that. _i.e. they would have tried to take Osama alive, had that not clearly been dangerous. A normal Type III conditional.

Of course, because Brennan used a strange form of the conditional, not commonly used in AE, I think, it's hard for us to determine whether or not the bolded *were able* is a subjunctive. The arguments about subjunctives in conditional sentences are usually about the mood of the verb in the if-clause itself, rather than in the main clause. Here the verb is in the main clause, and I see no reason for supposing it's not an indicative.


----------



## ribran

Thomas Tompion said:


> _"if he didn’t present any threat, the individuals involved *were able* and prepared to do that_,"
> 
> I remain very unhappy about this.
> 
> In open conditionals _if_ effectively means _when_.
> 
> _If he comes, I see him_ - on those occasions when he comes, I see him.
> _If he came, I saw him_ - on those occasions when he came, I saw him.



Ah, here we go. I can use these sorts of sentences even when I am referring to a single occasion. 

_If he moves, I shoot!_ <-- single occasion
_If I come, I come, and if I don't, I don't!_ <-- single occasion
_If he rats, I go down._ <-- single occasion


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Which are you saying, Ribran: that it doesn't mean _when_, or that you can use _when_ for a single occasion? or, perhaps, neither?

Also, what does _when he came I shot _mean, if he never came?


----------



## ribran

Thomas Tompion said:


> Which are you saying, Ribran: that it doesn't mean _when_, or that you can use _when_ for a single occasion? or, perhaps, neither?
> 
> Also, what does _when he came I shot _mean, if he never came?



It still means _if_. 

I would not say _When he came, I shot_ if he never came. I also would not say _If he came, I shot_; I have no reservations, however, about saying _If he came, I was ready to fight_, where the main clause expresses a state rather than an action.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

ribran said:


> It still means _if_.
> 
> I would not say _When he came, I shot_ if he never came. I also would not say _If he came, I shot_; I have no reservations, however, about saying _If he came, I was ready to fight_, where the main clause expresses a state rather than an action.


Now _if_, when it has a hypothetical sense, usually means something like _suppose_, doesn't it?

What does that sentence, _if I come, I come_, the example Ribran produced earlier, mean?

_Suppose I come, I come_ doesn't seem to be saying very much to me.

I'm interested in the idea that _Suppose he came, I was ready_ means something on occasions when we know he didn't come. What does the stative in the main clause gain over an eventive tense? They both leave me wondering what the person is intending me to understand. Is this really a common way of talking? Does it mean something other than _Suppose he had come, I would have been ready_?


----------



## ribran

Thomas Tompion said:


> Now _if_, when it has a hypothetical sense, usually means something like _suppose_, doesn't it?
> 
> What does that sentence, _if I come, I come_, the example Ribran produced earlier, mean?
> 
> _Suppose I come, I come_ doesn't seem to be saying very much to me.
> 
> I'm interested in the idea that _Suppose he came, I was ready_ means something on occasions when we know he didn't come. What does the stative in the main clause gain over an eventive tense? They both leave me wondering what the person is intending me to understand. Is this really a common way of talking? Does it mean something other than _Suppose he had come, I would have been ready_?



_Invite her. If she comes, she comes, and if she doesn't, she doesn't. She will be the one missing out, not you!_
In other words, don't fret over whether she will come. 

_A: Are you coming to my party this weekend?
B: I don't know. Why do you keep asking me that?
A: I need to know how many people will be there...
B: Uggggh! Stop! If I come, I come, and if I don't, I don't!_

This is a passive aggressive way to avoid having to make a commitment. 

------------------

Now, do _If he had come, I would have been ready_ and _If he came, I was ready_ mean the same thing? Yes. The difference, as I see it, is that the speaker of the first sentence is transmitting information from a point of view anchored in the present, whereas the speaker of the second sentence is doing so from a point of view anchored in the past. 

Now, eventive/stative. I have given this quite a bit of thought, and all I can come up with is that when a sentence such as _If he came, I shot_ is uttered, a clear sense of the temporal orientation of the sentence is lost, whereas a sentence such as _If he came, I was ready to shoot_ is clearly being narrated from the past.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

ribran said:


> [...]
> Now, do _If he had come, I would have been ready_ and _If he came, I was ready_ mean the same thing? Yes. The difference, as I see it, is that the speaker of the first sentence is transmitting information from a point of view anchored in the present, whereas the speaker of the second sentence is doing so from a point of view anchored in the past.


