N.B. This page contains brief excerpts from
different scholarly works, some of which may be copyrighted. Inclusion on this
page is intended to comply with provisions of “fair use” regarding
scholarship and education, according to my understanding of relevant laws and
conventions. If you believe me in error, please email me.
Any of the entries on this page may at any time be removed.
Baugh AC (1935). A history of the English language (New York:
D. Appleton-Century Company).
Section 235, page 409:
[ Directory ] Berk LM (1999). English syntax: from word to discourse (New York:
Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-512353-0).
Pages 149-150:
Subjunctive Mood
Like the term imperative, the term subjunctive refers to a particular verb
form. In Old English, special verb forms existed to communicate non-facts,
e.g., wants, hopes, and hypothetical situations. The subjunctive is somewhat
weak in Modern English, but there are speakers who use it routinely. In many
cases, the subjunctive is a form learned in school or through reading, so it is
educated speakers who use it most. The modern subjunctive expresses a variety
of deontic meanings. [N.B. deontic refers to a sense
of duty or obligation, of something which is required or desired.]
Mandative subjunctive. So far we have examined three different ways
of issuing directives – modals, semi-auxiliaries, and the
imperative.The subjunctive can also be used as a directive. The term
mandative derives from the Latin root for mandate, “a
command or order”. The mandative subjunctive is a very distinct kind of
directive and it always takes the same form.
I suggest [that he leave].
I beg [that he return the money].
I demanded [that she give me her files].
We asked [that Marsha tell the truth].
Beth moved [that the meeting be adjourned].
I insist [that you be quiet].
I require [that term papers be turned in on time].
In each of these sentences, the main verb makes some sort of demand, from
very mild (ask/suggest) to very strong (demand/insist). In each
case, the direct object of the main verb is a clause (the structure in
brackets). Note that when the subject of the clause is third person, its verb
does not take third person {-s} and be is in its infinitive form. These
atypical verb forms are the vestiges of the Old English subjunctive system.
The same meaning can be communicated by a verb in present tense –
We insist that Marsha tells the truth or by a modal
auxiliary – We insist that Marsha must tell the truth.
Technically, however, these are not subjunctive utterances because they lack
subjunctive verb forms. All of these sentences are directives, however.[*]
Volitional subjunctive. Just as there are volitional modals, there
are volitional subjunctive constructions. These, too, exploit unusual verb
forms – I wish I were a bird; Joseph wishes he were
a cowboy. The use of were with first and third singular subjects is
also a remnant of the old subjunctive system. I wish I was a
bird expresses exactly the same meaning, but technically was is not a
subjunctive form. The subjunctive is gradually disappearing in English and
even highly educated speakers sometimes use non-subjunctive forms in such
utterances.
Formulaic subjunctive. English has a small set of phrases and sayings
that are so old that they still contain uniquely marked subjunctive
verbs. These utterances are learned as whole pieces, often as part of religious
liturgy. The expression God bless you contains a third person subject
and an uninflected verb. This sentence is communicating, not a statement of
fact, i.e., God blesses you, but rather a wish on the part of the
speaker, i.e., I hope that God blesses you. Some remnants of the
formulaic subjunctive in Judeo-Christian liturgy are:
The Lord make his face shine upon thee ...
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done ...
God save the Queen.
Heaven forbid.
God be with you.
God help him.
Be that as it may.
Long live the King.
[ Directory ] Return to Directory.
Fowler HW (1926). A dictionary of modern English usage (Oxford).
SUBJUNCTIVES. The word is very variously used in grammar. The
subjunctives here to be considered (1) exclude those, often so called, in which
the modal effect is given by an auxiliary such as may (that he may do it
; cf. that he do it) let (let it be so ; cf. be it so) or
shall (until he shall be dead ; cf. until he be dead ; & (2)
include any verb that is understood to be modally different from the indicative
but is either indistinguishable from it in form or distinguished otherwise than
by an auxiliary ; in “that he learn” it is clear that learn
is subjunctive ; in “that we learn” it is not ; in “that we,
he, may learn” there is no subjunctive that concerns us in this article ;
any verb of the kind that has now been loosely indicated is for our present
purpose a subjunctive, whether or not it is more specifically known as
imperative (sing we merrily), conditional of the apodosis (it were
more seemly) or of the protasis (if it please you), optative (had
I but the power !), indirect question (When I ask her if she love
me), indefinite future clause (till he die), or by any other such
name.
About the subjunctive, so delimited, the important general facts are : (1)
that is is moribund except in a few easily specified uses ; (2) that, owing to
the capricious influence of the much analysed classical upon the less studied
native moods, it probably never would have been possible to draw up a
satisfactory table of the English subjunctive uses ; (3) that assuredly no-one
will ever find it possible or worth while now that the subjunctive is dying ;
(4) that subjunctives met with today, outside the few truly living uses, are
either deliberate revivals by poets for legitimate enough archaic effect, or
antiquated survivals as in pretentious journalism, infecting their context with
dullness, or new arrivals possible only in an age to which the grammar of the
subjunctive is not natural but artificial.
