Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

I wish I ...

5 views
Skip to first unread message

JerryS

unread,
Aug 25, 2009, 7:31:33 PM8/25/09
to
1. I wish I wouldn't have to work tomorrow.
2. I wish I didn't have to work tomorrow.
3. I wish I wouldn't have had to work tomorrow.

ANY possibility that all work? Thanks.

James Hogg

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 2:03:10 AM8/26/09
to
Quoth JerryS <nos...@videotron.ca>, and I quote:

Only no. 2 in standard British English.

--
James

Bertel Lund Hansen

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 2:57:25 AM8/26/09
to
JerryS skrev:

No, I don't think you can avoid having to work tomorrow no matter
which one you choose.

--
Bertel, Denmark

Mark Brader

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 6:13:23 AM8/26/09
to
Jerry S. asks about:

> 1. I wish I wouldn't have to work tomorrow.
> 2. I wish I didn't have to work tomorrow.
> 3. I wish I wouldn't have had to work tomorrow.

Only #2 is possible.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "So *you* say." --Toddy Beamish
m...@vex.net | (H.G. Wells, "The Man Who Could Work Miracles")

Message has been deleted

JerryS

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 2:47:06 AM8/26/09
to
James Hogg wrote:

>> 1. I wish I wouldn't have to work tomorrow.
>> 2. I wish I didn't have to work tomorrow.
>> 3. I wish I wouldn't have had to work tomorrow.
>>
>> ANY possibility that all work? Thanks.
>
> Only no. 2 in standard British English.

Thanks.

The prohibition on 1 (not sure about 3) seems to be based on reasons
similar to those described in:

----
"wish"
- "would" not used

"I wish I could manage to give up smoking."

(NOT: "I wish I would give up smoking." -- It is strange to wish for
oneself to be willing.)

Michael Swan, "Practical English Usage"
----

However, IMO, Swan's caveat:

"It is strange to wish for oneself to be willing."

which applies in the case of giving up smoking (a process involving
personal will) does not apply in the case of being in fact sorry for
having to work the next day, as the original 1 sentence says.

In the case of sentence 1, IMO, "would" doesn't have to do with
"will/ambition/want" but only with creating an (impossible) hypothetical
situation, one in which the writer doesn't/wouldn't have to work tomorrow.

Thus, the type/functionality of "would" is determined by the very
context and it is not, in the case of 1, the "volitional" one, but the
"hypothetical" one.

I'd appreciate your comments on my argument.

CDB

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 8:41:39 AM8/26/09
to

Only 2 works everywhere. The standard form in sentences where a
condition contrary to fact is being described is still the past
subjunctive, not a form using the auxiliary "would".

In some parts of the United States, 1 and 3 are widely used and are
considered correct, at least in informal English. A regular and
respected poster to this group, originally from the central US,
sometimes uses similar forms in his postings. There may be a nuance
of meaning involved, focussing the reader's attention on the future
rather than the present necessity -- I'm not sure, because I don't use
that form myself. Maybe the RR will comment.


Peter Moylan

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 9:16:02 AM8/26/09
to
CDB wrote:
> JerryS wrote:
>> 1. I wish I wouldn't have to work tomorrow.
>> 2. I wish I didn't have to work tomorrow.
>> 3. I wish I wouldn't have had to work tomorrow.
>>
>> ANY possibility that all work? Thanks.
>
> Only 2 works everywhere. The standard form in sentences where a
> condition contrary to fact is being described is still the past
> subjunctive, not a form using the auxiliary "would".

At last, an explanation that clarifies. I could tell, of course,
that 1 and 3 aren't idiomatic, but I couldn't see /why/ 1 wasn't
idiomatic. My error, I now see, lay in my thinking of "would" as
the second subjunctive of "will". If instead we think of it as an
auxiliary, the problem goes away.

