> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:34:36 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> The other day I wrote the following sentence, and each time I re-read it
>> I have a doubt about the last word but three:
>> "In consequence, if a reaction in a biosynthetic pathway displays
>> negative cooperativity with respect to the concentration of its
>> substrate, and if the same metabolite acts as an effector of a reaction
>> in another pathway, then the flux through the second pathway will be
>> more sensitive to the flux through the first than it would be if there
>> was no negative cooperativity."
>> Don't worry about whether you find this an elegantly written sentence or
>> not, I'm just thinking about the final if clause. It seems to me to be
>> clearly counterfactual, and yet I can't persuade myself that the "was"
>> should be "were": it just seems wrong to me with "were".
>> Would "were" be better?
> Yes.
> As a sidebar, doesn't that opening want to be:
> "In consequence, if a reaction in a biosynthetic pathway displays
> negative cooperativity with respect to the concentration of its
> substrate and the same metabolite [also] acts as an effector of a
> reaction in another pathway, then &c &c
> The two "if's" appear to actually be one for the purposes of the "then"
> clause.
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:34:36 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > The other day I wrote the following sentence, and each time I re-read it
> > I have a doubt about the last word but three:
> > "In consequence, if a reaction in a biosynthetic pathway displays
> > negative cooperativity with respect to the concentration of its
> > substrate, and if the same metabolite acts as an effector of a reaction
> > in another pathway, then the flux through the second pathway will be
> > more sensitive to the flux through the first than it would be if there
> > was no negative cooperativity."
> > Don't worry about whether you find this an elegantly written sentence or
> > not, I'm just thinking about the final if clause. It seems to me to be
> > clearly counterfactual, and yet I can't persuade myself that the "was"
> > should be "were": it just seems wrong to me with "were".
> > Would "were" be better?
> Yes.
Same here, esp in formal contexts.
> As a sidebar, doesn't that opening want to be:
> "In consequence, if a reaction in a biosynthetic pathway displays
> negative cooperativity with respect to the concentration of its
> substrate and the same metabolite [also] acts as an effector of a
> reaction in another pathway, then &c &c
> The two "if's" appear to actually be one for the purposes of the "then"
> clause.
>> It is what linguists call these days the "irrealis" mood (a better
>> word than "subjunctive", which has another meaning).
> Do they really? I hadn't come across the term. Wikipedia seems to
> think that "irrealis" is an umbrella term covering a variety of
> different moods, including the subjunctive:
Evidently. That is not how I have seen it used on sci.lang. Maybe it
will be best to go back to calling "If I were" counterfactual, which
bears its meaning on its face.
-- --- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
> >> It is what linguists call these days the "irrealis" mood (a better
> >> word than "subjunctive", which has another meaning).
> > Do they really? I hadn't come across the term. Wikipedia seems to
> > think that "irrealis" is an umbrella term covering a variety of
> > different moods, including the subjunctive:
> Evidently. That is not how I have seen it used on sci.lang. Maybe it
> will be best to go back to calling "If I were" counterfactual, which
> bears its meaning on its face.
>>>> It is what linguists call these days the "irrealis" mood (a better
>>>> word than "subjunctive", which has another meaning).
>>> Do they really? I hadn't come across the term. Wikipedia seems to
>>> think that "irrealis" is an umbrella term covering a variety of
>>> different moods, including the subjunctive:
>> Evidently. That is not how I have seen it used on sci.lang. Maybe it
>> will be best to go back to calling "If I were" counterfactual, which
>> bears its meaning on its face.
> > >> It is what linguists call these days the "irrealis" mood (a better
> > >> word than "subjunctive", which has another meaning).
> > > Do they really? I hadn't come across the term. Wikipedia seems to
> > > think that "irrealis" is an umbrella term covering a variety of
> > > different moods, including the subjunctive:
[...]
> What ever happened to "subjunctive?
Nothing. It was mentioned twice in the post that you replied to.
> > > >> It is what linguists call these days the "irrealis" mood (a better
> > > >> word than "subjunctive", which has another meaning).
> > > > Do they really? I hadn't come across the term. Wikipedia seems to
> > > > think that "irrealis" is an umbrella term covering a variety of
> > > > different moods, including the subjunctive:
> [...]
> > What ever happened to "subjunctive?
