Bare subjunctive: a datappoint
CDB
vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. I was
interested to see a Victorian gentlewoman quoted, in an article on
some challenges to Darwinism, using it quite unself-consciously:
>
'After the Origin was published, the wife of the Bishop of Worcester
supposedly reacted: "Descended from monkeys? Let us hope that it is
not true. But if it is true, let us hope that it not become widely
known."'
>
http://chronicle.com/article/What-Darwins-Doubters-Get/64457/
Marius Hancu
Interesting.
Any difference in terms of intensity or otherwise?
Wood Avens
wrote:
>It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is
>vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. I was
>interested to see a Victorian gentlewoman quoted, in an article on
>some challenges to Darwinism, using it quite unself-consciously:
>>
>'After the Origin was published, the wife of the Bishop of Worcester
>supposedly reacted: "Descended from monkeys? Let us hope that it is
>not true. But if it is true, let us hope that it not become widely
>known."'
Generally agreed? I don't remember agreeing.
I'm not a general, of course, just a private rightpondian.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Pablo
> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is
> vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian.
I use it and I'm Brit.
> I was
> interested to see a Victorian gentlewoman quoted, in an article on
> some challenges to Darwinism, using it quite unself-consciously:
> 'After the Origin was published, the wife of the Bishop of Worcester
> supposedly reacted: "Descended from monkeys? Let us hope that it is
> not true. But if it is true, let us hope that it not become widely
> known."'
That's how people used to speak, isn't it? And some of us still do.
--
Pablo
CDB
> "CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is
>> vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. I
>> was interested to see a Victorian gentlewoman quoted, in an
>> article on some challenges to Darwinism, using it quite
>> unself-consciously:
>>>
>> 'After the Origin was published, the wife of the Bishop of
>> Worcester supposedly reacted: "Descended from monkeys? Let us hope
>> that it is not true. But if it is true, let us hope that it not
>> become widely known."'
>
> Generally agreed? I don't remember agreeing.
>
BrE speakers do seem more likely to say "vital that he should go",
which is less likely in NAmE, or "vital that he goes", which is plain
wrong over here, at least for that meaning.
>
> I'm not a general, of course, just a private rightpondian.
>
John Dean
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:02:10 -0500, "CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is
>> vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. I was
>> interested to see a Victorian gentlewoman quoted, in an article on
>> some challenges to Darwinism, using it quite unself-consciously:
>>>
>> 'After the Origin was published, the wife of the Bishop of Worcester
>> supposedly reacted: "Descended from monkeys? Let us hope that it is
>> not true. But if it is true, let us hope that it not become widely
>> known."'
>
> Generally agreed? I don't remember agreeing.
Nor I
>
> I'm not a general, of course, just a private rightpondian.
I'm gunner second that. Sapere aude and stuff.
--
John Dean
Oxford
CDB
vicarious Grace would certainly have been intensely sincere. Also, I
suppose that the subjunctivising auxiliary would have been "may", and
perhaps that would have changed her meaning slightly.
James Hogg
Note that she said "If it is true" and not "If it be true". What can we
read into that?
--
James
Wood Avens
wrote:
>Wood Avens wrote:
>> I'm not a general, of course, just a private rightpondian.
>>
>No caviar for you.
That's a major disappointment.
CDB
> CDB wrote:
>
>> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is
>> vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian.
>
> I use it and I'm Brit.
>
>
>> I was
>> interested to see a Victorian gentlewoman quoted, in an article on
>> some challenges to Darwinism, using it quite unself-consciously:
>
>> 'After the Origin was published, the wife of the Bishop of
>> Worcester supposedly reacted: "Descended from monkeys? Let us hope
>> that it is not true. But if it is true, let us hope that it not
>> become widely known."'
>
> That's how people used to speak, isn't it? And some of us still do.
>
become", and I'm a North American. Perhaps the unusualness of the
form is what made it stand out for me.
CDB
> "CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Wood Avens wrote:
>
>>> I'm not a general, of course, just a private rightpondian.
>>>
>> No caviar for you.
>
> That's a major disappointment.
>
CDB
>>
>> Generally agreed? I don't remember agreeing.
>
> Nor I
>
>> I'm not a general, of course, just a private rightpondian.
>
> I'm gunner second that. Sapere aude and stuff.