How many different grammatical roles does "would" play, anyway?
It's a word that refuses to be cleanly categorised.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Jerry Friedman

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 9:46:02 AM8/26/09
to
On Aug 26, 7:16 am, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org> wrote:
> CDB wrote:
> > JerryS wrote:
> >> 1. I wish I wouldn't have to work tomorrow.
> >> 2. I wish I didn't have to work tomorrow.
> >> 3. I wish I wouldn't have had to work tomorrow.
>
> >> ANY possibility that all work? Thanks.
>
> > Only 2 works everywhere.  The standard form in sentences where a
> > condition contrary to fact is being described is still the past
> > subjunctive, not a form using the auxiliary "would".
>
> At last, an explanation that clarifies.  I could tell, of course,
> that 1 and 3 aren't idiomatic, but I couldn't see /why/ 1 wasn't
> idiomatic.  My error, I now see, lay in my thinking of "would" as
> the second subjunctive of "will".  If instead we think of it as an
> auxiliary, the problem goes away.
>
> How many different grammatical roles does "would" play, anyway?
> It's a word that refuses to be cleanly categorised.

Would that it did!

--
Jerry Friedman

CDB

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 10:45:17 AM8/26/09
to
Peter Moylan wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> JerryS wrote:
>>> 1. I wish I wouldn't have to work tomorrow.
>>> 2. I wish I didn't have to work tomorrow.
>>> 3. I wish I wouldn't have had to work tomorrow.
>>>
>>> ANY possibility that all work? Thanks.
>>
>> Only 2 works everywhere. The standard form in sentences where a
>> condition contrary to fact is being described is still the past
>> subjunctive, not a form using the auxiliary "would".
>
> At last, an explanation that clarifies. I could tell, of course,
> that 1 and 3 aren't idiomatic, but I couldn't see /why/ 1 wasn't
> idiomatic. My error, I now see, lay in my thinking of "would" as
> the second subjunctive of "will". If instead we think of it as an
> auxiliary, the problem goes away.
>
> How many different grammatical roles does "would" play, anyway?
> It's a word that refuses to be cleanly categorised.

Indeed. I think that the link between volition and probability may
underlie a lot of the ambiguity. If you would be king, it were more
likely that you would be king, at least in NAmerica.

Belatedly, welcome back to the fold.


Chuck Riggs

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 11:46:06 AM8/26/09
to
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 05:13:23 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Jerry S. asks about:
>> 1. I wish I wouldn't have to work tomorrow.
>> 2. I wish I didn't have to work tomorrow.
>> 3. I wish I wouldn't have had to work tomorrow.
>
>Only #2 is possible.

You will probably admit that 1 and 3 are possible, but only 2 is
standard English.
--

Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland
and usually spells in BrE

Peter Moylan

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 11:46:13 AM8/26/09
to
CDB wrote:

> Belatedly, welcome back to the fold.

Thank you. I have the impression that I am now adequately folded.
A belated thank you to all who welcomed me back.

I'm conscious of hoping for a bit more folding from those who
understand the immediate crisis, but that's a more local issue.

"For helping me to grow
I owe a lot I know
To all the girls I've loved before."

Belated greetings to all of those I've loved in this forum. I can
think of only one, but perhaps I'm wrong. (And the love of that one
exception has not diminished. I hope she's still around.) Of those
I've loved as friends, a far greater number.

Skitt

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 4:31:36 PM8/26/09
to
Mark Brader wrote:
> Jerry S. asks about:

>> 1. I wish I wouldn't have to work tomorrow.
>> 2. I wish I didn't have to work tomorrow.
>> 3. I wish I wouldn't have had to work tomorrow.
>
> Only #2 is possible.

About 424 million Google hits for "I wish I wouldn't have to"
notwithstanding.
--
Skitt (AmE)

DJ

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 5:47:51 PM8/26/09
to

I was curious, so I did a search. At first, it showed 400 million hits.
I then clicked the last page multiple times, and the final number
stopped at 262 hits.

(I wonder if it's always like this....)

DJ

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 5:49:24 PM8/26/09
to
DJ wrote:

>
> (I wonder if it's always like this....)

I got my answer:
"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some
entries very similar to the 262 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included."

JerryS

unread,
Aug 26, 2009, 7:30:44 PM8/26/09
to
CDB wrote:

>> 1. I wish I wouldn't have to work tomorrow.
>> 2. I wish I didn't have to work tomorrow.
>> 3. I wish I wouldn't have had to work tomorrow.
>>
>> ANY possibility that all work? Thanks.
>
> Only 2 works everywhere.

