# EN: it is important that + subjunctive / indicative / should / would



## Lacuzon

Hi,

Oui, "il est très important que" nécessite le subjonctif.

But in english too no ?

Should not you say It is very important that you be here tomorrow at 9 o'clock ?
Or It is necessary that you be here ...

But I presume you would say I want you to be here tomorrow at 9 o'clok, it's very important

Is'nt it ?


----------



## Tim~!

^^ If you're going to use that particular phrasing in English, then (to me) it would sound wrong not to use the subjunctive.

I can picture a parent speaking to her children (as she's heading out the door and leaving them in the care of her own mother) saying "Now you two be good today.  It's very important that you be good boys, because nanna's not feeling very well."

Getting around it with _are _sounds acceptable though a little "wrong", whereas using _will be _or _should be_ (which are often used in other circumstances to work around the subjunctive) sound absolutely unnatural to me.

As for your question: Yes, I think that people would use "It is very important that ..." in that case.  You're more likely to hear "You've got to be here at ...", "You need to be here at ...", "Make sure you're here by ..." and so on.


----------



## Oddmania

Bonjour,

J'ai encore beaucoup de choses à apprendre sur le subjonctif en anglais, mais j'ai lu quelque part qu'il pouvait être remplacé par une structure 
en _Should + Base verbale._

Ma question est : _Should_ peut-il est utilisé avec n'importe quel autre temps, sans avoir à se soucier de la concordance des temps ?


_It's important that he should be there_.  
_It was important that he should be there_. *?* 
_It would be important that he should be there_. *?* 
 
En reprenant l'exemple de Larousse :
_They  whispered lest the children should hear._ 
_They are  whispering lest the children should hear _*?*
_They have been  whispering lest the children should hear _*?*
_They had whispered lest the children should hear _*?*
_They will  whisper lest the children should hear _*?*
etc.

Merci d'avance


----------



## Jerail

The sentences you wrote don't seem totally smooth and natural, but I believe them to be all grammatically correct. Keep in mind that "lest" is a seldom used word. It can be found in older, especially American, literature. it is still used by authors with a certain style of writing, occasionally in American formal/legal documents, and in poems.


----------



## Oddmania

Thanks  Yes, I think I should've used something less old-fashioned. Maybe it'd be easier with _It's important that he should be there_. 

Could I still use_ should _with_ It was, it would, _etc... ?


----------



## Jerail

No, you can't use _should_ like that. You can say either _he should be there_ or _it's important that he be there_.
In English, the subjunctive usually looks the same as the infinitive. You don't need an auxiliary verb.


----------



## Forero

"Present" subjunctive looks like an infinitive and does not change with tense. Adding _should_ is optional, and it can create ambiguity. For example, the sentences with _important that he should_ are ambiguous because _should _might mean "ought to".

_Important that he _(_should_)_ be there_ = _important for him to be there_:

_It's important that he _(_should_)_ be there_. 
_It was important that he _(_should_)_ be there_. 
_It would *be* important that he _(_should_)_ be there_. 

The sentences with _lest the children should_ are unambiguous because _lest_ and _ought to_ are almost opposites.

_Lest the children _(_should_)_ hear_ = _so (that) the children wouldn't_/_won't_/_don't hear_:

_They whispered lest the children _(_should_)_ hear._ 
_They are whispering lest the children _(_should_)_ hear*.* _
_They have been whispering lest the children _(_should_)_ hear*.* _
_They had whispered lest the children _(_should_)_ hear*.* _
_They will whisper lest the children _(_should_)_ hear*.* _


----------



## Oddmania

Thanks a lot ! It doesn't change with tense, that's what I wasn't sure about.


----------



## geostan

With _lest,_ _should_ is fine. With _It is important that_..., less so. It sounds wrong to my ear.


----------



## toomuchtodo

'It's important that he be there'.

In British English, this sentence would be very unusual - it is formal to the point of pompousness.  (I think it's more natural in North American usage - can someone say?) We would be more likely to say:  'It's important that he's there', or 'It's important for him to be there'.


----------



## geostan

Certainly, the infinitive construction is more commonly used. But the issue was between the use of the subjunctive and _should_, and between those two, I would definitely not use _should_. 

As to the other sentence, there is a semantic difference:

_It is important that he *is* there_ means to me that he is in fact there, and that is what is important. With the subjunctive, I would read that he is not yet there.