Thank you for facing up to all my questions, Ribran. I think this is the one we should concentrate on, because Mr Brennan's sentence, and LQZ's question, is really about that.

I'll try to summarize my objection. _If he came, I was ready_ - you say that the speaker is presenting this _'from a point of view anchored in the past'_. I take you to mean that as he speaks now he tries to evoke his feelings as they were in the past before it was clear whether or not _he_ would come. Tell me if I've got this wrong.

The difficulty, as I see it, is that one cannot say _'he didn't come, but if he came...'_; i.e. the fact that we know he came closes avenues of supposition. _If he came_ (the true conditional, not some of the bastard forms we have been discussing) implies that the possibility of his coming is still open, yet in this case we know it isn't. We do, of course, have a well-known grammatical way of expressing what would have followed had something not happened which we know happened, and that is _'if he had come, I would have been ready etc._' That formula implies that he didn't come, and tells us what would have happened should he have actually come.

I have looked at some length in COCA to see if I could find evidence to support your view. I didn't find any, which doesn't mean it's not there - there are many hundreds of conditional sentences in the Corpus.

Your example provides a way of answering LQZ's question which should have occurred to me. You suggest a sentence in the same form as Mr Brennan's, _If he came, I was ready_. If the verb in the main clause was a subjunctive, the sentence would be _If he came, I were ready_. I'd be surprised if even Mr Brennan thought that correct, so we can say to LQZ that the *were able *is an indicative, can't we?


----------



## losilmer

What Brennan said in the two first sentences is hypothetical, so the if-clauses are in the subjunctive mood.

If we had = If it would happen that we had (Subjunctive).
  If he didn’t present = Just in case he did not pose any threat. (Subjunctive).

  But the main sentence is in the indicative  or affirmative mood, because it establishes a fact, something real.  (That is, the soldiers were able and were prepared.  And the fact is that they always are in an attack of that kink).

… the individuals involved were able and prepared  (Indicative)


----------



## boozer

That subjunctive is still bothering me. Here is a quote summarising the use of the subjunctive mood in English:

_However, after the fourteenth century, speakers of English used the subjunctive less frequently. Today, the mood has practically vanished; modern speakers tend to use the conditional forms of "could" and "would" to indicate statements contrary to reality. The subjunctive only survives in a few, fossilized examples, so they can be confusing. Here are the most common uses_

http://forum.wordreference.com/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=2138397

Please look at the examples listed there, Losilmer, and suggest which one of them looks like the example provided by LQZ in post 1.

When in the subjunctive mood, a past-tense verb in English usually has present reference, e.g.
I wish I had more money. <--- NOW

Mr. Brennan, however, is clearly talking about the past using past-tense verbs.

PS. I suggest that the subjunctive mood be left alone.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

losilmer said:


> What Brennan said in the two first sentences is hypothetical, so the if-clauses are in the subjunctive mood.
> 
> If we had = If it would happen that we had (Subjunctive).
> If he didn’t present = Just in case he did not pose any threat. (Subjunctive).
> 
> But the main sentence is in the indicative or affirmative mood, because it establishes a fact, something real. (That is, the soldiers were able and were prepared. And the fact is that they always are in an attack of that kink).
> 
> … the individuals involved were able and prepared (Indicative)


“_If we had the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, if he didn’t present any threat, the individuals involved *were able* and prepared to do that"._

The point is 

1. 'We' hadn't, so it should be _'if we had had the opportunity etc._'
2. He didn't, so it should be _'if he had...'_

We don't say _he didn't, but if he did...,_ we say_ he didn't but if he had..._ For me that's where Mr Brennan goes wrong.

LQZ isn't asking about whether the verb in the if-clause is in the subjunctive, but whether the bolded *were able* is subjunctive, and I hope we are agreed that it isn't.