Based on the opposition faced by 1 and 3 in various places, I had better
believe you:-)

> The standard form in sentences where a
> condition contrary to fact is being described is still the past
> subjunctive, not a form using the auxiliary "would".

Now, let's clarify a bit the terminology in use here, esp the "past
subjunctive". Curme has the best description I know of the subjunctive
and he says:

----
The past subjunctive _should_ is much used as a modest or polite volitive:

'You _should go_ at once,'

G. Curme, A Grammar of the English Language, vol. II, 43 I A, p. 397

In all these examples the past subjunctive expresses a desire of the
speaker, but it is often employed to report the desire of another:

'He _would_ gladly do it.'
'He _would_ rather stay at home.'

Curme, p. 399
----

According to this, "wouldn't have" seems to me a past subjunctive. Am I
wrong?

> In some parts of the United States, 1 and 3 are widely used and are
> considered correct, at least in informal English.

Quite an informative comment and I believe it correct, as I found this
in no less than John Steinbeck (please see the first sentence):

----
Working days: the journals of The grapes of wrath, 1938-1941‎ - Page 86
by John Steinbeck, Robert J. DeMott - Literary Criticism - 1990 - 180 pages

I think _I wish I wouldn't have to_ think. Wish I could just let things
go past but that time is gone. No one can escape it. Me least of all.
----

Now, going back to our muttons re the past subjunctive:-)

Curme says (and please see what he considers as past subjunctives, in
underlined _ _ in my typing):

----
A past subjunctive form is often a modest expression of desire:

'I wish I _might_ not have my labor in vain!'
'I wish you _would_ stay a little longer!'
'He wishes I _would_ go and visit him.'
'I wish that success _might_ come to you speedily!'

Curme, A Grammar of the English Language, vol. II, 43 II B a, p. 403
----

His 2nd and 3rd sentences contain "wish/would" combinations which are
used in my original sentences 1 and 3, thus they don't seem to be
prohibited, not, at least, by Curme.

However, my sentences 1 and 3 have a difficulty: they deal with the
first person singular for both "wish" and "would" and I think this is
where the problem really lies. I haven't yet been able to find a page in
Curme dealing with this case.

As someone told me: "'Would' refers to the will of a person. Normally we
don't speak about wishing about our own wills; it is assumed we know our
own abilities."

This is what is mentioned in Swan in support of this reservation:

----
"wish"
- "would" not used

"I wish I could manage to give up smoking."

(NOT: "I wish I would give up smoking" -- It is strange to wish for
oneself to be willing.)

Swan, Practical English Usage, "wish"
----

However, IMO, Swan's caveat:

"It is strange to wish for oneself to be willing."

which applies in the case of giving up smoking (a process involving

personal will) does NOT apply, IMO, in the case of being in fact sorry

for having to work the next day, as the original 1 sentence says.

In the case of sentence 1, IMO, "would" doesn't have to do with
"will/ambition/want" but only with creating an (impossible) hypothetical
situation, one in which the writer doesn't/wouldn't have to work tomorrow.

Thus, the type/functionality of "would" is determined by the very
context and it is not, in the case of 1, the "volitional" one, but the
"hypothetical" one.

How about this take?

Looking forward to your and everyone else's commentary.

Thanks.

Donna Richoux

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 5:17:23 AM8/27/09
to
DJ <nos...@no.no> wrote:

[Please don't snip quite so much. Our newsreaders display in different
ways. Skitt had found 424 million Google hits for "I wish I wouldn't
have to". Restoring DJ's comment:]

>>I was curious, so I did a search. At first, it showed 400 million
hits.
>>I then clicked the last page multiple times, and the final number
>>stopped at 262 hits.

> > (I wonder if it's always like this....)

I think you should keep going. What happened when you took them up on
that offer? I think I know. We've seen a lot of discrepancy between
estimates and reports.

Anyway, 424 million is an suspiciously high number for any Google
search, let alone a six-word phrase. Even the simple "I wish" gets only
147 million, so that contradicts the finding.

Could Skitt have forgotten to use quotation marks? Giving us every
document that contains those six (actually, five) words anywhere? It
happens.

I get 42 million for the phrase without quotation marks. But as we saw a
couple of years ago, the sense has gone out of the Google numbers game.
Any number of factors cause them to be nonsensical.