It is possible that these distinctions are no longer felt by a good segment of English speakers, but it is to me.


----------



## toomuchtodo

I agree with you about the use of 'should': he isn't there.
I think that to a British ear the sentence 'It is important that he is there' is disambiguated by intonation and context.  It doesn't necessarily mean that he is, in fact, there ...  but he might be!  Both sentences (with 'should' and with 'is') seem perfectly natural to me.  I'm probably the only person I know who might say 'that he be there'.  That simply isn't natural British English any more.


----------



## geostan

I cannot of course speak for British English, but I find it odd that such a distinction has been lost in British English. I would have thought that you would be more inclined than us to maintain a useful distinction.

But I found this site which you might find interesting.
http://www.perfectyourenglish.com/writing/american-and-british-grammar.htm


----------



## Jerail

_It's important that he's there_ is something I might say when talking quickly, but when writing, I think there's an important distinction to be made by using the subjunctive.


----------



## LV4-26

toomuchtodo said:


> 'It's important that he be there'.
> 
> In British English, this sentence would be very unusual - it is formal to the point of pompousness.  (*I think it's more natural in North American usage - can someone say?*) We would be more likely to say:  'It's important that he's there', or 'It's important for him to be there'.


(emphasis added).
 Yes I think the subjunctive form (..._that he *be* there_) has become less natural to BE speakers than to AE speakers.

As for "it's important for him to be there", I find that a bit ambiguous. I can't be sure whether it means...
- _it's important that he be there_ or
- _Being there is important for him_ (for his career, for instance).


----------



## geostan

LV4-26 said:


> As for "it's important for him to be there", I find that a bit ambiguous. I can't be sure whether it means...
> - _it's important that he be there_ or
> - _Being there is important for him_ (for his career, for instance).



Context would take care of that eventuality.


----------



## jeune linguiste

Bonsoir tout le monde,

j'aimerais savoir si SHOULD et WOULD pourraient s'employer l'un à la place de l'autre pour exprimer le subjonctif. Par exemple:

_It is important that he should/would be ready._
_ He pretends that he should/would go the school._
_ He refused to do this for fear that (lest) his family should/would be in danger._
* Est-ce que *May* et *Might* seraient possibles dans les exemples susmentionnés ?

Par contre avec les verbes du type_ suggest, recommend, insist _... *Should* semble être de préférence, si je ne me trompe. Exemple: _The doctor recommended that she should see a specialist_, plutôt que _The doctor recommended that she would see a specialist_. Qu'en pensez-vous ?

D'avance merci de vos éclaircissements.


----------



## jessh

It is important that he be ready. (Vous n'avez pas besoin de 'should' ni 'would')

He pretends that he goes to school. OU 
He is pretending that he is going to school. OU 
He is pretending that he goes to school. 

Cela dépend de ce que vous voulez dire.

He refused to do this for fear that his family would be in danger. OU
He refused to do this for fear of putting his family in danger.

Souvent en utilisant le subjonctif, vous n'avez pas besoin des mots 'should' et 'would' (comme au-dessus)

The doctor recommended that she see a specialist. (PAS avec 'should' ni 'would' - le verbe 'see' suffit)
Si vous voulez utiliser 'should' vous pouvez dire
The doctor SAID that she should see a specialist.

Bonne continuation


----------



## jeune linguiste

Bonsoir et merci d'avoir répondu aussi promptement. J'étais totalement  conscient que l'emploi de Would ou Should n'était pas forcément  nécessaire avec le subjonctif et j'utiliserais volontiers ce que vous  m'avez donné comme propositions. Par contre, j'étais en train de faire  des _manipulations grammaticales_, on va dire, en faisant  abstraction d'autres formes du subjonctif possibles, et je voulais donc  savoir, dans les cas où l'on utilisait/pouvait utiliser *Would* et *Should*, comment en faire la différence. 

 Merci encore de vos précisions


----------



## Tim~!

jeune linguiste said:


> j'aimerais savoir si SHOULD et WOULD pourraient s'employer l'un à la place de l'autre pour exprimer le subjonctif.


British English certainly depends on _should_ much more than American English in those sentences where a sunjunctive is needed. (My thinking is that the subjunctive form in the third person sounds unnatural to the British people, whereas should doesn't take an -s ever, so the missing -s necessary for the third-person subjunctive is not viewed as strangely absent.)

Let's look at your sentences: 



> _It is important that he should/would be ready._


I would naturally say "be ready". Most people in British English would readily say "should be ready".