----------



## ribran

Thomas Tompion said:


> Thank you for facing up to all my questions, Ribran. I think this is the one we should concentrate on, because Mr Brennan's sentence, and LQZ's question, is really about that.
> 
> I'll try to summarize my objection. _If he came, I was ready_ - you say that the speaker is presenting this _'from a point of view anchored in the past'_. I take you to mean that as he speaks now he tries to evoke his feelings as they were in the past before it was clear whether or not _he_ would come. Tell me if I've got this wrong.
> 
> The difficulty, as I see it, is that one cannot say _'he didn't come, but if he came...'_; i.e. the fact that we know he came closes avenues of supposition. _If he came_ (the true conditional, not some of the bastard forms we have been discussing) implies that the possibility of his coming is still open, yet in this case we know it isn't. We do, of course, have a well-known grammatical way of expressing what would have followed had something not happened which we know happened, and that is _'if he had come, I would have been ready etc._' That formula implies that he didn't come, and tells us what would have happened should he have actually come.
> 
> I have looked at some length in COCA to see if I could find evidence to support your view. I didn't find any, which doesn't mean it's not there - there are many hundreds of conditional sentences in the Corpus.
> 
> Your example provides a way of answering LQZ's question which should have occurred to me. You suggest a sentence in the same form as Mr Brennan's, _If he came, I was ready_. If the verb in the main clause was a subjunctive, the sentence would be _If he came, I were ready_. I'd be surprised if even Mr Brennan thought that correct, so we can say to LQZ that the *were able *is an indicative, can't we?



Thomas Tompion,

I completely understand your and Boozer's uneasiness about Mr. Brennan's sentence; what I do not understand, however, is your assertion that, "one cannot say 'he didn't come, but if he came...'" because, "the fact that we know he came closes avenues of supposition." Whenever we narrate events from the past, we have to temporarily suspend our present knowledge for the sake of continuity. The storyteller always knows the outcome of his story, but he recreates the environment in which the events of the story occurred so that he can more easily share with his listener what he thought and felt as the events unfolded around him. I doubt Mr. Brennan was trying to craft a tale for a likely harried journalist scrambling to piece together a decent story by a fast-approaching deadline, but I do think it probable that the image of him and his men standing outside the walls of the compound was still fresh in his mind, and this recency may have caused him to construct the sentence as he did.

Approximately six weeks ago, Thomas, you created a thread in which you asked if there truly existed a context-free sentence. I think this previous thread of yours is relevant to this discussion because I have a hunch Mr. Brennan uttered this sentence in the middle of a longer, more detailed response, but as there is no additional context available, we native speakers have had to "fill in the blanks" to make sense of the sentence, and, as it appears, we have interpreted it differently.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thanks for this, Ribran. You'll have to explain to me a context in which one can correctly say _'he didn't come, but if he came'_ because I can't imagine one.  One will do.


----------



## ribran

Thomas Tompion said:


> Thanks for this, Ribran. You'll have to explain to me a context in which one can correctly say _'he didn't come, but if he came'_ because I can't imagine one.  One will do.



I consider, "He didn't come, but if he came" to be incorrect. By admitting that he did not come, we immediately shift the focus of the sentence to the present, thus necessitating the pluperfect subjunctive _had come_, but by keeping the whole sentence in the past, we can imagine that we don't know what the actual outcome was. I'm not sure how it is in French, but if my sentence were translated into Spanish, the equivalent of _if_ would be followed by a verb in the imperfect, not the imperfect subjunctive. 

I think I might be able to explain myself better with a literary example. Imagine if you were reading the short story "The Lady, or the Tiger?" to a young child. You might stop at the point where the princess's suitor is faced with a choice. You might say to the child, "Imagine what must have been going through his head. If he selected the door that concealed the woman, he would marry the princess and they would live happily ever after, but if he chose the door that concealed the tiger, he would be devoured and die a torturous death." (Fine, that might be a little morbid for a child. )  The verbs _selected_ and _chose_ are not meant to be equivalent to _had selected_ and _had chosen_. At this point, you may be thinking, "Exactly! Because the reader never learns which door the suitor chooses!", but my argument is that even when the outcome is known, we can recreate this effect by creating an appropriate context. For example:

_We were standing right outside the compound. If anything happened to us, we were ready and prepared._ <-- In my opinion, this example sounds perfect, although it does use the style natkrep mentioned earlier.

Have I made myself any clearer? Or have I completely misunderstood your argument? 

-Riley


----------



## hyperslow

On behave of the non-native part of the forum I wish to express my desire for more, for some kind of conclusion.)