> Nothing. It was mentioned twice in the post that you replied to.
My question was as to the need for the longer "counterfactual conditions".
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> writes:
>> Evidently. That is not how I have seen it used on sci.lang. Maybe
>> it will be best to go back to calling "If I were" counterfactual,
>> which bears its meaning on its face.
> What ever happened to "subjunctive"?
It is ambiguous. It might refer to the mood (which AFAIK has no other
name) that is represented by the uninflected form of the verb and that
is used with verbs of desire, in hypotheses, etc.:
We recommend that he be admitted.
If such there be, go mark him well.
If a chain be suspended between two points of equal height...
This form had become archaic by about 1900; normal usage was "should
be" for the first example, and "is" for the other two. But then the
use after such verbs as "recommend", "require", "insist", and "desire"
underwent a vigorous revival, first in the US and then in Britain, and
these days it is common in formal writing and even occurs in speech.
It deserves a name of its own.
-- --- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: The middle class needs a drink first; the working class :||
||: needs one afterward. :||
>>>> It is what linguists call these days the "irrealis" mood (a
>>>> better word than "subjunctive", which has another meaning).
>>> What ever happened to "subjunctive?
>> Nothing. It was mentioned twice in the post that you replied to.
> My question was as to the need for the longer "counterfactual > conditions".
"Counterfactual conditional" is the standard terminology in
philosophical logic (motivated by the idea that maybe we can
analyze inferences involving them, as we can other types of
conditional expression). If somebody's primary interest is
the deductive soundness of the argumentation rather than its
syntactic form, it's an obvious choice of words.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:20:32 -0500, Joe Fineman wrote:
[...]
> It ["subjunctive"] is ambiguous. It might refer to the mood (which > AFAIK has no other name) that is represented by the uninflected form of > the verb and that is used with verbs of desire, in hypotheses, etc.:
> We recommend that he be admitted.
> If such there be, go mark him well.
> If a chain be suspended between two points of equal height...
> This form had become archaic by about 1900; normal usage was "should be"
> for the first example, and "is" for the other two.
I think "archaic" is seriously overstating the case. The "simple" subjunctive, as Curme refers to it, is, in his words, "a bit of older English not suited to either our practical or our scientific needs. Even in its palmiest days in the Old English period it was a poor instrument of thought." But, as he later observes, "The old simple subjunctive would look shabby alongside of the modern subjunctive with a modal auxiliary if it were not surrounded by a halo of poetry," which last would especially include the King James Bible; that halo, he continues, "has given it a touch of elevation and a charm to which we are all susceptible." And I agree. I reckon it will never pass out of use so long as the KJB remains a common part of the English-speaking heritage.
As Curme concludes, "the old form should be considered a little choicer English, a form especially adapted to poetic or solemn language, but here and there it is still a part of our everyday speech as a survival of older usage."
We can see that in such set (or nearly so) phrases as "Suffice it to say", "Heaven forbid", "I wish I were dead", and quite a few more.
The "modern" subjunctive he refers to is the one that uses "past-present" modal auxiliaries--can, dare, may, shall, wot, will, must, ought--what Curme calls "shattered fragments" of what was once a regular set of inflections.
"Joe Fineman" wrote in message news:u6251pfgf.fsf@verizon.net...
> erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> writes:
> > What ever happened to "subjunctive"?
> It is ambiguous. It might refer to the mood (which AFAIK has no other
> name) that is represented by the uninflected form of the verb and that
> is used with verbs of desire, in hypotheses, etc.:
> We recommend that he be admitted.
> If such there be, go mark him well.
> If a chain be suspended between two points of equal height...
That's not ambiguous. "If I were" is the past subjunctive, and the form with "be" is the present subjunctive. Same mood, different tenses.
>> It is ambiguous. It might refer to the mood (which AFAIK has no
>> other name) that is represented by the uninflected form of the verb
>> and that is used with verbs of desire, in hypotheses, etc.:
>> We recommend that he be admitted.
>> If such there be, go mark him well.
>> If a chain be suspended between two points of equal height...
> That's not ambiguous. "If I were" is the past subjunctive, and the
> form with "be" is the present subjunctive. Same mood, different
> tenses.
On the contrary, "If I were" is the present counterfactual. It
invites the reader to imagine a present situation that is contrary to
fact. Its past form is "if I had been".
