does this make sense?
be...@eex.neet
Hello
I live in Auckland NZ and when out today I was stopped in my tracks by
a large poster outside a swimming pool.
They are advising that everyone should learn to swim, quite sensible
really. Here's a quote from a triathelete that stopped me.
"Its vitally important that everyone learn to swim well"
I thought that it should be "learns" not "learn" or replace
"everyone" with "all"
Do you agree, or am i missing something?
look forward to hearing from someone
Kind regards
Bill Ramsay
annily
I agree with you, since I take "everyone" as singular.
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
annily
> be...@eex.neet wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> I live in Auckland NZ and when out today I was stopped in my tracks by
>> a large poster outside a swimming pool.
>>
>> They are advising that everyone should learn to swim, quite sensible
>> really. Here's a quote from a triathelete that stopped me.
>>
>> "Its vitally important that everyone learn to swim well"
>>
>>
>> I thought that it should be "learns" not "learn" or replace
>> "everyone" with "all"
>> Do you agree, or am i missing something?
>>
>> look forward to hearing from someone
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Bill Ramsay
>>
>
> I agree with you, since I take "everyone" as singular.
>
On second thought, could it be construed as subjunctive?
Mark Brader
> "Its vitally important that everyone learn to swim well" (1)
Except for the missing apostrophe, that's standard North American
English. "Learn" is subjunctive. If we said:
"It's vitally important that everyone learns to swim well" (2)
then the meaning would be that everyone *does* learn to swim well,
and for some reason *this fact* is vitally important.
However, form 2 is common in British usage with the same meaning
we would say that form 1 has. As to common usage in New Zealand,
I can't say.
--
Mark Brader ...the scariest words of the afternoon:
Toronto "Hey, don't worry, I've read all about
m...@vex.net doing this sort of thing!" -- Vernor Vinge
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Roland Hutchinson
> annily wrote:
>> be...@eex.neet wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> I live in Auckland NZ and when out today I was stopped in my tracks by
>>> a large poster outside a swimming pool.
>>>
>>> They are advising that everyone should learn to swim, quite sensible
>>> really. Here's a quote from a triathelete that stopped me.
>>>
>>> "Its vitally important that everyone learn to swim well"
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought that it should be "learns" not "learn" or replace
>>> "everyone" with "all"
>>> Do you agree, or am i missing something?
>>>
>>> look forward to hearing from someone
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> Bill Ramsay
>>>
>>>
>> I agree with you, since I take "everyone" as singular.
>>
>>
> On second thought, could it be construed as subjunctive?
It could, and that would be standard in American English.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
John Dean
> annily wrote:
>> be...@eex.neet wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> I live in Auckland NZ and when out today I was stopped in my tracks
>>> by a large poster outside a swimming pool.
>>>
>>> They are advising that everyone should learn to swim, quite sensible
>>> really. Here's a quote from a triathelete that stopped me.
>>>
>>> "Its vitally important that everyone learn to swim well"
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought that it should be "learns" not "learn" or replace
>>> "everyone" with "all"
>>> Do you agree, or am i missing something?
>>>
>>> look forward to hearing from someone
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> Bill Ramsay
>>>
>>
>> I agree with you, since I take "everyone" as singular.
>>
>
> On second thought, could it be construed as subjunctive?
Bingo!
--
John Dean
Oxford
Eric Walker
> "Its vitally important that everyone learn to swim well"
>
> I thought that it should be "learns" not "learn" or replace "everyone"
> with "all"
To expand a bit on what others have said: the subjunctive mood
"represents something as not actually belonging to the domain of fact or
reality, but as merely existent in the mind of the speaker as a desire,
wish, volition, plan, conception, thought; sometimes with more or less
hope of realization, or, in the case of a statement, with more or less
belief; sometimes with little or no hope or faith." (Curme, _English
Grammar_)
The subjunctive is considered to have two main subdivisions, the optative
and the potential. The optative "represents the utterance as something
desired or planned". In the present tense, the third-person singular of
regular verbs omits the -s of the normal indicative mood.
(And, as already noted, "Its" should be "It's".)
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
be...@eex.neet
Hello
thanks to all of you for the kind replies. the "it's" thing was a
typo on my part.
when i first saw the poster, I thought that it was wrong, then after
a few minutes I wasn't so sure. Hence the post here.
To me, it sounds alien. Doesn't matter what I think though. It is
what it is.
Kind regards
Bill.
Don Aitken
Maybe the reason it seems alien is that you have rarely or never seem
it before. Your headers don't indicate where you are, but if what you
usually encounter is British English, you might well not have done.
