Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
I am with Martha and your caller - I lived in Italy for two years and mastering, almost, the subjunctive in Italian gave me a greater appreciation of its relevance in English. Grant, I agree, we cannot necessarily stop evolution, but do we need to cheer it on? I wonder what you think about the conditional forms of verbs? I have this vision of you embracing Newspeak as the only logical thing to do,
And a doubleplusgood day to all
Peter
Peter, you misuse “newspeak.†It doesn't mean “language usage that I disagree with†nor is it correct to use it as a catch-all blunt pejorative by which you can impugn someone's ideas without suffering the burden of making specific complaints. It means “propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings†(according to Merriam-Webster) or “the language of bureaucrats and politicians, regarded as deliberately ambiguous and misleading†(according to the Collins English Dictionary) or “ambiguous euphemistic language used chiefly in political propaganda†(according to the New Oxford American Dictionary).
I am not a politician, I do not practice propaganda, and my opinions on the subjunctive are direct and explicit–as is the language that we now use where the subjunctive was formerly used.
Italian isn't English. English isn't what it was. The subjunctive will live or die without our intervention. Going on long tirades in support of the subjunctive will do no more to stop the decline of the use of the subjunctive than they will stop the Earth in its orbit. Anyway, the subjunctive isn't dead, it's just hiding.
Dear Grant
I did not mean to offend you! I was, in my own way, only trying to defend the subjunctive, without the benefit of your linguistic knowledge and erudition (and I appreciate what you are saying about Orwell, I am sure your definitions are correct). I thought I was being playful but maybe, judging by the results, I was not. I am a professional scientist and so I guess I must live with the results of my "experiment".
Anyway, I am a big fan of you and your show, have corresponded with Martha several times, and have my own opinions about language as an unrepentant transplanted Britisher.
Long live the subjunctive and your show
All the best
Peter
I fear that we are becoming too lazy if we cannot learn the subjunctive in school. I am trying to learn Spanish and I agree that it does make it harder to learn a foreign language when we don't even understand these things in our native language. I also agree with the caller--it just sounds WRONG to say "I wish I was..."
I am by no means a "grammatician" but I do try to speak properly. I just can't make a simple rule for the subjuntive. Let's use the phrase: "I wish I were my friend." To me, the "were" does not conjugate with the "I".
Using the simple rule for "my friend and I" and "my friend and me", you punch out my friend to get the the proper usage for I or me.
But that is the not the case with the subjunctive. If I were to remove "I wish", "I were my friend" just sounds bad, let alone improper. I would say "I was my friend". Why or how does that apply? Or isn't there any fast and simple rule to subjunctives?
Before I knew that there was any such thing as subjunctive - first I ever heard of it was in Latin class in 9th grade - I had a devil of a time trying to comprehend what subjunctive even was or meant. I distinctly remember being told that the subjunctive doesn't exist in English. Hence, Latin subjunctives, along with the rules governing them, were simply to be memorized by rote and that was that. No one could say what exactly the word "subjunctive" means.
And this despite the fact that I was fluent in German, in which the subjunctive is very common; however to my mind that verb voice was nameless. It was simply how you said certain things in German and that was all there was to that. I still can't formulate a lexicographical-grade definition for the word subjunctive, but at least I think I now have a bit of a vague amorphous unarticulatable mental handle on its meaning. I think I know just when to use it and when not to.
It seems that in some languages there are completely illogical uses for the subjunctive: for example, in German when you say "Martha told me Grant had said something about the verb voices", the verbs relating to Grant would be in the subjunctive. Whereas in Spanish, certain future tenses take the subjunctive, e.g. "tomorrow when I see you". It seems to me that at least English is not thus bedeviled.
And anyway, why "sub" and why "junct"? What's the verb under, and what's it joined to?
And of course in classical English you run into it all the time. 
I was unhappy with Grant's reply on this episode. I side with Martha. Then again, I've been feeling cranky with Grant for months--ever since he said that a female former professor should be called emeritus instead of emerita. (Really? Just do away with a perfectly good word?) Don't get me wrong; I think the show is great and I am always impressed with Grant's erudition. He's a linguist who knows his lingo. He's also pretty darn funny.
So why am I unhappy? Because being a descriptivist can go too far, I think. Using the subjunctive adds subtlety and shades to English--and, I think, adds to the poetry of it--and Grant would happily do away with it. But being utilitarian can go too far. It seems that Grant wants to say, "Oh, you can do fine with only six colors of crayons. That's all you need." Sorry, but having 24 (or even, yikes, 36) crayons allows more coloring. In my view, it's as simple as that. Saying, "If I were king of the forest" just has more mystery and majesty than saying, "If I was..." Grant is happy to have all kinds of slang and odd phrases that have been used for years by people from Maine to San Diego, but (OK, now I'm close to ranting) if something appears in a grammar book, is it time to wrap it in yesterday's papers?
Finally, thanks for having a place where I can even write about this stuff. I appreciate it!
BrklynDavid, did you see my comment above? My calling for the death of the subjunctive was a hyperbolic counter-reaction to the over-the-top complaints from my cohost and the caller about a subjunctive which they claim had gone missing.
The subjunctive has been said to be on its death bed for more than a century, yet here it is still in use. In fact, to underscore my point I used the subjunctive twice right after I said it should die. Claiming nobody uses the subjunctive these days is wasted energy. I don't know what kind of pleasure people take in claiming it is dying and that we should preserve it, but there must be some kind of joy there because they keep saying it even though evidence shows them to be wrong.
Thanks. I feel better now, Grant.
I think we miss something important and, worse, risk cynicism or even despair, when we misunderstand the patriotic song lyric
“America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea.â€
Often the verbs are misunderstood as past tense. I have even heard the “crown†changed to “crowned.†Of course "shed" could be past, in theory, but "crown" disambiguates it, and forces us to understand both as subjunctive.
How much better to recognize the subjunctive wish or prayer, a hope striving for what could be -- rather than glorying in some presumed past reality that many can attest was never so -- and a faithfulness realizing such "good" that it might some day be crowned with the longed-for brotherhood.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)