----------



## losilmer

On behalf of the non-native part of the forum I wish to express my final interpretation, which is this:

If it would have been true [as some say] that we had the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive (given the case that he didn’t present any threat), the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that.  But we didn't have that opportunity or Bin Laden presented some threat, so we had to kill him.

The form "were able and prepared" is not in the subjunctive mood, but in the indicative one.


----------



## Loob

hyperslow said:


> On behave of the non-native part of the forum I  wish to express my desire for more, for some kind of  conclusion.)


Hi hyper

Well, I agree with Nat's comment back in post 3: the sentence quoted by  LQZ is a type of "free indirect speech".  It means something like:
[The position/situation/understanding was that] if we had the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive ... the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that.

corresponding to a "direct speech":
The position/situation/understanding was: "If we have the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive ... the individuals involved are able and prepared to do that".


----------



## JamesM

I agree. I don't see the problem.

Setting aside the indirect speech aspect, it's the same as:

"The men were able and prepared to take Bin Laden alive if they/we had the opportunity to do so."


----------



## boozer

I've been rummaging through Youtube and I managed to dig out some videos of Mr. Brennan's comments on this operation. 

Indeed, I now find Nat's take on the situation more convincing.

I also came across another sentence uttered by Mr. Brennan, however:
_"But if we had the opportunity to take him alive, we would have done that."_
This new one is a mixture between 2nd and 3rd conditional where he should have used the 3rd conditional all along. I actually think Mr. Brennan was too preoccupied with what he was saying to care about how he was saying it. 

I'm also pretty certain that if he had to write this down, he would not do it the same way. [2nd conditional  ]


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JamesM said:


> I agree. I don't see the problem.
> 
> Setting aside the indirect speech aspect, it's the same as:
> 
> "The men were able and prepared to take Bin Laden alive if they/we had the opportunity to do so."


 But we know they didn't have the opportunity, James, so we need the counterfactual _'if they had had'_ condition.  Otherwise we run into the logical impasse, _X, if not X_.


----------



## JamesM

I don't agree. We know in hindsight that they did not have the opportunity. The statement is made at the point in the story where they are preparing for the assault, in my opinion. "...the assault team had made contingency plans for capturing..." That places this part of the story before the assault. At that point, they knew they had people who we able and prepared to take Bin Laden alive if they had the opportunity to do so. As it turned out, they didn't.


----------



## boozer

JamesM said:


> "...the assault team had made contingency plans for capturing..."


Actually, the lady from the press asked him something along the lines of whether the mission was to take him alive or kill him and the answer went exactly:
"Absolutely, it [the mission] was to prepare for all contingencies. If we had the opportunity to.... (an so on - the quote in post 1)"


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JamesM said:


> I don't agree. We know in hindsight that they did not have the opportunity. The statement is made at the point in the story where they are preparing for the assault, in my opinion. "...the assault team had made contingency plans for capturing..." That places this part of the story before the assault. At that point, they knew they had people who we able and prepared to take Bin Laden alive if they had the opportunity to do so. As it turned out, they didn't.


We knew he had been killed - that was the first thing in the news.

I think this contingency is covered in the normal pattern of conditionals:

I: If he comes, I will see him.
II: If he came, I would see him.
III: If he had come, I would have seen him.

Brennan said _if he didn’t present any threat, the individuals involved *were able* and prepared to do that. _

Why didn't he use the normal form?:_ If he hadn't presented any threat, the individuals involved would have been able and prepared to do that. _i.e. a normal type III conditional, such as our learners are taught every day.

Brennan was speaking post hoc. I don't see that, even if we travelled with him in our imaginations to before the raid, that his choice of tenses would be justified.

To evoke the mood before the raid I think we need a more elaborate construction, like, say, _the individuals involved were ready and prepared to do that, in the event that he presented no threat_.


----------



## Loob

Thomas Tompion said:


> To evoke the mood before the raid I think we need a more elaborate construction, like, say, _the individuals involved were ready and prepared to do that, in the event that he presented no threat_.


But TT, that's exactly the sequence of tenses he _did_ use - and if the sentence wasn't 'elaborate', that's surely explained by the fact that this was speech rather than writing?