All this esoteric learning about the subjunctive is unknown here
except to a few pedants. For the rest of us, the subjunctive is
obsolete except in a few fixed phrases, as Fowler observed approvingly
more than 80 years ago. Americans, though, *love* the subjunctive.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
John Varela
wrote:
> Americans, though, *love* the subjunctive.
You couldn't prove it by me.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Peter Moylan
> Maybe the reason it seems alien is that you have rarely or never seem
> it before. Your headers don't indicate where you are, but if what you
> usually encounter is British English, you might well not have done.
> All this esoteric learning about the subjunctive is unknown here
> except to a few pedants. For the rest of us, the subjunctive is
> obsolete except in a few fixed phrases, as Fowler observed approvingly
> more than 80 years ago. Americans, though, *love* the subjunctive.
I remember being severely shocked when I saw a British academic being
interviewed on TV, and heard an indicative where I would have expected a
subjunctive. Until then, I hadn't truly believed the stories about the
subjunctive being moribund in BrE.
The fact that such examples leap out and grab my attention suggests that
ordinary Australians do use the subjunctive instinctively, even though
- to the best of my recollection - it doesn't get a mention in school
lessons.
(Don's "not have done" also leapt out at me. We never say that here.)
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
annily
> Don Aitken wrote:
>
>> Maybe the reason it seems alien is that you have rarely or never seem
>> it before. Your headers don't indicate where you are, but if what you
>> usually encounter is British English, you might well not have done.
>> All this esoteric learning about the subjunctive is unknown here
>> except to a few pedants. For the rest of us, the subjunctive is
>> obsolete except in a few fixed phrases, as Fowler observed approvingly
>> more than 80 years ago. Americans, though, *love* the subjunctive.
>
> I remember being severely shocked when I saw a British academic being
> interviewed on TV, and heard an indicative where I would have expected a
> subjunctive. Until then, I hadn't truly believed the stories about the
> subjunctive being moribund in BrE.
>
> The fact that such examples leap out and grab my attention suggests that
> ordinary Australians do use the subjunctive instinctively, even though
> - to the best of my recollection - it doesn't get a mention in school
> lessons.
>
Well, it must have in my day (many decades ago), since I've known it for
a long time, and I don't think I would have learned it elsewhere.
> (Don's "not have done" also leapt out at me. We never say that here.)
>
It sounds OK to me. What do you reckon we Aussies say instead?
Peter Moylan
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Don Aitken wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe the reason it seems alien is that you have rarely or never seem
>>> it before. Your headers don't indicate where you are, but if what you
>> (Don's "not have done" also leapt out at me. We never say that here.)
>
> It sounds OK to me. What do you reckon we Aussies say instead?
>
I say, and hear "might not have", without the "done".
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Don Aitken wrote:
>
>> Maybe the reason it seems alien is that you have rarely or never seem
>> it before. Your headers don't indicate where you are, but if what you
>> usually encounter is British English, you might well not have done.
>> All this esoteric learning about the subjunctive is unknown here
>> except to a few pedants. For the rest of us, the subjunctive is
>> obsolete except in a few fixed phrases, as Fowler observed approvingly
>> more than 80 years ago. Americans, though, *love* the subjunctive.
>
>I remember being severely shocked when I saw a British academic being
>interviewed on TV, and heard an indicative where I would have expected a
>subjunctive. Until then, I hadn't truly believed the stories about the
>subjunctive being moribund in BrE.
>
>The fact that such examples leap out and grab my attention suggests that
> ordinary Australians do use the subjunctive instinctively, even though
>- to the best of my recollection - it doesn't get a mention in school
>lessons.
They leap out and grab my attention too, and I think I instinctively use the
subjunctive most of the time where it is appropriate. I can't remember seeing
the indicative where I would expect the subjunctive in printed texts, though.
Perhaps it's an oral thing with Brits.
>
>(Don's "not have done" also leapt out at me. We never say that here.)
--
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
annily
> annily wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Don Aitken wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe the reason it seems alien is that you have rarely or never seem
>>>> it before. Your headers don't indicate where you are, but if what you
>>>> usually encounter is British English, you might well not have done.
>>>> [...]
>
>>> (Don's "not have done" also leapt out at me. We never say that here.)
>>
>> It sounds OK to me. What do you reckon we Aussies say instead?
>>
> I say, and hear "might not have", without the "done".
>
Fair enough. Perhaps he was using the verbose form to add emphasis
(dragging things out may make them sound more important).
Stan Brown
> "Its vitally important that everyone learn to swim well"
I don't know about NZ, but that's standard American.
