Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
We've been talking about the subjunctive lately; here's a question for any who want to think about it. In a recent post to one of Rafee's questions I wrote this:
I suppose if a term is only slightly old-fashioned, then it would be natural that it strikes some editors as more old-fashioned than it seems to others.
I proof-read my post before posting it, and changed "strikes" to "strike", having decided that after "it would be natural that..." the subjunctive sounds better. Well, it is better. But then, if "strike" should be subjunctive, should "seem" be too? It would be parallel, and I lean heavily on that. But in the end I left "strike" subjunctive and "seems" indicative; it sounded better to my ear, and I decided that it would be natural that it strike (subjunctive) but that it actually seems (indicative).
I'm not sure I'm right, though. Anyone care to opine?
The "seems to" has 2 problems. First, it stops the mind in midfly to wonder about the 2 possibilities:
seems to strike
seems to be old-fashioned to
(true- the first choice is very weak, but it introduces itself anyway, and the reader has to stop to eliminate it)
Secondly, if whatever it is already strikes (or subjunctively strike) one group of people, why does it have to seem whatever regarding the next group? (Loss of parallelism of actions.)
You might like this, no?
then naturally it would strike some editors as more old-fashioned than it would others.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)