>
Steve Hayes
wrote:
I also don't remember agreeing, being a private lower right pondian.
And I think that form is commonly used in resolutions at meetings; a bit
formal, but still used.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
CDB
> Wood Avens <wood...@askjennison.com> wrote:
>> "CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it
>>> is vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian.
>>> I was interested to see a Victorian gentlewoman quoted, in an
>>> article on some challenges to Darwinism, using it quite
>>> unself-consciously:
>>>>
>>> 'After the Origin was published, the wife of the Bishop of
>>> Worcester supposedly reacted: "Descended from monkeys? Let us
>>> hope that it is not true. But if it is true, let us hope that it
>>> not become widely known."'
>>
>> Generally agreed? I don't remember agreeing.
>>
>> I'm not a general, of course, just a private rightpondian.
>
> I also don't remember agreeing, being a private lower right pondian.
>
> And I think that form is commonly used in resolutions at meetings;
> a bit formal, but still used.
>
settled, that the bare subjunctive had fallen out of use in BrE and
was only slowly being reintroduced from the North American (OK, let's
be real, American) example. Resolutions at meetings might be a
formalistic survival, I suppose (do they say YEA/AYE and NAY at these
meetings?); and, for the rest, the reintroduction must be proceeding
apace.
>
I should clarify a possible misimpression that I may have left: I
didn't and don't suggest that the bare subjunctive is incorrect in
BrE, only that it is little-used, or was so for a while -- a while
which I had thought included the Victorian period.
CDB
> CDB <belle...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> When will I learn? I should have said that that was my impression.
>> BrE speakers do seem more likely to say "vital that he should go",
>> which is less likely in NAmE, or "vital that he goes", which is
>> plain wrong over here, at least for that meaning.
>
>
When it means "it is vital for him to go" instead of "he goes, and
that's vital", it's wrong in North America. That's why I specified
the place (over here), and why I added "at least for that meaning"
(the meaning we had seen in the original example, "... let us hope
that it not become widely known.)"
.
Can I take it that you are a speaker of British English, OARFT? But I
see that you hold sound opinions in the matter of Marmite, or at least
jam. Account for yousrelf, Sir. Or Ma'am.
CDB
the same was true of early Scottish? "Gin that" followed by the
subjunctive? The first page of googlehits is unmixed genever, and I'm
afraid to look deeper.
Joe Fineman
> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is
> vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. I was
> interested to see a Victorian gentlewoman quoted, in an article on
> some challenges to Darwinism, using it quite unself-consciously:
>>
> 'After the Origin was published, the wife of the Bishop of Worcester
> supposedly reacted: "Descended from monkeys? Let us hope that it is
> not true. But if it is true, let us hope that it not become widely
> known."'
My understanding is that the bare subjunctive was standard in
expressions of desire until the 19th century, when it was abandoned on
both sides of the Atlantic. It was subsequently revived in America
and imported into Britain, where for a while it was sometimes called
"the American subjunctive".
However, the above (mis)quotation is not an example of it. Idiom does
not allow it after "hope": I can say "I hope it happens" or "I hope
it will happen", but surely not "I hope it happen". And indeed,
Google reveals that what the lady said was "let us hope that it does
not become widely known".
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: We only of Creation (Oh, luckier bridge and rail!) :||
||: Abide the twin-damnation -- To fail and know we fail. :||
Glenn Knickerbocker
> I continue to be surprised. I had thought this was pretty-well
> settled, that the bare subjunctive had fallen out of use in BrE and
> was only slowly being reintroduced from the North American (OK, let's
> be real, American) example.
I thought it was just falling out of use in BrE now, encouraged by BBC
example. I've heard the indicative form from BBC World Service
announcers for about 12 years, but didn't start noticing it in the
speech of their interview subjects until last year.
�R
Al in St. Lou
IIRC, 'twas a sci.langer named Neill who kept insisting only
the left-ponders still used the subjunctive like that and it
had died out where he lived and worked. When a few
Rightpondians begged to differ, I think he claimed they were
just part of the old guard that was dying out.
--
Al in St. Lou
Eric Walker
[...]
Re: "But if it is true, let us hope that it not become widely known."
> Also, I suppose that the subjunctivising auxiliary would have been
> "may", and perhaps that would have changed her meaning slightly.
Tense use in the subjunctive is largely unrelated to temporality: the
past tense indicates significantly greater doubt.