"I move that the club buy [not "buys"] a brass plaque for the
building."
> I thought that it should be "learns" not "learn" or replace
> "everyone" with "all"
>
> Do you agree, or am i missing something?
It's subjunctive, I believe.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Eric Walker
[...]
> Maybe the reason it seems alien is that you have rarely or never seem it
> before. Your headers don't indicate where you are, but if what you
> usually encounter is British English, you might well not have done. All
> this esoteric learning about the subjunctive is unknown here except to a
> few pedants. For the rest of us, the subjunctive is obsolete except in a
> few fixed phrases, as Fowler observed approvingly more than 80 years
> ago. Americans, though, *love* the subjunctive.
If I were British, I'd feel insulted. Or do you suppose that should read
"If I was British..."?
Dear me.
Mark Brader
> Your headers don't indicate where you are, but ...
No, but when he said "I live in Auckland NZ" in the original posting,
I thought that was a fairly strong clue.
--
Mark Brader There are people on that train!
Toronto Sure, they're Canadians, but they're still people!
m...@vex.net -- Paul Gross, "Due South"
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:32:08 +0000, Don Aitken wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Maybe the reason it seems alien is that you have rarely or never seem it
>> before. Your headers don't indicate where you are, but if what you
>> usually encounter is British English, you might well not have done. All
>> this esoteric learning about the subjunctive is unknown here except to a
>> few pedants. For the rest of us, the subjunctive is obsolete except in a
>> few fixed phrases, as Fowler observed approvingly more than 80 years
>> ago. Americans, though, *love* the subjunctive.
>
>If I were British, I'd feel insulted. Or do you suppose that should read
>"If I was British..."?
>
What is esoteric to many of my fellow Brits is the use of inflected
subjunctive verbs in "subjunctive" clauses.
A: "If I was British"
is just as much a subjunctive clause as
B: "If I were British".
A expresses exactly the same counterfactual condition as B.
Subjunctive inflections might be fading away in BrE but subjunctive,
counterfactual, clauses are definitely not.
>Dear me.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
Since there are many more Yanks than Brits, if your premise about our
loving the subjunctive is true, I would hardly say the subjunctive is
obsolete.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Eric Walker
[...]
> What is esoteric to many of my fellow Brits is the use of inflected
> subjunctive verbs in "subjunctive" clauses.
>
> A: "If I was British"
> is just as much a subjunctive clause as B: "If I were British".
>
> A expresses exactly the same counterfactual condition as B.
>
> Subjunctive inflections might be fading away in BrE but subjunctive,
> counterfactual, clauses are definitely not.
Putting the word "subjunctive" in quotation marks when referring to a
clause in the indicative mood does not thereby transform that clause into
the subjunctive mood.
As I recently posted on some other thread here ("Suppose this is the
case"):
From Curme, _English Grammar_:
Often also a present or a past state or act is of practical importance
to us. Here we often employ in both condition and conclusion a
present, past, or present perfect indicative, thus for the time being
recognizing as a practical working basis the reality of state or act,
but not finally committing ourselves to this view: If he *is* doing
this, he *is* in the right. If this *is* true, that *is* false. . . .
Alongside of the present, past, and present perfect indicative in the
condition here, we sometimes in rather choice English, as a survival of
a once common usage, still employ the present, past, and present
perfect subjunctive, with virtually the same force, only presented from
a little different point of view, the subjunctive representing act or
state as only conceived, but at the same time recognizing the reality
of act or state as a practical working basis: If God so *clothe* the
grass . . .
That is, when expressing conceptions of the mind rather than existing
things, one can--in certain kinds of cases, as set forth above--use
either the subjunctive mood or the indicative mood, depending on subtle
shadings of the wanted sense; but none of that changes the fact that
subjunctive is subjunctive and indicative is indicative.
Stan Brown
<em...@owlcroft.com>:
> If I were British, I'd feel insulted. Or do you suppose that should read
> "If I was British..."?
It's like the barber who shaves everyone but himself. :-)
If you were British, you'd have to say "If I was British", except you
couldn't, because you actually were British.
In /Yes, Prime Minister/, in the episode "One of Us", the PM tells
Sir Humphrey that he has a grave matter to discuss, and then pauses.
Sir Humphrey murmurs "Would it be easier if I wasn't here?" That has
always grated on my ear because I thought it was a blunder for
"weren't", which is standard American. Now I understand that British
*does* use the indicative there.
Nick
> Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:59:54 +0000 (UTC) from Eric Walker
> <em...@owlcroft.com>:
>
>> If I were British, I'd feel insulted. Or do you suppose that should read
>> "If I was British..."?