Yet, yet, yet, I think the underlying point is sound, and "I wish I
wouldn't have to" is a thing that people say. Like the earlier poster I
would prefer "didn't" myself, but "wouldn't" doesn't sound all that bad.

"I wish you wouldn't" and "I wish he wouldn't" certainly sound okay.



CDB

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 9:15:43 AM8/27/09
to
JerryS wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>
>>> 1. I wish I wouldn't have to work tomorrow.
>>> 2. I wish I didn't have to work tomorrow.
>>> 3. I wish I wouldn't have had to work tomorrow.
>>>
>>> ANY possibility that all work? Thanks.
>>
>> Only 2 works everywhere.
>
> Based on the opposition faced by 1 and 3 in various places, I had
> better believe you:-)
>
>> The standard form in sentences where a
>> condition contrary to fact is being described is still the past
>> subjunctive, not a form using the auxiliary "would".
>
> Now, let's clarify a bit the terminology in use here, esp the "past
> subjunctive". Curme has the best description I know of the
> subjunctive and he says:

I'm going to have to do more thinking about this than I have time for
this morning. I don't have or read grammars like Curme, a text that
another poster, Eric Walker, has recommended here. Maybe he will post
a better-informed response to this part of your posting than I can.

My own understanding of the subjunctive is that it is a particular
form of the verb, identical to the indicative in most but not all
cases, and not made by using auxiliaries like "should"and 'would". In
British English especially, such a compound form is often used instead
of the subjunctive, and perhaps that is what Curme means by his use of
the term.

> ----
> The past subjunctive _should_ is much used as a modest or polite
> volitive:
> 'You _should go_ at once,'
>
> G. Curme, A Grammar of the English Language, vol. II, 43 I A, p. 397

I wouldn't call this the subjunctive, or the British compound
"subjunctive" either. The latter is what I would call "should go" in
a sentence like "It is imperative that you should go."

"You should go" looks to me like a softened form of "you shall go".
Framing a parallel sentence to show the subjunctive if it's there: "He
should go at once," would be the equivalent neither of "He was to go
at once," (indicative) nor of "He were to go at once" (subjunctive).
It seems to me that we're dealing with an auxiliary with its own
meaning, and not with a plain verb-mood at all.

The paragraph above was composed out of order, when I reviewed the
posting for typos and errors; I say more below about the idea of
substitution.

> In all these examples the past subjunctive expresses a desire of the
> speaker, but it is often employed to report the desire of another:
>
> 'He _would_ gladly do it.'
> 'He _would_ rather stay at home.'
>
> Curme, p. 399
> ----

One way of trying to ferret out the subjunctive is to find a way of
expressing the same idea, or a parallel idea, in the third person
singular and using the verb "to be", which will produce a distinction
in form between the subjunctive and the indicative.

For "do", substitute "be doing": "He were gladly doing it." Yes,
maybe that is a substitute construction for the subjunctive, but I
still wouldn't call it a subjunctive.

For "would", substitute "was/were willing": "He was willing, rather,
to stay at home," but not the subjunctive "*He were willing, rather,
...". I don't think this is a subjunctive at all.

I think that the difference between "gladly"and "rather" makes a
difference to the way the verb works, and that is why I've tried
different substitutions in the two examples.

> According to this, "wouldn't have" seems to me a past subjunctive.
> Am I wrong?

If Curme is with you, who can be against you? All the above is just
to say that grammarians have somewhat different analyses and express
them by means of different sets of terms. I don't follow any of them
closely, being lazy and perhaps unreasonably confident of my ability
to write correctly without their help. My approach works for me,
usually, but leaves me ill-equipped to discuss these matters with
someone who has adopted a particular grammarian's lexicon.