He may come tonight. (quite possible)
He might come tonight. (chances are poor)
What I wonder is why the subjunctive in the secondary proposition, but
not the primary?
"But if it be true, let us hope that it not become widely known."
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
James Hogg
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:00:02 -0500, CDB wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Re: "But if it is true, let us hope that it not become widely known."
>
>> Also, I suppose that the subjunctivising auxiliary would have been
>> "may", and perhaps that would have changed her meaning slightly.
>
> Tense use in the subjunctive is largely unrelated to temporality: the
> past tense indicates significantly greater doubt.
>
> He may come tonight. (quite possible)
>
> He might come tonight. (chances are poor)
>
> What I wonder is why the subjunctive in the secondary proposition, but
> not the primary?
>
> "But if it be true, let us hope that it not become widely known."
Precisely the question I asked.
--
James
the Omrud
> This means everytime I read an American publisher's version of
> Hitchicker's Guide to the Galaxy I am annoyed anew at the ruining of a
> perfectly good joke.
Ah, you mean:
Zaphod: Parking lot? What are you doing in the parking lot?
Marvin: Lotting cars, dur.
--
David
CDB
> "CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is
>> vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian. I
>> was interested to see a Victorian gentlewoman quoted, in an
>> article on some challenges to Darwinism, using it quite
>> unself-consciously:
>>>
>> 'After the Origin was published, the wife of the Bishop of
>> Worcester supposedly reacted: "Descended from monkeys? Let us hope
>> that it is not true. But if it is true, let us hope that it not
>> become widely known."'
>
> My understanding is that the bare subjunctive was standard in
> expressions of desire until the 19th century, when it was abandoned
> on both sides of the Atlantic. It was subsequently revived in
> America and imported into Britain, where for a while it was
> sometimes called "the American subjunctive".
>
> However, the above (mis)quotation is not an example of it. Idiom
> does not allow it after "hope": I can say "I hope it happens" or
> "I hope it will happen", but surely not "I hope it happen". And
> indeed, Google reveals that what the lady said was "let us hope
> that it does not become widely known".
>
seem to like my "subjunctive triggered by 'that'" idea. I was
resisting it because of its Godwin-like effect on the discussion.
Good-bye, little thread.
>
Is any of this coherent? I am being rushed by circumstances this
morning, and can no longer stay.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In message <cDKln.49006$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com> the
> Sigh. Yes.
Besides being ruined, apparently, by having been excised and moved to
_The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_, how exactly is the joke
ruined? In the American edition it's
Parking cars, what else does one do in a parking lot?
In the British edition is there some witty play on the double meaning
of "park" (as in, say, "city park")? 'Cause if it's just that parking
cars is what you do in a car park, I'd say that the joke works just as
well here.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If only some crazy scientist
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |somewhere would develop a device
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |that would allow us to change the
|channel on our televisions......
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | --"lazarus"
(650)857-7572
Nick
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>
>> In message <cDKln.49006$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com> the
>> <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/03/2010 10:33, Lewis wrote:
>>
>>>> This means everytime I read an American publisher's version of
>>>> Hitchicker's Guide to the Galaxy I am annoyed anew at the ruining
>>>> of a perfectly good joke.
>>
>>> Ah, you mean:
>>
>>> Zaphod: Parking lot? What are you doing in the parking lot?
>>> Marvin: Lotting cars, dur.
>>
>> Sigh. Yes.
>
> Besides being ruined, apparently, by having been excised and moved to
> _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_, how exactly is the joke
> ruined? In the American edition it's
>
> Parking cars, what else does one do in a parking lot?
>
> In the British edition is there some witty play on the double meaning
> of "park" (as in, say, "city park")? 'Cause if it's just that parking
> cars is what you do in a car park, I'd say that the joke works just as
> well here.
Lewis' revision shows what goes wrong. The original has an interesting
structure (chiasmus?):
What are you doing in the car park?
Parking cars
The joke remains but loses its rhythm.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
James Hogg
"Lotting parks" would preserve the rhythm and the chiasmus, but it
wouldn't make a lot of sense.
--
James
Joe Fineman
> What I wonder is why the subjunctive in the secondary proposition,
> but not the primary?
>
> "But if it be true, let us hope that it not become widely
> known."