> _He pretends that he should/would go the school._


This sentence wouldn't take a subjunctive anyway. _He pretends that he goes to school._



> _He refused to do this for fear that (lest) his family should/would be in danger._


_He refused to do this for fear that his family would be in danger_ seems the likely solution to me (probably since we're talking about a hypothetical outcome so the presence of "would" in the sentence is totally natural because of its use in conditional constructions). Using _should_ keeps the subjunctive feel but I can't visualise many people using it. _Might_ works here too, again, I think, because of the hypothetical nature of the result.

_He refused to do it lest his family be in danger_ seems fine as it is. _Lest_ is such a formal-style word that its use is normally in formal-style situations by people who would be natural with the feel of the subjunctive. I never knew anything about grammar yet used the subjunctive quite naturally as a child after _lest_ because it was clearly how _lest_ worked; we only really ever heard it in the phrase "lest we forget". If you wanted to avoid the case of the "missing -s", then _should_ is the choice here.



> _Est-ce que *May* et *Might* seraient possibles dans les exemples susmentionnés ?_


Not in 1) or 2) (which doesn't use a subjunctive anyway).

In 3) _might_ works, but only because of the hypothetical nature of the sentences.



> Exemple: _The doctor recommended that she should see a specialist_, plutôt que _The doctor recommended that she would see a specialist_. Qu'en pensez-vous ?


Yes, absolutely. I think that _would_ is only really an option for hypothetical situations, in which case might takes first place in the queue anyway.

I hope this helps. It's an interesting subject and I don't think I've yet read any advice on it.


----------



## phils968

Interesting topic for sure.

As far as I can remember I have always been taught to use should for the first sentence,  so "It is important that he be ready" sounds strange to me. I've seen this before but never new it was a common saying in english.


----------



## geostan

It may sound strange to you,  but it is what I would normally say. Using _should_ would sound strange to me.

Cheers


----------



## coquillette champfleuri

Bonjour,

Je voudrais traduire "c'est important que ce soit votre équipe qui s'occupe de faire telle chose". C'est la forme "que ce soit untel..." qui me pose problème.

Ma tentative de traduction: "It makes sense that it is your team to handle this thing..." 

Est-ce correct ? Merci.

Il s'agit de rendre la forme subjonctive employée dans la phrase française. Mais à cela s'ajoute la difficulté de rendre la forme démonstrative "c'est untel qui fait telle chose".
Je ne sais pas si je suis très claire, voilà un autre exemple de phrase pour me faire mieux comprendre:

_c'est important que tu ailles là-bas / it's important that you go there / you should go there, it's important

_et 
_c'est important que ce soit toi qui ailles là-bas / it's important that *is* you to go there confused: _est-ce correct ?)

c'est cette 2ème forme que je cherche à traduire. Je me suis basée sur la suggestion de Micia93 qui paraissait bien.


----------



## Micia93

"it makes sense that your team *is* to handle ..." ?


----------



## Chat Perché

Je pense que dans ce cas c'est l'intonation qui fait la différence en anglais et qu'il faut souligner 'you' à l'écrit, et mettre l'accent tonique sur 'you' à l'oral. 
Donc cela donnerait : _It's important that you ..._


----------



## coquillette champfleuri

C'est à l'écrit, et je m'adresse à un interlocuteur américain. Cela donnerait donc : "it makes sense that your team handles..." ?
Cela ne me paraît pas faux, mais un peu brutal dans le ton.
Peut-être qu'un "native" pourrait nous donner son avis entre les différentes propositions ?
Merci


----------



## Itisi

It's important that your team should be the one to....


----------



## sound shift

Are we to understand from the subjunctive "soit" that a decision has not yet been taken as to which team will be in charge of this thing?


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Or _it is important that it is *your* team that handles ..._
_It is important that *your* team handles_ ... (comme l'a dit coquillette champfleuri), however this is not recommended for written text, because the stress must be on _*your*, _and this wouldn't necessarily be obvious when you read it 
_It is important that it should be your team that handles_ - alternative with English subjunctive, more formal
_It is important that it be your team that handles_ - even more formal (in BE, though AE speakers may find it more acceptable)


----------



## coquillette champfleuri

sound shift said:


> Are we to understand from the subjunctive "soit" that a decision has not yet been taken as to which team will be in charge of this thing?