----------



## ribran

Thomas Tompion said:


> To evoke the mood before the raid I think we need a more elaborate construction, like, say, _the individuals involved were ready and prepared to do that, in the event that he presented no threat_.



I do not see how your sentence is more elaborate than the original, Thomas. All you have done is change the order of the clauses and replace _if_ with "in the event that," which is listed in the OED as one of the definitions of _if_.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

ribran said:


> I do not see how your sentence is more elaborate than the original, Thomas. All you have done is change the order of the clauses and replace _if_ with "in the event that," which is listed in the OED as one of the definitions of _if_.


 I know all these things, and I wasn't trying to change the meaning, rather the contrary.  The point is that the sequence of tenses permissible with_ in the event that_ is different from that with _if_.

Have you found anything in COCA to justify Brennan's usage? I did look.


----------



## JamesM

I don't think you'll be convinced, no matter what anyone says.  I'll give it one more college try and then I'm done. 

It's a matter of context.  You have decided that someone speaking about a past event must speak about it only from a point of view in the present, but when recounting a series of events it is perfectly normal to speak from the point of view of that moment in time.

I can say, "A few days before D-Day the generals were discussing contingency plans. If the Germans decided to relocate their troops, they were ready and prepared to relocate troops at the last minute to a different landing location."

There's nothing wrong with this, in my opinion.  I know the outcome of D-Day.  It doesn't mean that I must tell the story from that point of view.


----------



## ribran

JamesM said:


> I don't think you'll be convinced, no matter what anyone says.  I'll give it one more college try and then I'm done.
> 
> It's a matter of context.  You have decided that someone speaking about a past event must speak about it only from a point of view in the present, but when recounting a series of events it is perfectly normal to speak from the point of view of that moment in time.
> 
> If I say "A few days before D-Day the generals were discussing contingency plans. If the Germans decided to relocate their troops, they were ready and prepared to relocate troops at the last minute to a different landing location."
> 
> There's nothing wrong with this, in my opinion.  I know the outcome of D-Day.  It doesn't mean that I must tell the story from that point of view.



Thank you for expressing so clearly and succinctly what I have been trying to say.


----------



## hyperslow

I can say, "A few days before D-Day the generals were discussing contingency plans. If the Germans decided to relocate their troops, they were ready and prepared to relocate troops at the last minute to a different landing location."

What is the point in time this sentence is said?


----------



## JamesM

The sentence is spoken any time after D-Day.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JamesM said:


> [...]You have decided that someone speaking about a past event must speak about it only from a point of view in the present, but when recounting a series of events it is perfectly normal to speak from the point of view of that moment in time.


James,

Thank you for your patience. I'm sorry to have given the impression of being so stubborn.

You say that I_ have decided that someone speaking about a past event must speak about it only from a point of view in the present, but when recounting a series of events it is perfectly normal to speak from the point of view of that moment in time._

I haven't decided anything, honestly. I've tried to look at the way people use language, and I can't recall ever having heard anyone speak in this way you describe as _perfectly normal_. I've read the arguments put forward by people for whom I have great respect, and I remain unconvinced.

AE is, if anything, stricter in dealing with suppositions which run against known facts than BE, so you must be right when you say that we aren't dealing with a 'counterfactual' here. Yet we are inviting a supposition (i.e. writing an if-clause) which goes against known facts. 

I have no problems about imagining myself into the _status quo ante_, but deep objections to using language to describe it which wishes out of existence facts which make the supposition unrealistic.

I have for four years now here on the forum read people on counterfactual conditional sentences, people failing sometimes to distinguish between what is counterfactual because it just isn't the case, and what is counterfactual because it never could be the case, a distinction drawn by many careful users of English, I find. I know many people are very muddled about counterfactuals, but I hadn't until now counted myself among their number. If supposing something which both speaker and listeners both know to be untrue isn't counterfactual, I don't know what is. 

I deeply respect your view and Ribran's and I'm grateful for your attempts to convince me; I'm not going to accuse you of having decided that you are right. I hope you will accept that it just sounds wrong to me. I wouldn't say it, and would raise an eyebrow when it was said, as I did when Mr Brennan uttered his famous sentences.


