The Subjunctive is Not Dead! (is it?)
I have noticed that whenever the topic of the subjunctive mood is brought up a very common thing to say is that "the subjunctive is quite common in Spanish but is rarely used" in English," or that "it has disappeared," or that "it is dead."
I think sweeping statements such as these are not only false but patently absurd. These statements imply that in contrast to people who speak Spanish, an English speaker will rarely if ever:
- Express a wish or desire for something. "I wish I had a car;" "I want to eat some cake."
- Express a desire using would or could. "I could use some extra money"
- Say that something "might" happen or "could" happen "It could happen"
- Say that something could probably happen. "That should do the trick"
- Indicate capability/ability using can: "I can do it."
- Ask/grant permission using can or may: "Can/may I have the last piece of pizza?"
- Indicate a requirement: "I have to do my homework;" "You must be crazy to think that." "The school requires everyone to take English." "Every one has to do it."
- Recommend/suggest something: "You shouldn't say that;" "You ought to know better."
- Make conclusions: "I must have forgotten to set my alarm."
- Speak in hypotheticals: "If I could run faster, I would have made the team."
Is it really to be contended that an English speaker will never or rarely use the English language to express these ideas? To me, these kind of blanket statements are extremely ill-conceived. It is important to remember that any of the conditions listed above signals the subjunctive mood.
What do you think, is the subjunctive mood dead. Or is it like Bigfoot -- rumored to exist but never seen?
I am of the opinion that it is, in fact, quite commonly used and no less so than in Spanish. To say other wise would be to say that due to some deficiency of the English language an English speaker never has (or is at least unable to verbalize or express in writing) any wants, desires or abilities. An English speaker can never express a probable or possible condition, make hypothetical statements, make recommendations, state requirements or make conclusions -- and all due to a deficiency in the language.
Again, I say that I believe this to be absurd. What do you think?
15 Answers
It's not dead, and it is commonly used. it's just not recognized. In fact, if you use it in many public schools in the U.S., you may be told that it is incorrect when, in fact, it is proper English. Here are some examples that you most likely don't use but will likely recognize:
For example, in "I asked that it be done yesterday," be done (a present subjunctive) has no present-tense sense because it appears as past tense but implies that it hasn't been done yet. Similarly, in "If that were true, I would know it," the verb were is in the subjunctive mood.
Here is another one: "It is high time that we bought a new car". Although bought appears to be the past tense of the verb to buy, actually the car has not been purchased yet. Here, the past subjunctive is used to express a wish or a suggestion.
Here are some more: "If I had known (yesterday), I would have done something about it; If I had seen you, I definitely would have said hello; I would not be here if he had not helped me. When used in a counterfactual statements like these, it shows up paired with the conditional perfect "If I had [not] X, then I would [not] have Y".
Here are some more: If I were to die tomorrow, then you would inherit everything; If you were to give the money to me, then I would say no more about it; If I were the President... / Were I the President. The subjunctive in English also appears in many fixed phrases which are archaic in construction but which remain in use:
if need be
as it were
if I were you; were I you
be that as it may
come Monday (Tuesday, etc.)
come what may
far be it from (or for) me
until death do us part
so be it
suffice it to say
If you can get a feel for it in English, it may help you to understand it in Spanish.
I was going to post this as a comment but it is too many characters.
I will never forget last year when my fourth grade son wrote an essay in which he used the expression: "if I were the president" and his teacher told him it should be "if I was the president." I talked to her and she insisted my son and I were incorrect. My kids are now in private school.
Much of what you quote above makes use of Modals and most native English speakers would not realise the sentence is or could be a subjunctive.
This is exactly my point. I think that most people do not understand what the subjunctive truly is (i.e a mood). It is simply used when expressing the above listed ideas.
While many of my examples did make use of modals that is because it is quite common to use modals when expressing one of these. If you are expressing one of the above ideas, there is no choice as to whether or not to use the subjunctive. If you are expressing one of these then your "mood" is subjunctive (in contrast to indicative or imperative).
