The Subjunctive Mood

§ 239. Probably the only thing linguists are unanimous about with regard to the subjunctive mood is that it represents an action as a ‘non-fact’, as something imaginary, desirable, problematic, contrary to reality. In all other respects opinions differ.

To account for this difference of opinion it is necessary to take into consideration at least two circumstances:

1) The system of the subjunctive mood in Modern English has been and still is in a state of develompent. There are many elements in it which are rapidly falling into disuse and there are new elements coming into use.

2) The authors describing the subjunctive mood often make no distinction between language and speech, system and usage. The opposition of the three moods as systems is mixed up with detailed descriptions of the various shades of meaning certain forms express in different environments.

§ 240. The development of the modal verbs and that of the subjunctive mood – the lexical and morphological ways of expressing modality – have much in common.

The original ‘present tense’ forms «of the modal verbs were ousted by the ‘past tense’ forms (may, can). New ‘past tense’ forms were created (could, might, must, ought). The new ‘past tense’ forms must and ought have again superseded their ‘present tense’ opposites and are now the only forms of these verbs.

The forms be, have, write, go, etc., which were originally forms of the ‘present tense’, ‘subjunctive mood’ grammemes, have suffered a similar process and are now scarcely used in colloquial English. They have become archaic and are found as survivals in poetry, high prose, official documents and certain set expressions like Long live ..., suffice it to say..., etc. The former ‘past tense subjunctive’ has lost its ‘past’ meaning, and its forms are mostly used to denote an action not preceding the moment of speech.

The new analytical forms with should have replaced the former present subjunctive in popular speech. Compare the archaic Take heed, lest t ho и fall (Maxwell) and the usual Take heed, lest you should fall.

In American English where many archaic features are better preserved (Cf. gotten for got) the former present tense forms are more common.

E. g. She demanded furiously that the old man be left aldne. (Dreiser).

§ 241. Some new elements have come and are still coming into the system of the subjunctive mood. In Old English the subjunctive mood system did not contain any ‘person’ opposemes. They were introduced later together with should and would, but these distinctions are observed only in a few types of sentences.

With the loss of the -en suffix of the plural the subjunctive mood system lost all number opposemes in Middle English. At present such opposemes are being introduced together with the word was as opposed to were.

E.g. You’d be glad if I was dead. (Bennett).

§ 242. Barring the archaic ‘present tense’ forms, the subjunctive mood system of Modern English makes use of those forms which express a ‘past tense’ meaning in the indicative mood system. Since they are not opposed to the ‘present tense’ and ‘future tense’ grammemes, they have no ‘tense’ meaning. What unites them is the meaning of ‘irreality’ as opposed to the meaning of ‘reality’ common to all the indicative mood grammemes.

Having no ‘tense’ opposemes the subjunctive mood system makes extensive use of ‘order’ opposemes. The ‘perfect’ forms are used to express an action imagined as prior to some other action or event.

E.g. The Married Woman’s Property Act would so have interfered with him if he hadn’t mercifully married before it was passed. (Galsworthy).

The ‘perfect’ forms, naturally, express actions imagined as prior to the event of speaking, i.e. actions imagined in the past.

E.g. If I h a d known that, I s h o u l d h a v e а с t e d differently. It is strange that he s h о и l d have spoken so.

The non-perfect forms do not express priority. The action they denote may be thought of as simultaneous with some event or even following it. The order of the action in such cases is expressed not by the form of the verb but by the whole situation or lexically.

Cf. I wish he w e r e here now. I wish he w e r e here tomorrow. Even if he с а т e tomorrow that will be too late. (Ruck).

§ 243. The ‘passive voice’ and ‘continuous aspect’ meanings are expressed much in the same way as in the indicative mood system.

E.g. In a moment he w o u l d h a v e b e e n d r o w n e d. (Braddon).

She sat not reading, wondering if he w e r e с о т i n g in... (Galsworthy).

§ 244. The various shades of meaning subjunctive mood grammemes may acquire in certain environments, and the types of sentences and clauses they are used in, are not part of the morphological system of moods and need not be treated here. Still an exception can be made.

Some linguists think that would hеlр in the sentence If he were here he w о и l d h e l p us represents a separate mood called ‘conditional’.

The arguments are as follows:

1. The form would help expresses ‘dependent unreality’: the realization of the action depends on the condition expressed in the subordinate clause (if-clause).

2. It is ‘mainly used in the p r i n c i p a l c l a u s e of a complex sentence with a subordinate clause of и n r e a l c o n d i t i o n’.

3. Should is used for the first person and would for the other persons.

Let us analyse these arguments.

1. If the meaning of ‘dependent unreality’ is to be treated as the meaning of a separate mood, then the meaning of ‘dependent reality’ in a similar sentence If he is here, he wilt help us must likewise be regarded as the meaning of a separate mood which is to be distinguished from the indicative mood. The meaning of tell in the sentence If you see her tell her to come can also be defined as ‘dependent urging’ and be regarded as the meaning of a separate mood distinct from the imperative mood.

2. The second argument deals with speech environment and is of little value since the same authors produce examples of the ‘conditional mood’ in different types of sentences.

W o u l d you т i n d my opening the window?

I s h o u l d l i k e to speak to you, etc.

3. The third argument is justly rejected by G.N.Vorontsova who produces many literary examples to show that ‘would-forms’ are used with the first person as often as ‘should-forms’.

E.g. If I had held another pistol in my hand I w o u l d h a v e s h o t him. I w о и l d l o v e to think that you took an interest in teaching me ... I wish I had a lot of money, I w о и l d n’ t l i v e another day in London. (Galsworthy).

Besides, the popular use of forms with -’d instead of should and would shows the oblitaration of ‘person’ distinctions.

4. The name conditional hardly fits, seeing that the forms with should – would are as a rule not used in conditional clauses. They are mostly used in principal clauses or simple sentences, which distinguishes their distribution from that of forms without should – would used almost exclusively in subordinate clauses.

E.g. After all, if he l o s t it w o u l d n o t b e he who p a i d. (Galsworthy). Under normal conditions Winifred w o u l d merely h a v e l o c k e d the door. (Ib.).

§ 245. The difference between the two sets of opposemes

		has written (order)
wrote		were written (voice)
		were writing (aspect)

		should have written (order)
should write		should be written (voice)
		should be writing (aspect)
		would write (person, irregular)

is thus a matter of usage. That does not exclude, of course, the possibility of a language category with speech significance (cf. the categories of case, voice). Hence the necessity of further investigation.

§ 246. What unites all the grammemes above and distinguishes them from the homonymous grammemes of the indic­ative mood as a system is

1) the meaning of «non-fact», the presentation of the action as something imaginary,

2) the system of opposemes, as contrasted with that of the indicative mood.

Date: 2015-02-28; view: 1259