----------



## JamesM

Here are a few examples from recent news stories and blog posts:

http://www.valleynewslive.com/story/14452785/bullpen-spoils-pavanos-gem-vs-rays?redirected=true

"[Twins pitching coach Rick Anderson] and I had already talked about it and we were ready to send him out if he was ready to go, but he said he was done. That's all you can ask from a starting pitcher."

http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=20110124-316284

"If he wanted to go back we were prepared to send him back,” says Mylene, a 27-year-old nurse working at the King Faisal Hospital. "To our astonishment—and our relief—he liked it here."

http://www.fodors.com/community/united-states/best-tickets-to-see-celine-dion-in-vegas.cfm

"Since I couldn't find any good seats online, we waited until the day of the performance and went to the box office. 6th row center for Elton and I forget the exact tickets for Celine, but they were equally as good.

But, we were prepared to not see the shows if they didn't have good sea(t)s available."


Perhaps it's more common in American English than in British English.  In all of these examples the outcome was different from what they were prepared to do.

What I object to is the implication that a common speech pattern, albeit possibly limited to one variant of English, is instead an attempt obfuscate facts.  It might be so in British English.  I can't say anything about that.  I can say, though, that it's a perfectly normal way to relate a series of events in American English and there is no reason to infer some intentional obfuscation from it if you hear an AE speaker using these tenses to describe a past event.  There is no "wishing out of existence" going on here, I can assure you.


----------



## boozer

I still think only Natkretep's interpretation gives legitimacy to this statement. After all, the logic behind what is said in one and the same langage, BE or AE, should be the same...

I wonder if I would be going too far offtopic if I invited your attention  on another quote I mentioned in an earlier post. Those are the words of the same person on the same subject and the meaning is more or less the same:
_But if we had the opportunity to take him alive, we would have done that._
I also found it here:
http://traceyricksfoster.wordpress....ty-to-take-him-alive-we-would-have-done-that/
If I go by the usual logic of the verb tenses used in the conditional mood, "if we had the opportunity" is, to me, present unlikely condition - 2nd conditional. Then, "we would have taken him alive" is exactly what I would normally expect - past hypothetical result that never materialised, 3rd conditional.

Now, I have argued in previous threads that mixtures between 2nd and 3rd conditional are quite common and acceptable in many cases. Incidentally, I don't see this case being one of them. 

So, which of the two quotes, do you think, is more acceptable and are they the same in meaning? 

I personally believe in both cases part of the reason for such choices is the fact of uttering words "on the spur of the moment, as they come", which results in infelicitous choices. Happens to everyone, particularly under pressure...


----------



## akimura

I'm no native English speaker, but I'll be happy if you accept my intrusion.

   I think that the subjunctive mood is, what I would say, simply "submerged" in the  sentences in discussion.



JamesM said:


> "[Twins pitching coach Rick Anderson] and I had already talked about it  and we were ready to send him out if he was ready to go, but he said he  was done. That's all you can ask from a starting pitcher."


 
   In this example: _we were ready to send him out if he was ready to go [.  So if he *were* ready to go, we *would have sent* him out. b]ut he said he was done._

 The sentence in the [  ] was not expressed but it was well indicated by the sentences out of the [ ].  The sentence in the [ ] could have followed the preceding sentence, but it simply didn't happen because it could have made the speaker sound a little too circumlocutory.



JamesM said:


> "If he wanted to go back we were prepared to send him back,” says  Mylene, a 27-year-old nurse working at the King Faisal Hospital. "To our  astonishment—and our relief—he liked it here."


 
  In this example: _If he wanted to go back we were prepared to send him back [. So if he *did want* to go back we *would have sent* him back.]

_Again, the sentence in the [  ] was not expressed but it was indicated by the sentence out of the [ ].



JamesM said:


> "Since I couldn't find any good seats online, we  waited until the day of the performance and went to the box office. 6th  row center for Elton and I forget the exact tickets for Celine, but they  were equally as good.
> 
> But, we were prepared to not see the shows if they didn't have good sea(t)s available."


 
 In this third example: _we were prepared to not not to see the shows if they didn't have good sea(t)s[. So if they *didn't have* good seats, we *wouldn't have seen* the shows.]

_So, going back to the original sentence ...