It is just as possible to express these ideas without using the modals; but the use of modals is the more common way to construct these sentences in English and this is why I used them in my examples. Either way it is the idea inherently expressed by the statement/question that places it in the subjunctive mood.
You will hear "If I was you... etc and not get any negative response from most native English speakers even though it is wrong - try doing that in Spanish and see what happens.
You are correct on this point and this is a common error made that if you are making a contrary-to-fact if statement, then the if clause is required to be in the subjunctive, but in fact, many people will incorrectly use was in place of were.
However, it is important to note that if you complete your statement then the second clause is in the subjunctive:
If I (were) was you then I would rethink these ideas
Notice how the second clause is in the subjunctive mood and uses the modal because you are expressing a recommendation. There is no escaping it. If you want to make a suggestion then you are using the subjunctive.
Just because someone does not conjugate the verb correctly does not mean that the ideas expressed are in a different mood. They are still expressing a hypothetical event that makes the mood of the statement subjunctive (if I were you) and not indicative (When I was you).
In any event the use of the incorrect verb form in subjunctive sentences is quite common; however, that still does not take away from the fact that the overall mood of the statement is subjunctive or that in most other cases of the subjunctive (wishes, probability, etc) the verbs are properly conjugated by most people.
Which of the following would a reasonable person say:
I wish I have a car (indicative verb form) or **I wish I had a car (subjunctive verb form)
As far as the difference between subjunctive and indicative in if statements, take a look at this.
If Socrates is a man then he will eventually die
The statement is a possible condition because Socrates is a man and requires the indicative. There is no impossible or contrary-to-fact hypothetical here which would place this in the subjunctive.
Now lets take a look at impossible/contrary-to-fact condition that would place the sentence in the subjunctive.
If Socrates were a dog then he would eventually die [First clause: subjunctive; Second clause: subjunctive]
If Socrates were a dog then he will eventually die [First clause: subjunctive; second clause: Indicative -incorrect]
But Socrates is not a dog and it is not possible for him to be so. This places the mood of the sentence in the subjunctive.
Now turn the sentences around and see if you can see why the second would be a mistake:
Socrates would eventually die if he were a dog [correct use of subj]
Socrates will eventually die if he were a dog [incorrect use - does this even make sense?]
How about this:
If Socrates was a dog then he will eventually die [incorrect verb to put it in the subjunctive]
Turn it around:
*Socrates will eventually die if he was a dog [both verbs in the indicative]
This does not properly express that Socrates was a human and that it is impossible for him to be a dog.
How about your construct (if I was you/if I were you):
If I were you then I would not be so sure [subjunctive]
It is a subjunctive mood because it is impossible for me to be you. Now turn it around.
I would not be so smug if I were you. [subjunctive]
Both clauses still make sense right? Now lets change up the mood in each of the clauses and see if we can say the same thing.
If I was you then I would not be so smug [indicative/subjunctive]
Turn it around.
I would not be so smug if I was you [subjunctive/indicative]
As I have conceded, this is quite a common error and it may be that some people will not even catch the subtle difference in meaning between the use of was/were. Now change lets change things up again:
If I were you then I will not be so smug [subjunctive/indicative]
Turn it around:
I will not be so smug if I were you [indicative/subjunctive]
Doesn't make much sense either way. Now lets try completely indicative:
If I was you then I will not be so smug [indic/indic]
I will not be so smug if I was you [indic/indic]
I hope that it did not escape you that even with the improper verb in the if clause, the second clause, (no matter which you use) is in the subjunctive mood and requires the modal (or subjunctive verb form).
Does this make sense to you?
Do you notice that by using the indicative verb here you in effect change the meaning of the sentence to state that there is a possibility that Socrates was actually a dog.
It is mostly dead.
The majority of the examples you gave are not in the subjunctive.
English subjunctive in the present is something like this: "It is time we left this place." Looking at that, you can see why it's not used often - most people would say "It is time we leave this palce."
The pluperfect subjunctive is more common, being of the form: "If I had known that, I would have done something about it."
