Nila,

I apologize...sea is subjunctive present...I thought it was subjunctive past. Subjunctive present for "to be" is "be".

"That doesn´t mean he be a saint."

That also sounds funny to me.

Trust me, English simply wouldn´t use the subjunctive mood in this sentence. You should use the indicative mood for this sentence.

Since it is in the present tense, I think you are looking for "That doesn´t mean he is a saint."

"That doesn´t mean he be a saint."

Yes, I think this is the ultracorrect form. However, if you were to use that, I think people would think you be a snob.

I vote for "That doesn´t mean he is a saint."

Webdunce, you got my vote on this one!

Very rarely used over here. That's one of the reasons that this Spanish mood is difficult for us. Plus the fact we expect everybody to speak English.

God save the queen is one that is used though most people don't even know it is the subjunctive.

Also after If - If i were to leave early I might catch the bus.

There is a joke over here which goes.

What do you call a person who speaks three languages - Trilingual

What do you call a person who speaks two languages - Bilingual

What do you call a person who speaks one language - English

Hi Nila

Well, I am trying to look for their equivalents in Spanish. Some are possible but others are doubts for me.

I am sure that your knowledge of English is probably better than my knowledge of Spanish, but I will try to see if I can further clarify this for you.

That does not mean that he be a saint. (This indicates a requirement i.e it is not required that he be a saint) We would say: no es necesario que sea un santo.

This appears to be correct as far as I can tell.

That does not mean that he might be a saint (i.e. whatever he did does not necessarily make him a saint) We would say: éso no significa que él pudiera ser un santo. (UNDER MY POINT OF VIEW, I SEE IT AS PAST)

I think that you have the basic meaning correct; however, the subjunctive should not be in the past but in the present. What he did (the "that") in your sentence occurred in the past; however, the tense for the subjunctive should be the present. See if this clarifies it:

What he did (in the past) does not make him a saint (now/in the present)

That does not mean that he ought to be a saint I DON’T CATCH THE SENSE OF ENDORSEMENT OF HIS PROMOTION TO SAINTHOOD. Does it have any irony? Does it mean that he couldn't be actually a saint because there are not any signs of that? We would say: éso no significa que él debiera ser un santo

Yes, perhaps that statement does have a hint of irony/sarcasm. It could have two slightly different implications that I can think of--one rather harsh implication and one that is a little softer.

I can't believe that you want to treat him like a saint just because of a few good, yet insignificant things that he has done.

or

Yes he is a very nice person, but let's just remember that he's human like the rest of us (i.e. Don't expect him to have to be good all the time)

That does not mean that he must be a saint We would say: eso no significa que él deba ser un santo (Surely HE IS NOT A SAINT. Then, he isn’t likely to be a saint).

I think that you have interpreted this one fairly well. It is similar to the first version above only it sounds a little harsher. A similar English expression would be

Let's not go making him a saint just because of a few (lousy) good deeds (that he has done)

I wish he were a saint We would say: ojalá él fuera un santo

Again this is one that could be ambiguous without added context. I can think of two possible meanings one that uses the word saint as a metaphor (more common) and the other that uses the literal meaning of the word. In this context, both are expressions of remorse, sorrow or grief:

I wish that he were (that he would act more like) a saint

similar to an expression:

I wish that he had been born a saint (i.e. that way he wouldn't cause so much trouble)

I wish that he were (made into) a saint. I cannot see where this one would be used often, as you are literally implying that at some definite point in the past the church was actually considering canonizing (declaring him a saint) him.

I wish he had been a saint We would say: ojalá él hubiera sido un santo

This one is the past perfect form of the phrase above. Again this one also has two implied meanings with one being more likely to be used and the other one less likely

I wish that he had been a saint that he had acted in the manner of a saint over some unspecified period in the past

I wish that he had been a saint-that he had actually been made into a saint at some unspecified time period in the past

I hope that this clarifies some of the ambiguity

My God! It's no wonder people have problems learning English.