LQZ said:


> “_If we had the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, if he didn’t present any threat, the individuals involved *were able* and prepared to do that_,”



“_If we had the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, if he didn’t present any threat, the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that_ [.  _So if we *did have* the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, if he *didn’t present* any threat, the individuals involved *would have done* that.]_ ”

That's about my interpretation.


----------



## ayed

I am a non-native but here is the whole thing:
_*Indirect Speech*_
"_If we had the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, if he didn’t present any threat, the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that_"
 
*Direct Speech* :
_If we have the opportunity to take Bin Laden alive, if he doesn't present any threat, the individuals involved are able and prepared to do that._
__ 
*Does this sentence say* _:_
_The individuals are able and prepared to take Bin Laden alive if we have the opportunity and he doesn't present any threat._
__ 
*I am for those who say "a conditional "*


----------



## ribran

boozer said:


> I still think only Natkretep's interpretation gives legitimacy to this statement. After all, the logic behind what is said in one and the same langage, BE or AE, should be the same...
> 
> I wonder if I would be going too far offtopic if I invited your attention  on another quote I mentioned in an earlier post. Those are the words of the same person on the same subject and the meaning is more or less the same:
> _But if we had the opportunity to take him alive, we would have done that._
> I also found it here:
> http://traceyricksfoster.wordpress....ty-to-take-him-alive-we-would-have-done-that/
> If I go by the usual logic of the verb tenses used in the conditional mood, "if we had the opportunity" is, to me, present unlikely condition - 2nd conditional. Then, "we would have taken him alive" is exactly what I would normally expect - past hypothetical result that never materialised, 3rd conditional.
> 
> Now, I have argued in previous threads that mixtures between 2nd and 3rd conditional are quite common and acceptable in many cases. Incidentally, I don't see this case being one of them.
> 
> So, which of the two quotes, do you think, is more acceptable and are they the same in meaning?
> 
> I personally believe in both cases part of the reason for such choices is the fact of uttering words "on the spur of the moment, as they come", which results in infelicitous choices. Hapens to everyone, particularly under pressure...






JamesM said:


> I don't agree. We know in hindsight that they did not have the opportunity. The statement is made at the point in the story where they are preparing for the assault, in my opinion. "...the assault team had made contingency plans for capturing..." That places this part of the story before the assault. At that point, they knew they had people who we able and prepared to take Bin Laden alive if they had the opportunity to do so. As it turned out, they didn't.





natkretep said:


> I don't think the subjunctive is used with the _if_ clauses. I think Mr Brennan is reporting what they were thinking _before _the actual capture. Only because it is now reported, it is set in the past tense (*free indirect speech*): it is a reported form of



This is what I have said from the beginning, so I still don't see the supposedly faulty logic in Mr. Brennan's sentence.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

ribran said:


> This is what I have said from the beginning, so I still don't see the supposedly faulty logic in Mr. Brennan's sentence.


The bit about Free Indirect Speech doesn't say anything about the rules of tense sequencing in conditional sentences being suspended.

I can see it sounds normal to you, Ribran. I hope you can see it doesn't sound normal to me.

The examples produced by James sound clumsy and lazy to my ear, and your example, _We were standing right outside the compound. If anything happened to us, we were ready and prepared,_ sounds equally bizarre_._

I'm not a great fan of the historic present as a literary or conversational device, though I know some people are. I'm wondering if this isn't rather similar.  For instance, what conditional form would one use in the historic present?

_We are standing right outside the compound. If anything happens to us, we are ready and prepared. _I don't like it much, but I can see it's consistent with the historic present, and it's the normal sequence of tenses for the zero conditional.

Why am I not ready to shift that back a tense? I suspect for two reasons:

1. It would seem like a sort of 'historic past', and we already have past-tense conventions for dealing with that.
2. Although I know this is an attempt to transport us to the _status quo ante_, I can't escape the conterfactual element. Again we have tense conventions for dealing with that.

James seems to have received the impression that I'm suggesting intellectual dishonesty on Mr Brennan's part. That was only a very tentative question (_The alternative, which I don't totally discount_), and I'm quite happy to accept that on AE lips his sentence may be a normal and entirely honest and open way of speaking.


----------



## ewie

*Moderator note: *_The original question has had numerous responses, from speakers of both BE and AE, and the discussion is in danger of becoming repetitive.

This thread is now, therefore, closed. 
_


----------