The future subjunctive is: "If I were to be driving tomorrow, we would crash" Again, the more common way to say this is: "If I drive tomorrow, we will crash."
Izanoni -
Many reference sites and experts agree that the subjunctive has almost disappeared in English. It is not "dead" however.
But it is not "alive and kicking" as in Spanish.
In fact sometimes when it IS used you get a wierd look on the face of the person you are talking to - it is considered formal - this is not the case in Spanish.
You will hear "If I was you... etc and not get any negative response from most native English speakers even though it is wrong - try doing that in Spanish and see what happens.
Much of what you quote above makes use of Modals and most native English speakers would not realise the sentence is or could be a subjunctive.
I'd have to say that the subjunctive is dead in English.
If we're just talking about a mood as in emotion, that's one thing. That's casting subjunctive in the sense that nervousness, anger, and sadness are moods.
But I think the people saying that subjunctive is dead or close to it are talking about "mood" in the sense of tenses in a language. Spanish doesn't have a completely different set of verb tenses for when we're speaking nervously, angrily, or sadly. It does have different tenses for subjunctive, so we can't just use the word "mood" without any boundaries.
Sure, English speakers speak metaphorically, express wishes, and all the other things that fall under the subjunctive mood. However, we don't use different conjugations of the verbs to express those things, just like we don't have different conjugations for nervousness, anger, and sadness. That's a difference between English and Spanish.
Morphologically it is possible to tell the subjunctive by the 3rd person singular common present tense. The present tense subjunctive will lack the characteristic /z/ morpheme which is the sole morphological difference between the indicative and the subjunctive.
He insist that she arrive on time. [subjunctive]
He insists that she arrives on time. [indicative]
I insist that I arrive on time. [subjunctive or indicative]
I insist that I do arrive on time. [indicative]
Do you see that in other tenses the mood can be ambiguous. By placing do before the verb arrive it emphasizes that the verb is in the indicative. In the subjunctive the sentence means that I have a personal requirement/mandate for myself to always arrive on time. In the indicative, the sentence means that the person is actually doggedly asserting that the do in actuality arrive on time (so don't go besmirching my good name by saying that I arrive late to work).
If Socrates were a dog then he would eventually die [First clause: subjunctive; Second clause: subjunctive]
While I agree that the first clause is in the subjunctive, I would not say that the second clause is the subjunctive. Isn't it the conditional?
No, I was not confused. None of your examples use words that can't be used in both moods in English. So yes, we have the subjunctive "feeling", but we do not have words that are learned only for that feeling
I will keep it simple. The fact that you say that they can be used in both moods is incorrect, and I believe that this idea stems from the fact that many of the verb forms in English are repeated across tenses:
He should drive.
Take this sentence and evaluate the subject (he) and the main verb (drive)
What tense in the indicative allows this construction
He drive
In the indicative you have The following:
Common Present: He drives
Present Progressive: He is driving
Present Perfect: He has driven
Common Past: He drove
Past Progressive: He was driving
Common Past Perfect: He had driven
Past Perfect Progressive: He had been driving
Common Future: He will drive
Future Progressive: He will be driving
Common Future Progressive: He will have been driving
However, we don't use different conjugations of the verbs to express those things, just like we don't have different conjugations for nervousness, anger, and sadness.
Do you think not?
I think that perhaps you are misusing the word "mood" as it pertains to grammar.
If your statement is thought of as a statement of fact then use the indicative.
If your statement is a wish or recommendation or hypothetical condition then use the subjunctive (this has nothing to do with emotions of anger, sadness etc and should not be confused).
If I say:
I run ten miles a day - [indicative]
I am running ten miles today - [indicative]
I will run ten miles today - [indicative]
These are statements of actuality or strong possibility
But if I say:
I must (have to) run ten miles today - [subjunctive]
I can (am able to) run ten miles today - [subjunctive]
I might run ten miles today - [subjunctive]
These do not have the mood of actuality. Your main verb in each of these sentences is run. With the indicative, the action is actually being completed, it has been completed, or it will be completed.