>> In some parts of the United States, 1 and 3 are widely used and are
>> considered correct, at least in informal English.
>
> Quite an informative comment and I believe it correct, as I found
> this in no less than John Steinbeck (please see the first sentence):
>
> ----

> Working days: the journals of The grapes of wrath, 1938-1941? -


> Page 86 by John Steinbeck, Robert J. DeMott - Literary Criticism -
> 1990 -
> 180 pages
> I think _I wish I wouldn't have to_ think. Wish I could just let
> things go past but that time is gone. No one can escape it. Me least
> of
> all. ----
>
> Now, going back to our muttons re the past subjunctive:-)
>
> Curme says (and please see what he considers as past subjunctives,
> in underlined _ _ in my typing):
>
> ----
> A past subjunctive form is often a modest expression of desire:
>
> 'I wish I _might_ not have my labor in vain!'
> 'I wish you _would_ stay a little longer!'
> 'He wishes I _would_ go and visit him.'
> 'I wish that success _might_ come to you speedily!'
>
> Curme, A Grammar of the English Language, vol. II, 43 II B a, p. 403
> ----

With substitutions:

'I wish he were able not to have my labor in vain!'
'I wish he were willing stay a little longer!'
'He wishes she were willing togo and visit him.'
'I wish that success were able to come to you speedily!' (awkward, I
know)

Yes, I would say all these (original) forms function as substitutes
for the subjunctive.

> His 2nd and 3rd sentences contain "wish/would" combinations which
> are used in my original sentences 1 and 3, thus they don't seem to
> be
> prohibited, not, at least, by Curme.
>
> However, my sentences 1 and 3 have a difficulty: they deal with the
> first person singular for both "wish" and "would" and I think this
> is where the problem really lies. I haven't yet been able to find a
> page in Curme dealing with this case.
>
> As someone told me: "'Would' refers to the will of a person.
> Normally we don't speak about wishing about our own wills; it is
> assumed we know our own abilities."

That seems like good sense to me.

> This is what is mentioned in Swan in support of this reservation:
>
> ----
> "wish"
> - "would" not used
>
> "I wish I could manage to give up smoking."
>
> (NOT: "I wish I would give up smoking" -- It is strange to wish for
> oneself to be willing.)
>
> Swan, Practical English Usage, "wish"
> ----
>
> However, IMO, Swan's caveat:
>
> "It is strange to wish for oneself to be willing."
>
> which applies in the case of giving up smoking (a process involving
> personal will) does NOT apply, IMO, in the case of being in fact
> sorry for having to work the next day, as the original 1 sentence
> says.
> In the case of sentence 1, IMO, "would" doesn't have to do with
> "will/ambition/want" but only with creating an (impossible)
> hypothetical situation, one in which the writer doesn't/wouldn't
> have to work tomorrow.
> Thus, the type/functionality of "would" is determined by the very
> context and it is not, in the case of 1, the "volitional" one, but
> the "hypothetical" one.
>
> How about this take?

I think there are more dificulties than that. Leave out "would" and
you get something like "I wish I gave up smoking".

> Looking forward to your and everyone else's commentary.

Let's hope everyone else can make more sense than I have.


DJ

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 11:39:51 AM8/27/09
to
Donna Richoux wrote:
> DJ <nos...@no.no> wrote:
>
> [Please don't snip quite so much. Our newsreaders display in different
> ways. Skitt had found 424 million Google hits for "I wish I wouldn't
> have to". Restoring DJ's comment:]
>
>>> I was curious, so I did a search. At first, it showed 400 million
> hits.
>>> I then clicked the last page multiple times, and the final number
>>> stopped at 262 hits.
>
>>> (I wonder if it's always like this....)
>> I got my answer:
>> "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some
>> entries very similar to the 262 already displayed.
>> If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included."
>
> I think you should keep going. What happened when you took them up on
> that offer? I think I know. We've seen a lot of discrepancy between
> estimates and reports.

I did (click the underlined "repeat the search with the omitted results
included") and the number was back to millions figure. I thought it was
simply my carelessness of overlooking a displayed message after I posted
my first reply, so ....

> Anyway, 424 million is an suspiciously high number for any Google
> search, let alone a six-word phrase. Even the simple "I wish" gets only
> 147 million, so that contradicts the finding.
>
> Could Skitt have forgotten to use quotation marks? Giving us every
> document that contains those six (actually, five) words anywhere? It
> happens.
>
> I get 42 million for the phrase without quotation marks. But as we saw a
> couple of years ago, the sense has gone out of the Google numbers game.
> Any number of factors cause them to be nonsensical.
>
> Yet, yet, yet, I think the underlying point is sound, and "I wish I
> wouldn't have to" is a thing that people say. Like the earlier poster I
> would prefer "didn't" myself, but "wouldn't" doesn't sound all that bad.
>
> "I wish you wouldn't" and "I wish he wouldn't" certainly sound okay.

