Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
I am trying to think of a rule, or at least a rationale, for the following distinction, if indeed the distinction is correct:
"The committee agreed that the travel costs may be considered a business expense."
but
"It is important that the travel costs be properly recorded in the accounts."
Why is it necessary to add a modal verb such as 'should', 'may', 'can' in the second sentence, but is not needed – it seems to me – after a verb such as 'agree' in the first sentence?
Thanks,
Monica Sandor
Rules (or rationales) for the subjunctive mood in any language tend to be iffy.
In general, the more factual the action or state is thought to be, the more likely the indicative mood is called for. So, I like to try out the "indicative test."
The travel costs ARE considered a business expense. (YES — no subjunctive) In fact, you could say: "The committee agreed that the travel costs are considered a business expense."
Travel costs ARE properly recorded in the accounts. (MAYBE YES, MAYBE NO — this being a desire, and not necessarily a fact, subjunctive mood is fine)
The use of the subjunctive mood is falling away in English. Martha has gone on record as lamenting this fact; Grant celebrates it. I still use it, and find it quite useful, especially in a construction as in your example:
It is important that the travel costs are properly recorded.
It is important that the travel costs be properly recorded.
The first sentence (in pre-Grant grammar) affirms that the travel costs are, in fact, properly recorded, and that this accuracy is important. The second sentence implies that, perhaps, not all travel costs are properly recorded, and that it would be desirable because it is important.
Post-Grant contemporary usage, however, allows the first sentence to convey either meaning, be it factual, or counterfactual.
This is a perfect explanation, thanks. That is exactly why I like the subjunctive, as the difference between the important that..are and important that...be is itself often important.
I suppose the first example I have, with "may be" adds yet another dimension - people are allowed to count it as a business expense but do not of course have to, if for some reason they want to pay for it out of their pocket. If it were replaced by "should be" then it seems that they are urging people to count it as a business expense, not just giving permission to do so. "Must be" would be even stronger of course. Thanks!
I'm with Martha. I didn't understand the subjunctive at all, even after studying French (well, attending French classes) in high school. Then I really attacked Greek in college, and got the concept. Now I use it consciously much more than I used to. It grates on me when the stewardess says "it is important that your seatbelts are fastened at all times". "Be fastened—it's important that they be fastened at all times", I mutter to myself. There are times nowadays when it seems better to use the subjunctive even after "if", where it is certainly not required for clarity.
As for your question, sandorm, the first example allows travel costs to be considered a business expense while the second example requires that they be properly recorded.
Bob Bridges said:
the second example requires that they be properly recorded.
which is "It is important that the travel costs be properly recorded in the accounts."
There seems to be no way around the 'be' if you want to convey the sense of 'require' or 'demand', i.e. I don't believe substituting 'are' for 'be' can do the job, except maybe by augmenting it with staring threateningly real close to the other person's face.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)