The correct answer is:

This does not mean he is a saint.

In certain structures in English the subjunctive is simply not used. En punto.

This does not mean he was a saint

This sentence is possible if you are refering to a dead person or a situation which took place in the past and has nothing to do with the subjunctive.

This does not mean he be a saint.

This sentence doesn't exist in English. It is simply wrong and the only people you might hear say it would probably live in the Harlem area of New York.

If you are speaking to an American, you are better off not using the subjunctive as it will sound funny to us except in the very rarest of cases. We would prefer you said "That doesn´t mean he was a saint."

However, if you must have it in the subjunctive past, it would be "That doesn´t mean he were a saint." (I had to look it up).

The main time we use the subjunctive anymore is in the phrases "If I were you..." and "Were I you..." (you follow these phrases with advice about what you would do if you were that person).

I am not sure about people in the UK, though. They may still use the subjunctive. I simply don´t know as I am American.

Eso no significa que él sea un santo PRESENT (that does not mean he is a saint). British English.

Eso no significa que él sea un santo PRESENT (that does not mean he was a saint). American English.

Eso no significa que él fuera un santo PASADO (that does not mean he were a saint). American English or British English?

I think that I have read some grammar books in which instead of "was" they use "were". I cannot remember if I read this information in books about conditional sentences.

I hope to have understood everything. If this is not like this, correct me, please.

Hi Izanoni,

look at this if you do not mind, please.

As I can see you have a very elaborated answer. It is worth reading it slowly.

Well, I am trying to look for their equivalents in Spanish. Some are possible but others are doubts for me.

1. That does not mean that he be a saint. (This indicates a requirement i.e it is not required that he be a saint) We would say: no es necesario que sea un santo.

2. That does not mean that he might be a saint (i.e. whatever he did does not necessarily make him a saint) We would say: éso no significa que él pudiera ser un santo. (UNDER MY POINT OF VIEW, I SEE IT AS PAST)

3. That does not mean that he ought to be a saint I DON’T CATCH THE SENSE OF ENDORSEMENT OF HIS PROMOTION TO SAINTHOOD. Does it have any irony? Does it mean that he couldn't be actually a saint because there are not any signs of that? We would say: éso no significa que él debiera ser un santo

4. That does not mean that he must be a saint We would say: eso no significa que él deba ser un santo (Surely HE IS NOT A SAINT. Then, he isn’t likely to be a saint).

5. I wish he were a saint We would say: ojalá él fuera un santo

6. I wish he had been a saint We would say: ojalá él hubiera sido un santo

7. That does not mean he was a saint AMERICAN ENGLISH? We would say: éso no significa que él sea un santo

Hi Heidita

if you were to use that, I think people would think you be a snob.

I have tried to use bold type for all the instances of the use of the subjunctive that should not sound awkward. I hope this clarifies that the subjunctive may be used without sounding snobbish.

I am not sure if you were trying to use the subjunctive in your example, but if you were then your sentence is incorrect. To say it in the subjunctive then you must say something like

If you were to use that (implies that you won't) then people might think you a snob

Think is the verb in this sentence the verb be is not only unnecessary but an improper usage as well.

Notice that the subjunctive is signaled by the modal auxiliary might to express the possibility that people might take him for a snob.

Remaining more faithful to your original sentence you might say the following:

I believe that people might think you a snob if you were to use that

Notice, again that the subjunctive is introduced by the modal auxiliary might

Or if you are trying to imply that there is a definite possibility he is a snob if he uses it (i.e. it is a pretentious phrase that may qualify you as being a snob) then you could say

If you were to use that then you might be a snob.

In any event, to set up the subjunctive with if, you must set up a condition that is either contrary to fact, impossible or (in this case) an unacceptable alternative (the implication is that it is an improper usage of the word so it is contrary to proper and factual usage).

[condition]If you were to use that, [result] I think that people would think that you were a snob.