Thank you for the explanation. It certainly helps.

--
DJ

Skitt

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 12:39:03 PM8/27/09
to
Donna Richoux wrote:

> DJ wrote:

> [Please don't snip quite so much. Our newsreaders display in different
> ways. Skitt had found 424 million Google hits for "I wish I wouldn't
> have to". Restoring DJ's comment:]
>
>>> I was curious, so I did a search. At first, it showed 400 million
>>> hits.
>>> I then clicked the last page multiple times, and the final number
>>> stopped at 262 hits.
>>>
>>> (I wonder if it's always like this....)
>>
>> I got my answer:
>> "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some
>> entries very similar to the 262 already displayed.
>> If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results
>> included."
>
> I think you should keep going. What happened when you took them up on
> that offer? I think I know. We've seen a lot of discrepancy between
> estimates and reports.
>
> Anyway, 424 million is an suspiciously high number for any Google
> search, let alone a six-word phrase. Even the simple "I wish" gets
> only 147 million, so that contradicts the finding.
>
> Could Skitt have forgotten to use quotation marks?

No. I didn't forget it.

<snip>
--
Skitt (AmE)

JerryS

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 9:19:16 AM8/27/09
to
CDB wrote:

> I'm going to have to do more thinking about this than I have time for
> this morning. I don't have or read grammars like Curme, a text that
> another poster, Eric Walker, has recommended here. Maybe he will post
> a better-informed response to this part of your posting than I can.
>
> My own understanding of the subjunctive is that it is a particular
> form of the verb, identical to the indicative in most but not all
> cases, and not made by using auxiliaries like "should"and 'would". In
> British English especially, such a compound form is often used instead
> of the subjunctive, and perhaps that is what Curme means by his use of
> the term.

Let's forget about grammar terminology for one moment and talk about
what works here as you see it, esp my comment to the Swan objection in
this context.

That's my main concern.

Thanks.

Mark Brader

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 2:24:09 PM8/27/09
to
D.J.:

>>> "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some
>>> entries very similar to the 262 already displayed.
>>> If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included."

> I did (click the underlined "repeat the search with the omitted results
> included") and the number was back to millions figure. ...

But now if you step through the actual results (it helps to select
the "100 results per page" option), you will probably find that there
are not many more than 262 after all.
--
Mark Brader "I can see the time when every city will have one."
Toronto -- An American mayor's reaction to the
m...@vex.net news of the invention of the telephone

DJ

unread,
Aug 27, 2009, 8:18:58 PM8/27/09
to
Mark Brader wrote:
> D.J.:
>>>> "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some
>>>> entries very similar to the 262 already displayed.
>>>> If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included."
>
>> I did (click the underlined "repeat the search with the omitted results
>> included") and the number was back to millions figure. ...
>
> But now if you step through the actual results (it helps to select
> the "100 results per page" option), you will probably find that there
> are not many more than 262 after all.

Wow... you're right. (and I got 408)

So my previous suspicion is confirmed. I wonder if it's always like
this. In the past, I never did more than 6 clicks (with default 10
results per page setting). And most of the time when I ran into some odd
phrases, the search results almost always reduced to a handful in a few
clicks.

Still, one good thing is I have AUE to fall back on. I'll just ask
questions more often in the future.

--
DJ

Peter Moylan

unread,
Aug 28, 2009, 1:51:19 AM8/28/09
to
CDB wrote:

> My own understanding of the subjunctive is that it is a particular
> form of the verb, identical to the indicative in most but not all
> cases, and not made by using auxiliaries like "should"and 'would". In
> British English especially, such a compound form is often used instead
> of the subjunctive, and perhaps that is what Curme means by his use of
> the term.

To complicate matters, though, the subjunctive of "shall" is "should".
In practice that means that, given a sentence that includes the
word "should", it's not always clear whether the "should" is a
subjunctive in its own right, or is simply wearing its "auxiliary"
hat.