In the subjunctive, your mood is not that you will or do run, but that you either want to run, should run, have the ability/can (but not that you have/will/do run), must run, etc
the difference in a mood is not in the sense of anger/sadness/happiness etc. The difference has to do with:
Actuality [Indicative] vs.
Hypothetical conditions/wants/requirements etc. [subjunctive] vs.
Commands and requests made directly [imperative]
Does this make sense?
But some people say the same about specific English grammar constructions, especially in the aspect of tenses. However infrequent they may seem, I find the so-called present perfect continuous, future perfect or past perfect useful when I need to indicate the relation between two points in time. I suppose I'd be understood pretty well if I used past simple or future simple instead, but to me the quality of how you say something is also important. And still, I know some people claim that it's ok not to use proper grammar as long as the interlocutor follows your arguments.
The future subjunctive is: "If I were to be driving tomorrow, we would crash" Again, the more common way to say this is: "If I drive tomorrow, we will crash."
Again it depends on your meaning.
When you say:
If I drive tomorrow...
Your mood is that there is a good/strong possibility that you will drive tomorrow, and that as a result:
we will crash.
However, if you say:
If I were to drive tomorrow...
Then you are setting up a hypothetical condition that is contrary to what will happen.
then we would crash.
In the hypothetical (contrary-to-fact) scenario of me driving tomorrow we would crash.
Hi Nick, thanks for weighing in:
While I agree that the first clause is in the subjunctive, I would not say that the second clause is the subjunctive. Isn't it the conditional?
The conditional does not represent a mood, does it?
You can make conditional statements in both the indicative and in the subjunctive.
The difference is that if you are in the indicative then the condition must have some possibility of occurring; whereas in the subjunctive mood the condition must be either impossible or contrary-to-fact (i.e. It is impossible for Socrates to be a dog).
[condition] If wages are increase, [result] prices will rise.
An increase in wages is more than likely, so the mood is indicative.
[condition] If oil were plentiful, [result] there would be no energy crisis.
Oil is not plentiful, so it is contrary to fact and requires the subjunctive were, the result depends on a contrary to fact condition so the mood remains subjunctive.
If it were indicative then you would not use would
[condition] If oil is plentiful, [result] there will be no energy crisis.
This statement would be in the indicative, but do you notice that it changes the meaning. If you use is than you are implying that it is more than likely that oil will be plentiful or the even stronger implied meaning "When oil is plentiful (again), there will be no energy crisis."
What do you think?
The majority of the examples you gave are not in the subjunctive.
English subjunctive in the present is something like this: "It is time we left this place." Looking at that, you can see why it's not used often - most people would say "It is time we leave this palce."
May I ask where you are getting your information? I have consulted with four different grammar books before responding and your statements appear incorrect. The subjunctive verb form in the present tense is represented by the bare form of the verb. The bare form is also called the present. The present or bare form of your verb is "leave" and not "left" as you have contended
The correct way to state your sentence is in the mood of the subjunctive if the mood of the statement is that you are making a suggestion.
It is time we leave. is subjunctive and is equivalent to:
We must leave right now.
You have to remember that the reason it is subjunctive is not based on the verb form. It is the meaning or the mood that makes the sentence subjunctive/indicative. It is based on the message that the statement is conveying. If you are in the indicative then you would be making a statement (or question) of fact. If you are fulfilling speaking of some condition such as those that I have already listed then your mood is subjunctive.
Contrast these two statements:
We are leaving, right now [indicative]
We have to leave, right now/We must leave, right now[subjunctive]
Do you see that the indicative is stating a fact; whereas the subjunctive is fulfilling a condition?
In an attempt to avoid offending anyone:
Please do not infer from my above statements that by calling the statement absurd I am in any way attacking the person who made the statement. Everyone of us, including myself, has made statements that, while we may have thought them to be true, were patently false/based on misinformation/invalid or untrue reasoning. Again please do not take my language as a personal attack on anyone. Let me restate:
- I believe the statement itself to be absurd/lacking validity.
- I think the person who holds these ideas to be no worse than simply misinformed.