I wondered about that too. I think the reason is that to govern a
subjunctive, a verb of desire has to be one that indicates that the
desire will or might have some effect on the actual course of events:
I hope that it is so.
I wish that it were so.
I recommend (order, urge, demand, etc.) that it be so.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Successful systems accumulate parasites. :||
Joe Fineman
> That was going to be my next attempt at satisfying James, who didn't
> seem to like my "subjunctive triggered by 'that'" idea. I was
> resisting it because of its Godwin-like effect on the discussion.
> Good-bye, little thread.
>>
> Is any of this coherent?
Maybe, but I don't understand a word of it. Who is James?
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: The world goes its way past all who will not partake of its :||
||: folly. :||
James Hogg
> "CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>> That was going to be my next attempt at satisfying James, who didn't
>> seem to like my "subjunctive triggered by 'that'" idea. I was
>> resisting it because of its Godwin-like effect on the discussion.
>> Good-bye, little thread.
>> Is any of this coherent?
>
> Maybe, but I don't understand a word of it. Who is James?
A lot of people wonder about that.
--
James
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In message <wrxkw5...@hpl.hp.com> Evan <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com>
> wrote:
>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>
>>> In message <cDKln.49006$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com> the
>>> <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/03/2010 10:33, Lewis wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This means everytime I read an American publisher's version of
>>>>> Hitchicker's Guide to the Galaxy I am annoyed anew at the ruining
>>>>> of a perfectly good joke.
>>>
>>>> Ah, you mean:
>>>
>>>> Zaphod: Parking lot? What are you doing in the parking lot?
>>>> Marvin: Lotting cars, dur.
>>>
>>> Sigh. Yes.
>
>> Besides being ruined, apparently, by having been excised and moved
>> to _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_, how exactly is the
>> joke ruined? In the American edition it's
>
>> Parking cars, what else does one do in a parking lot?
>
> Ah, but in the original the entire exchange is the joke, starting
> with the exchange between Zaphod and Marvin and continuing to the
> mirrored exchange with Zaphod and Arthur.
I'll take your word on it, but I would have expected that "car park"
would just be a fixed phrase for most British readers, referring to
exactly the same thing we call a "parking lot", and that they wouldn't
even be likely to notice "Hey, he reversed the words". The joke is
that a "What are you doing there?" in the sense of "Why are you
there?" is taken literally as "What activity are you engaging in
there?"
Is Adams on record as saying that he even noticed the "car park"/
"parking cars" mirroring much less considered it crucial to the joke?
>> In the British edition is there some witty play on the double meaning
>> of "park" (as in, say, "city park")? 'Cause if it's just that parking
>> cars is what you do in a car park, I'd say that the joke works just as
>> well here.
>
> [Zaphod] Marvin, will you please tell us where you are!
>
> [Marvin] I'm in the car park.
>
> [Zaphod] What are you doing in the car park?
>
> [Marvin] Parking cars. What else does one do in a car park?
>
> [Zaphod] OK, stay there. I'll be down in a minute.
>
> [Marvin] That makes two of us.
>
> [Zaphod] Come on, guys, let's go! Marvin's down in the car park.
>
> [Arthur] What's he doing there?
>
> [Zaphod] Parking cars, what else, dum-dum? Come on, let's go!
>
> Could just be me, but the excised and 'corrected' American version
> just falls flat and loses the internal mirroring that is refelcted
> in the doubling of the conversation.
I think it's just you. It works fine with "parking lot" if that's
what you call the place.
> It's a very well written little bit, and it is spoilt by the
> hamfistedness of some clueless git who thought it was 'too British'
> or somesuch.
>
> Ther's also the issue that the change was *stupid* and *unnecessary*
>
> However, it is not the stupidest change I've ever seen an American
> publisher make. That still has to be the change in Good Omens where
> Crowley's favorite shows (Cheers, and American sitcom) is changed to
> Golden Girls (another American sitcom). Why this change was made is
> baffling. I suspect it was either a bet between two editors, or
> someone's favorite show was Golden Girls and they wanted to get it into
> the book.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Marge: You liked Rashomon.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Homer: That's not how *I* remember
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | it.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Leslie Danks
> "CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>> That was going to be my next attempt at satisfying James, who didn't
>> seem to like my "subjunctive triggered by 'that'" idea. I was
>> resisting it because of its Godwin-like effect on the discussion.