Yes indeed


----------



## coquillette champfleuri

Many thanks! Is ""it's important that your team *is* to handle ..." wrong?


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Hmm, doesn't sound right to my ears in the sense you intend. The problem, I think, is that "is to" conveys a simple future, as in _he is to go to Paris next week_, or a sense of obligation, as in _when you've finished that report, you are to take it to the boss immediately_, which I don't think is the sense of the French subjunctive."The fact that it is your team that may/might/will handle it is important" - that is the idea (not the translation though) that you are seeking to convey. This is not quite the same as "your team must handle it".


----------



## sound shift

If it has not been decided which team will handle it, as suggested by coquillette champfleuri at post 10), _The fact that it is your team that *will handle *it_ (Enquiring Mind at post 12) doesn't work for me because the sentence suggests that a decision has been taken.

If no decision has been taken, we could go for the subjunctive: _It is important that your team _*be*_ (the one) chosen to handle it/the one that handles it. _Other threads (and Enquiring Mind at post 9) suggest that use of the subjunctive in these circumstances is more widespread in AmE than in BrE, and that a more typical option in BrE would be _It is important that your team should be (the one) __chosen to handle it/the one that handles it._


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Oops, yes, sorry, thank you sound shift. I shouldn't have italicized the "will handle" phrase.  I didn't mean that as an actual translation, I just wanted to encapsulate that meaning as distinct from the meaning in the next sentence.  I am rejigging it post-haste!


----------



## Nico27

Bonjour,

J'ai un petit problème avec des traductions qu'a du faire ma soeur à l'école. Elles me paraissent fausses mais étant donné que c'est son professeur d'anglais qui les a traduite, cela me perturbe.

Voici 2 phrases :

_"Il est important qu'il ne se trompe pas de train" _traduit en anglais par _"It is important that he *should'nt* take the wrong train"_

_"Il est essentiel qu'il vienne vendredi prochain"_ traduit en anglais par _"It is essential that he *should* come nex friday"_

Ce qui me pose personnellement problème dans ces phrases sont les should/souldn't, car je n'aurai jamais utilisé should pour traduire ces phrases.

Je les aurais plutôt traduit par _"It is important that he doesn't take the wrong train"_ et _"It is essential that he comes next friday".

_Voilà, soit le professeur s'est trompé, soit c'est une utilisation de should que je ne connais pas. Je voulais avoir votre avis afin de m'éclaircir les idées !

Merci beaucoup d'avance !


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Hi Nico, and welcome to the forum! 

The teacher's version is acceptable but, in my view, clumsier than it needs to be.  We don't really need "should" here, and I prefer your versions. I suspect the teacher is insisting (a bit too much) on carrying the French subjunctive across into English, but the subjunctive in this kind of construction is slowly falling into disuse in British English, though our American friends still prefer it.

So, in a nutshell, your teacher's version is okay but somewhat formal in a conversational context, yours is more natural in both a conversational and formal context.

[Ed: note "shouldn't", not "should'nt" - the apostrophe replaces the missing letter "o" in "not"]


----------



## ruze

Salut,

Je pense que le professeur s'est donné la liberté de modifier la phrase lors de la traduction mais le sens reste intact.
La traduction que tu proposes est littérale, celle du professeur un peu plus poussée. ("It is important that you should not" est largement utilisé en anglais)

Si on part du principe qu'il ne "doit" pas se tromper de train, "should" remplit son devoir d'obligation, de condition à respecter, mis en valeur par "it is important that", mais je pense que d'un point de vue éducationnel, le professeur ne remplit pas son devoir de rigueur dans la traduction.


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Hello ruze, and welcome to the forum!   'Should' has several senses in English and one of these, as you say, is to express the notion of obligation.  However I suspect that the teacher really wants to see a subjunctive in English (though it's not necessary), and 'should' here is functioning as a subjunctive use as described below (source: wikipedia)

_The auxiliary should is used to make another compound form  which may be regarded as a subjunctive, and in any case is frequently  used as an alternative to the simple present subjunctive. For example:_

_With present subjunctive: It's important that he *be* cured._
_With should: It's important that he *should be* cured._


----------



## Nico27

Thank you very much for your answers!

C'est déjà beaucoup plus clair maintenant, "it is important that you should" me paraissait faux à l'oreille mais je vais devoir finalement m'y habituer.

Vous avez l'air d'avoir des avis partagés quant à son utilisation, il n'empêche que je peux en conclure que les deux formes sont bonnes.