>
> It's like the barber who shaves everyone but himself. :-)
>
> If you were British, you'd have to say "If I was British", except you
> couldn't, because you actually were British.
>
> In /Yes, Prime Minister/, in the episode "One of Us", the PM tells
> Sir Humphrey that he has a grave matter to discuss, and then pauses.
> Sir Humphrey murmurs "Would it be easier if I wasn't here?" That has
> always grated on my ear because I thought it was a blunder for
> "weren't", which is standard American. Now I understand that British
> *does* use the indicative there.
Absolutely right. Even an old fashioned manderin like Sir Humphrey
would feel that "weren't" is stuffy there.
We don't have Sir Humphrey these days, of course. We have GOD.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
By "subjunctive clause" I mean a "counterfactual conditional clause".
The use of the indicative form of the verb instead of a subjunctive
form, where one is available, does not thereby alter the counterfactual
meaning of the clause.
Eric Walker
[...]
> By "subjunctive clause" I mean a "counterfactual conditional clause".
> The use of the indicative form of the verb instead of a subjunctive
> form, where one is available, does not thereby alter the counterfactual
> meaning of the clause.
That is correct. But the use of "subjunctive" for "counterfactual" could
easily confuse non-expert readers.
John Varela
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> By "subjunctive clause" I mean a "counterfactual conditional clause".
> The use of the indicative form of the verb instead of a subjunctive
> form, where one is available, does not thereby alter the counterfactual
> meaning of the clause.
Are you suggesting that what used to be only the indicative form has
taken over the subjunctive and the indicative *form* is now also the
subjunctive *form* (for some speakers).
Peter Moylan
If so, I agree with Peter. Even when the subjunctive can not be
distinguished by an inflection, the subjunctive _mood_ can still be
detected by things like tone of voice.
I dislike the description "counterfactual", though, because things
expressed by the subjunctive are not necessarily counterfactual. I
prefer "hypothetical". In a sentence like "I insist that you do it", the
"you do it" part is clearly subjunctive, but might well describe
something that is about to happen.
Eric Walker
[...]
> I dislike the description "counterfactual", though, because things
> expressed by the subjunctive are not necessarily counterfactual. I
> prefer "hypothetical". In a sentence like "I insist that you do it", the
> "you do it" part is clearly subjunctive, but might well describe
> something that is about to happen.
Well noted. I thought of mentioning that before, but didn't want to go
too far off; but it is certainly so that "counterfactual" is not spot
on. As Curme nicely puts it, the subjunctive mood "represents something
as not actually belonging to the domain of fact or reality, but as merely
existent in the mind of the speaker as a desire, wish, volition, plan,
conception, thought . . . ." Thus, "nonfactual", albeit infelicitous, is
closer to the actual sense.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>I dislike the description "counterfactual", though, because things
>expressed by the subjunctive are not necessarily counterfactual. I
>prefer "hypothetical". In a sentence like "I insist that you do it", the
>"you do it" part is clearly subjunctive, but might well describe
>something that is about to happen.
Since some have said that subjunctive is dead in BrE, how would BrE speakers
express that? "I insist that you does it"? or what?
Peter Moylan
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:32:01 +1100, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.not.china>
> wrote:
>
>> I dislike the description "counterfactual", though, because things
>> expressed by the subjunctive are not necessarily counterfactual. I
>> prefer "hypothetical". In a sentence like "I insist that you do it", the
>> "you do it" part is clearly subjunctive, but might well describe
>> something that is about to happen.
>
> Since some have said that subjunctive is dead in BrE, how would BrE speakers
> express that? "I insist that you does it"? or what?
Well, that's actually a bad example, because there's no inflectional
distinction between the subjunctive and the indicative for that case.
Try instead "I insist that he does it" - which, I gather, is correct
BrE, even though it sounds seriously clunky to me.
There's a sentence in The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy that threw me
when I read it. "We demand that we are philosophers." I still don't know
whether that's a BrE subjunctive or just a bit of nonsense.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>There's a sentence in The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy that threw me
>when I read it. "We demand that we are philosophers." I still don't know
>whether that's a BrE subjunctive or just a bit of nonsense.
All your base are belong to us.
Eric Walker
[...]
> Well, that's actually a bad example, because there's no inflectional
> distinction between the subjunctive and the indicative for that case.
> Try instead "I insist that he does it" - which, I gather, is correct
> BrE, even though it sounds seriously clunky to me. . . .
Well, one can (almost) always construct a case:
"Charlie farts a lot."
"I don't believe it!"
"I insist that he does it."