CDB

unread,
Aug 28, 2009, 12:02:51 PM8/28/09
to
JerryS wrote:
> CDB wrote:

OK, here it is again:

********


>> 1. I wish I wouldn't have to work tomorrow.
>> 2. I wish I didn't have to work tomorrow.
>> 3. I wish I wouldn't have had to work tomorrow.

********


However, my sentences 1 and 3 have a difficulty: they deal with the
first person singular for both "wish" and "would" and I think this is
where the problem really lies. I haven't yet been able to find a page
in
Curme dealing with this case.

{I think that's one of the problems, but not the only one. Curme and
Swan. from what I can see in your excerpts, have different views on
how much personal will there is in "would", and in what contexts you
can find it. I, would disagree with them, if they asked my opinion.
(Another problem, not relevant to this discussion, seems to me to be
the tense-structure in 3.)}

As someone told me: "'Would' refers to the will of a person. Normally
we
don't speak about wishing about our own wills; it is assumed we know
our
own abilities."

This is what is mentioned in Swan in support of this reservation:

----
"wish"
- "would" not used

"I wish I could manage to give up smoking."

(NOT: "I wish I would give up smoking" -- It is strange to wish for
oneself to be willing.)

Swan, Practical English Usage, "wish"
----

However, IMO, Swan's caveat:

"It is strange to wish for oneself to be willing."

which applies in the case of giving up smoking (a process involving
personal will) does NOT apply, IMO, in the case of being in fact
sorry
for having to work the next day, as the original 1 sentence says.

{What if the sentence were "I wish I would be forced to give up
smoking"?}

In the case of sentence 1, IMO, "would" doesn't have to do with
"will/ambition/want" but only with creating an (impossible)
hypothetical
situation, one in which the writer doesn't/wouldn't have to work
tomorrow.

Thus, the type/functionality of "would" is determined by the very
context and it is not, in the case of 1, the "volitional" one, but the
"hypothetical" one.

How about this take?
*********
I agree, except where I {haven't}, above. If your brand of English
accepts the forms using "would" for counterfactual conditions, then
that's probably a useful way to look at examples of them.

I wish English wouldn't* be so complicated, but then what would we do
for a hobby?

*(Past subjunctive form of habitual "will", related to volitional use:
I wish English were not habitually willing to be so complicated, so to
speak.)


CDB

unread,
Aug 28, 2009, 12:03:06 PM8/28/09
to
Peter Moylan wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>
>> My own understanding of the subjunctive is that it is a particular
>> form of the verb, identical to the indicative in most but not all
>> cases, and not made by using auxiliaries like "should"and 'would".
>> In British English especially, such a compound form is often used
>> instead of the subjunctive, and perhaps that is what Curme means
>> by his use of the term.
>
> To complicate matters, though, the subjunctive of "shall" is
> "should". In practice that means that, given a sentence that
> includes the word "should", it's not always clear whether the
> "should" is a
> subjunctive in its own right, or is simply wearing its "auxiliary"
> hat.

The farther in you go, the bigger it gets. As I see it, "should" is
the simple (and only) past form of "shall", as "would" is of "will",
for both indicative and subjunctive. The only way to differentiate
the moods, as far as I can tell, is by context, and the only way (or,
at least, one good way) to establish a formal difference is by
substitution of an expression using a form of "be", or framed so that
the verb is in the third person, present tense. He said that she
should go; he said that she was to go: indicative. He wishes that she
would go: he wishes that she go (awkward, but "goes" is right out):
subjunctive.


JerryS

unread,
Sep 3, 2009, 3:16:03 AM9/3/09
to
CDB wrote:

[snip]

Thanks for your latest reply on the matter. I'll keep it in mind.
It's not on my news server, so I can't quote it here, but I saw it at
Google.

Mark Brader

unread,
Sep 3, 2009, 3:15:12 PM9/3/09
to
Jerry S.:

> Thanks for your latest reply on the matter. I'll keep it in mind.
> It's not on my news server, so I can't quote it here, but I saw it at
> Google.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but how does that make it
impossible for you to quote it?
--
Mark Brader "I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Toronto Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
m...@vex.net wouldn't have rusted like this." --Greg Goss

0 new messages