Au sinon, au niveau du professeur, je trouve aussi que cela embrouille plus qu'autre chose ma soeur d'apprendre cette traduction-ci. Il aurait peut-être du d'abord lui apprendre l'autre version...

Enfin, vous avez remédié à ce problème et je vous en remercie encore!


----------



## djweaverbeaver

Salut,

Les traductions avec "should" heurtent mes oreilles américaines.  Cet usage n'est pas très repandu ici.  Le subjonctif me semble tout à fait naturel, surtout dans ce que nous appelons le "mandative subjunctive" :
*-It is important that he not take the wrong train.*
*-It is essential that he come next Friday.*  ou pour plus naturel encore:  *It is essential for him to come next Friday *(pour éviter le subjonctif).
Dans le langage parlé, je peux très bien imaginer les gens employer aussi l'indicatif: *...that he doesn't take the wrong train, that he comes next Friday*.

Voilà ce qu'il en est de l'usage _across the Pond_.  Si vous êtes en France, c'est peu dire que l'Éducation National préfère l'anglais brittanique.  Dans ce cas, les propositions du professeur sont alors acceptables.


----------



## Wizzydoo

I would say (I'm British)  *It's important that he doesn't get on the wrong train*, or more simply, *it's important for him to get on the right train*.  To translate il est essentiel que, the "for him to" construction seems much more natural ie *it is essential for him to come next Friday*.
My pupils have a tendency to try and use the same contruction in French (Il est essentiel pour lui de venir vendredi prochain )


----------



## Nico27

Il est vrai que je n'avais pas pensé à rajouter le "for him", qui est finalement la traduction qui me parle le plus.

On peut en conclure que c'est la formule qui est la plus utilisée et qui parait la plus naturelle, que ce soit en Grande-Bretagne ou aux USA.

Je vous remercie encore une fois pour toutes ces réponses, et avoir en plus des avis d'anglais et américains rend cela plus facile à comprendre !


----------



## Jorge Gonza

Oddmania said:


> _It's important that he should be there_.
> _It was important that he should be there_. *?*
> _It would be important that he should be there_. *?*



_It's important that he *should be* there_.  →_ It's important that he *be* there_. 

_It was important that he *should be* there_.  → _It was important that he *have been* there._ 
_It would be important that he *should be* there._  → _It would be important that he *be* there._


----------



## Forero

_It was important that he have been there_.
_It was important that he be there_.



geostan said:


> As to the other sentence, there is a semantic difference:
> _It is important that he *is* there_ means to me that he is in fact there, and that is what is important. With the subjunctive, I would read that he is not yet there.
> It is possible that these distinctions are no longer felt by a good segment of English speakers, but it is to me.


In AmE, the "is" sentence can only mean he is there.

The subjunctive ("be") sentence does not say whether he is there now, but it means someone wants him to be there.


----------



## Kelly B

I agree.

On the other hand I have no objection to _...for him to be there_. I don't share the concern about ambiguity mentioned upthread - if I meant _important pour lui de_ instead of _important qu'il soit_, I would say it was _important *to *him_ instead of_ important *for *him_, so I find the _important for + infinitive _construction unambiguous.


----------



## Forero

I see a difference between "To him, it was important", which means something like "He saw/felt it to be important", and "For him, it was important", which is ambiguous but could mean, as LV4-26 says, for his career, for example.

I would normally separate "for him" from "to be there" unless I mean "that he be there", but I have noticed that BrE speakers tend not to see "for him" as part of the infinitive as readily as we AmE speakers do.

And isn't "important pour lui d'être là" also ambiguous?


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Just a relevant comment on post 43:





> _It's important that he *should be* there_.  →_ It's important that he *be* there_.


 This is one of the differences in this kind of construction between AmE and BrE.





> *American and British English: Differences in Grammar *(...) Use of the subjunctive
> In American English it is particularly common to use subjunctive after words like essential, vital, important, suggest, insist, demand, recommend, ask, advice etc. (Subjunctive is a special kind of present tense which has no -s in the third person singular. It is commonly used in *that clauses *after words which express the idea that something is important or desirable.) In British English the subjunctive is formal and unusual. British people normally use *should + Infinitive *or ordinary present and past tenses. (...)
> _It is important that he *be *told. (AE)
> It is important that he *should be* told. (BE)_(perfectyourenglish.com)


----------