>> Good-bye, little thread.
>>>
>> Is any of this coherent?
>
> Maybe, but I don't understand a word of it. Who is James?
That all his swainettes commend him.
--
Les (BrE)
CDB
>
>
'Note that she said "If it is true" and not "If it be true". What can
we
read into that?'
>
'She used the word "that"as a cue? If that it be true ... '.
>
[forbearance]
CDB
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
<snip>
>"Lotting parks" would preserve the rhythm and the chiasmus, but it
>wouldn't make a lot of sense.
The two-bit word, chiasmus, does not make a lot of sense to most
people, I'd wager.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
CDB
that I misremember the debate.
Al in St. Lou
> Al in St. Lou wrote:
>> CDB wrote:
[...]
>>> I continue to be surprised. I had thought this was pretty-well
>>> settled, that the bare subjunctive had fallen out of use in BrE and
>>> was only slowly being reintroduced from the North American (OK,
>>> let's be real, American) example. Resolutions at meetings might
>>> be a formalistic survival, I suppose (do they say YEA/AYE and NAY
>>> at these meetings?); and, for the rest, the reintroduction must be
>>> proceeding apace.
>>> I should clarify a possible misimpression that I may have left: I
>>> didn't and don't suggest that the bare subjunctive is incorrect in
>>> BrE, only that it is little-used, or was so for a while -- a while
>>> which I had thought included the Victorian period.
>> IIRC, 'twas a sci.langer named Neill who kept insisting only
>> the left-ponders still used the subjunctive like that and it
>> had died out where he lived and worked. When a few
>> Rightpondians begged to differ, I think he claimed they were
>> just part of the old guard that was dying out.
>>
> It's been discussed here too, but I'm being forced to the conclusion
> that I misremember the debate.
I've never read sci.lang, so it was definitely crossposted here.
Peter Moylan
Probably by PTD, who claims that he never crossposts here. (And he can't
deny it without admitting that he has read this message.) But I would
accept a claim that he did it accidentally, because it's pretty clear
that he doesn't understand the GG interface.
But, then, does anyone?
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Mike Lyle
I no longer remember it, but the last time I contributed to such a
debate, I _would_ have said the bare subjunctive was unnatural to
ordinary British discourse, whether spoken or written; I wouldn't be
surprised to find it from time to time in very formal or high-falutin'
use, and I _do_ think it's coming back, at least to some extent, under
American influence.
Further, if I'd been His Grace's missis, I wouldn't have used any kind
of subjunction or irrealismo at all: I'd have said "...let us hope it
does not become generally known." I think a subjunctive or one of its
substitutes would have been plain wrong.
So there.
--
Mike.
Mike Lyle
> Pablo wrote:
>> CDB wrote:
>>
>>> It has been generally agreed here that the bare subjunctive ("it is
>>> vital that he go" instead of "... should go") is leftpondian.
>>
>>
> Not from Barcelona, originally?
>>
>>> I was
>>> interested to see a Victorian gentlewoman quoted, in an article on
>>> some challenges to Darwinism, using it quite unself-consciously:
>>
>>> 'After the Origin was published, the wife of the Bishop of
>>> Worcester supposedly reacted: "Descended from monkeys? Let us hope
>>> that it is not true. But if it is true, let us hope that it not
>>> become widely known."'
>>
>>
> Actually, I would almost certainly have said "that it does/will not
> become", and I'm a North American. Perhaps the unusualness of the
> form is what made it stand out for me.
Ah! A blast of glorious right-mindedness! My apols for not reading the
whole thread before replying.
--
Mike.
CDB
confounded. (In my list, the posting appears right after yours, dated
3/9/2010.)
CDB
Adam Funk
[Douglas Adams: "car park" / "parking lot"]
> Could just be me, but the excised and 'corrected' American version just
> falls flat and loses the internal mirroring that is refelcted in the
> doubling of the conversation. It's a very well written little bit, and
> it is spoilt by the hamfistedness of some clueless git who thought it
> was 'too British' or somesuch.
>
> Ther's also the issue that the change was *stupid* and *unnecessary*
The American edition still has references to cricket ... but someone
thought "car park" would cause confusion?
--
Do you know what they do to book thieves up at Santa Rita?
http://www.shigabooks.com/indeces/bookhunter.html