The verb in the conditional clause that you are concerned with is think; notice that this clause also includes a modal auxiliary (would). This is very common, and most result clauses will include a modal auxiliary.

Now the more complex meaning of the sentence. If you are saying that their is an actual possibility that the person might actually use that then this makes your main clause indicative and could be stated as I think or as I do think for extra emphasis.

Breaking your sentence down you have

a main clause I think

that is set up by an adverb clause if you were to use that

and that is attached to two subordinate noun clauses

that people would think and

that you were a snob

It is your main clause that you are concerned with (regarding the mood)

Lets take a look at the sentence without the two subordinate noun clauses and see if it makes a little more sense by comparing the different meanings in using the indicative or the subjunctive.

subjunctive I would think that people would think that you were a snob if you were to use that

indicative I do think that people would think that you were a snob if you were to use that If you were to use that,

Notice that it the two noun clauses can also be of either mood depending on the implied meaning.

People would think (that) you be a snob would be incorrect

However, if you were to use this construct then someone might say in the subjunctive:

People might/could think (that) you were poorly educated.

In this case the modal auxiliary might/could sets up a possibility so that the subjunctive is needed.

You could also keep the original construct using be in the subjunctive is you were to precede it with a modal auxiliary, so that your sentence might be.

If you were to use that, I think that people would think that you might be a snob

Here I have emphasized that the subjunctive be must be preceded by the modal auxiliary

This sentence sounds like this:

If you were to use that then people might think you a snob ( si fueras a usar eso, entonces la gente podría creerte una snob).

Hi Izanoni,

I have just cut and paste some previous information.

That does not mean that he might be a saint (i.e. whatever he did does not necessarily make him a saint) We would say: éso no significa que él pudiera ser un santo. (UNDER MY POINT OF VIEW, I SEE IT AS PAST) I think that you have the basic meaning correct; however, the subjunctive should not be in the past but in the present. What he did (the "that") in your sentence occurred in the past; however, the tense for the subjunctive should be the present. See if this clarifies it:

What he did (in the past) does not make him a saint (now/in the present)

Although I have said that this sentence could be in past, it is not clear at all. In fact, it is a bit ambiguous. It depends how you see it. Then it does not matter a lot.

If there is any mistake, you can correct (this is my first time using "a lot" with "it doesn't matter").

What he did (in the past) does not make him a saint (now/in the present)

Although I have said that this sentence could be in past, it is not clear at all. In fact, it is a bit ambiguous. However, if you look at as a past occurrence then you are simply stating a fact and are in the indicative.

That's a nice point. I see how this phrase could be ambiguous; however, if you use the past tense then you are essentially stating a fact

[subjunctive] His past actions (good deeds) don't mean that he is a saint now-as if to imply that he used to be a nice guy, but now he is a real jerk.

in this case you are not outright stating that he's not the same nice guy that he used to be; instead, you are saying that the possibility exists that he is not the same nice guy that he used to be.

or if you are viewing it as a past occurrence then you are saying

[indicative] All of his past actions (good deeds) didn't make him a saint.

in this case you are stating a fact. Even though he was a nice guy, he always seemed to get himself into trouble. There is no implication of possibility in this statement it is an outright fact and is therefore in the indicative.

Then it does not matter a lot.

That is a very conversational way of using a lot, but it is generally considered a trite (overused) expression in formal writing and should be replaced by much, or a great deal or some other equivalent.

But, Izanoni, you have changed my sentence. It sounds well but you have put in my mouth things I haven't written. Anyway, I will have to study slowly. There are too many things written and they look a bit complicated. I need more time.

If you were to use that (implies that you won't) then people might think you a snob.

I think the implication is not that you won't but, rather, that you haven't as yet.

That's a nice point. I see how this phrase could be ambiguous; however, if you use the past tense then you are essentially stating a fact

You intend that, I trust, as a comment on this particular sentence rather than as a general statement about using a past tense together with the subjunctive. The paradigmatic subjunctive (condition contrary to fact) can easily be expressed with past tenses.