[ Directory ] Jespersen O (1905). Growth and structure of the English language
(Leipzig: B.G. Tuebner).
Section 206, page 205:
[ Directory ] Vallins GH (1956). The pattern of English (London: Andre Deutsch
Ltd.).
Pages 29-30:
The characteristic Old English subjunctive tense endings were -e
(singular) and -en (plural). These, in the ordinary process of the
language, were weakened and lost. It follows, then, that the subjunctive
differs from the indicative only in those forms where the indicative has
inflection – that is, the moribund second person singular and
plural, and the third person present singular. Of these the third person
present singular is the only one that concerns us here: the subjunctive
corresponding with the indicative “he sings”, “he
walks” is “(if) he sing”, “(if) he walk”. More
important, for syntactical reasons discussed later (pp. 39-40), is the survival
of separate subjunctive forms of the verb be: be for all persons,
singular and plural, in the present tense, and were for all persons in
the past singular.
The older grammarians had strange ideas concerning the nature of this
subjunctive inflection. Ben Jonson, for example, evidently thinks of it as a
plural. Some nouns, he says, though singular, “require a verb
plurall – especially when the verbe is joyned to an adverbe, or
conjunction: It is preposterous to execute a man, before he have been
condemned”. Joseph Priestley (1761) has a curious note on it:
This form of the conjunctive subjunctive tenses is very little used by some
writers of the present age; though our forefathers paid a very strict and
scrupulous regard to it. It seems to be used with propriety only when there is
implied some doubt or hesitation; since when an event is looked
upon as absolutely certain, though in speaking of it we make use of the
conjunctive participles, &c. the usual change of terminations is retained:
to give a familiar example of this; we should say, in pursuing a person, We
shall overtake him though he run; not knowing whether he did run or not;
whereas upon seeing him run, we should say, We shall overtake him though he
runneth, or runs.
Almost all the irregularities in the construction of any language arise from
the ellipsis of some words which were originally inserted in the sentence, and
made it regular: let us endeavour to explain this manner of speaking, by
tracing out the original elipsis: may we not suppose that the word run
in this sentence is in the radical form (which answers to the
infinitive mood in other languages) requiring regularly to be preceded
by another verb expressing doubt or uncertainty, and the intire sentence to be,
We shall overtake him though he should run?
Pages 38-39:
The use of should, may, might, would in main clauses, and in
subordinate clauses, especially after if, is bound up with the
disappearance of the inflectional subjunctive. In Old English the inflected
forms of the verb remained and were regularly used, as in Latin and Modern
French, after certain conjunctions where a potential rather than a positive or
indicative action was implied in the sense.
...
Here we have the origin of those compound tenses, made up of the auxiliaries
should, may, might, would with the infinitive, which now express, in
both main and subordinate clauses, that indeterminate action usually expressed
in Old English by the subjunctive forms.
Pages 39-40:
In addition, the true inflected subjunctive (see p. 29) still survives,
especially in main clauses of wish or desire, like “God save the
King!” But in subordinate clauses, partly owing to the development of the
compound “indeterminate” tenses mentioned above, it has almost
disappeared.
[ Directory ]Directory
Baugh (1935)
There has been some schoolmastering of the language. The substitution of
you were for you was in the singular occurs about 1820, and it
is I is now often considered a social test where propriety is expected.
What was left of the subjunctive mood in occasional use has disappeared except
in conditions contrary to fact (if I were you).
Berk (1999)
[*] This statement bears clarification, as what Berk says is
not wholly correct. Compare two sentences (alternate meanings are in
parentheses):
In this example, there is a very big difference between tell and
tells, partly because insist has two different meanings. Berk
errs when she says that the first example (insist that Marsha tells) is
a directive – if meant as an indicative statement, then tells
is correct; if meant as a directive, then tell is correct, and Berk
advocates using a poorly formed sentence. The strict mandative subjunctive
(insist that Marsha tell) or the modal auxiliary (insist that
Marsha must tell) form should be used (also note that with the verb
insist, a gerundial form may be employed: We insist on Marsha
telling the truth.).
There are formulaic subjunctives that are less tied to liturgy, but most still
have a religious cast.
Fowler (1926)
Jespersen (1905)
While the number of tenses has been increased, the number of moods has tended
to diminish, the subjunctive having now very little vital power left. Most of
its forms have become indistinguishable from those of the indicative, but the
loss is not a serious one, for the thought is just as clearly expressed in
“if he died”, where died may be either indicative or
subjunctive, as in “if he were dead”, where the verb has a
distinctly subjunctive form.
Vallins (1956)
Cobbett has the same idea. He seems to consider it “the infinitive of
the verb without any change at all”, the sign (i.e. auxiliary) being
understood.