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> Since some have said that subjunctive is dead in BrE, how would BrE speakers
>> express that? "I insist that you does it"? or what?
>
>Well, that's actually a bad example, because there's no inflectional
>distinction between the subjunctive and the indicative for that case.
>Try instead "I insist that he does it" - which, I gather, is correct
>BrE, even though it sounds seriously clunky to me.
Well, try this one:
British bishops demand that Tony Blair apologise for slavery.
would Brits really write it:
British bishops demand that Tony Blair apologises for slavery?
It just looks so wrong.
James Hogg
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:49:45 +1100, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.not.china>
> wrote:
>
>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>>> Since some have said that subjunctive is dead in BrE, how would BrE speakers
>>> express that? "I insist that you does it"? or what?
>> Well, that's actually a bad example, because there's no inflectional
>> distinction between the subjunctive and the indicative for that case.
>> Try instead "I insist that he does it" - which, I gather, is correct
>> BrE, even though it sounds seriously clunky to me.
>
> Well, try this one:
>
> British bishops demand that Tony Blair apologise for slavery.
>
> would Brits really write it:
>
> British bishops demand that Tony Blair apologises for slavery?
>
> It just looks so wrong.
Google gets nearly 70,000 hits for
"demand that * apologises"
--
James
John Holmes
> Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:05:31 +1300 from be...@eex.neet <be...@eex.neet>:
>
>> "Its vitally important that everyone learn to swim well"
>
> I don't know about NZ, but that's standard American.
In NZ, Aus and BrE, I think it would be more usual to have an auxiliary
"should" in there to indicate the subjunctive mood. I wouldn't say it is
wrong as it stands, but to many people's ears it sounds rather stilted.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Evan Kirshenbaum
Both your example and there's sound fine to me, but the reading
(intended in the latter case) is "I tell you strongly that I am
correct when I say that ...". Not subjunctive.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Ye knowe ek, that in forme of speche
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | is chaunge
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Withinne a thousand yer, and wordes
| tho
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |That hadden prys now wonder nyce and
(650)857-7572 | straunge
|Us thenketh hem, and yet they spake
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | hem so
| Chaucer
Eric Walker
[...]
> Well, try this one:
>
> British bishops demand that Tony Blair apologise for slavery.
>
> would Brits really write it:
>
> British bishops demand that Tony Blair apologises for slavery?
>
> It just looks so wrong.
"So wrong" doesn't adequately cover it for me: alien is a little closer.
I am just re-reading some Terry Pratchett, and am reminded that he seems
to have declared unremitting war against the subjunctive. Every time I
hit another of those sentences of his in which the subjunctive has been,
with what can only have been quite a manful wrestle, heaved out of the
ring, it's like tripping on a brick.
be...@eex.neet
wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:31:09 +1300, be...@eex.neet wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 03:22:24 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
>><em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:05:31 +1300, beel wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Its vitally important that everyone learn to swim well"
>>>>
>>>> I thought that it should be "learns" not "learn" or replace "everyone"
>>>> with "all"
>>>
>>>To expand a bit on what others have said: the subjunctive mood
>>>"represents something as not actually belonging to the domain of fact or
>>>reality, but as merely existent in the mind of the speaker as a desire,
>>>wish, volition, plan, conception, thought; sometimes with more or less
>>>hope of realization, or, in the case of a statement, with more or less
>>>belief; sometimes with little or no hope or faith." (Curme, _English
>>>Grammar_)
>>>
>>>The subjunctive is considered to have two main subdivisions, the optative
>>>and the potential. The optative "represents the utterance as something
>>>desired or planned". In the present tense, the third-person singular of
>>>regular verbs omits the -s of the normal indicative mood.
>>>
>>>(And, as already noted, "Its" should be "It's".)
>>
>>Hello
>>
>>thanks to all of you for the kind replies. the "it's" thing was a
>>typo on my part.
>>
>>when i first saw the poster, I thought that it was wrong, then after
>>a few minutes I wasn't so sure. Hence the post here.
>>
>>To me, it sounds alien. Doesn't matter what I think though. It is
>>what it is.
>>
>Maybe the reason it seems alien is that you have rarely or never seem
>it before. Your headers don't indicate where you are, but if what you
>usually encounter is British English, you might well not have done.
>All this esoteric learning about the subjunctive is unknown here
>except to a few pedants. For the rest of us, the subjunctive is
>obsolete except in a few fixed phrases, as Fowler observed approvingly
>more than 80 years ago. Americans, though, *love* the subjunctive.
well I guess they must, however in NZ, it struck me as very odd.
kind regards
bill