There is no past form of "If I be" in English.
-- --- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
>>> It is ambiguous. It might refer to the mood (which AFAIK has no
>>> other name) that is represented by the uninflected form of the verb
>>> and that is used with verbs of desire, in hypotheses, etc.:
>>> We recommend that he be admitted.
>>> If such there be, go mark him well.
>>> If a chain be suspended between two points of equal height...
>> That's not ambiguous. "If I were" is the past subjunctive, and the
>> form with "be" is the present subjunctive. Same mood, different
>> tenses.
> On the contrary, "If I were" is the present counterfactual. It
> invites the reader to imagine a present situation that is contrary to
> fact. Its past form is "if I had been".
> There is no past form of "If I be" in English.
Had I been?
Were I to have been?
-- "THOSE WHO INDULGE IN CHEST-BEATING ABOUT HOW THEY ALWAYS WIN SEEM TO
OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT THE SO-CALLED SIG-ABUSERS ALWAYS WIN, TOO. USENET
IS LIKE THAT. IF SUCH MEANINGLESS LABELS ARE TO BE PRESSED INTO SERVICE,
THEN I WOULD SAY THAT PAUL HAS WON. NOT ONLY BY HIS UNDOUBTED STAMINA,
BUT BY THE SUSTAINED GRACE, CHARM, AND MISCHIEVOUS WIT OF HIS RESPONSES."
JAMES FOLLETT, NOVELIST (WRITING IN THE NEWSGROUP DEMON.LOCAL)
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:24:09 -0500, Joe Fineman wrote:
[...]
> On the contrary, "If I were" is the present counterfactual. It invites
> the reader to imagine a present situation that is contrary to fact. Its
> past form is "if I had been".
> There is no past form of "If I be" in English.
For clarity, the textbook conjugations of "be" in the subjunctive:
Present Tense:
I be
you (thou) be
he be
we be
you (ye) be
they be
Past tense:
I were
you were (thou wert)
he were
we were
you (ye) were
they were
Note that in the subjunctive, tenses do not have the strictly temporal association that they do in the indicative; in the subjunctive, the present tense typically indicates greater probability or likelihood, while the past indicates lesser:
I understand that that he may attend the party tonight. (fair chance)
I hear that he might attend the party tonight. (less likely)
"Joe Fineman" wrote in message news:uobiroquu.fsf@verizon.net...
> "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> > That's not ambiguous. "If I were" is the past subjunctive, and the
> > form with "be" is the present subjunctive. Same mood, different
> > tenses.
> On the contrary, "If I were" is the present counterfactual. It
> invites the reader to imagine a present situation that is contrary to
> fact. Its past form is "if I had been".
That's what it *means*. But morphologically it's the past subjunctive. It's identical to the past indicative in all forms except "I were" and "he were", which are clearly related to the past indicative form "were".
Similarly "[if] I had been" is the past perfect subjunctive (or pluperfect subjunctive, if you prefer). It's used to indicate past time because the past form is used to indicate present time. It's morphologically identical with the past perfect indicative.
LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>On 16/11/2012 16:34, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> The other day I wrote the following sentence, and each time I re-read it
>> I have a doubt about the last word but three:
>> "In consequence, if a reaction in a biosynthetic pathway displays
>> negative cooperativity with respect to the concentration of its
>> substrate, and if the same metabolite acts as an effector of a reaction
>> in another pathway, then the flux through the second pathway will be
>> more sensitive to the flux through the first than it would be if there
>> was no negative cooperativity."
>> Don't worry about whether you find this an elegantly written sentence or
>> not, I'm just thinking about the final if clause. It seems to me to be
>> clearly counterfactual, and yet I can't persuade myself that the "was"
>> should be "were": it just seems wrong to me with "were".
>> Would "were" be better?
>It would to me. I have no idea why, though.
>-- >Laura
>(emulate St. George for email)
For the same reason you'd (probably) use the subjunctive in
Spanish or French?
In article <u6251pfgf....@verizon.net>, Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> writes:
>...
>This form had become archaic by about 1900; normal usage was "should
>be" for the first example, and "is" for the other two. But then the
>use after such verbs as "recommend", "require", "insist", and "desire"
>underwent a vigorous revival, first in the US and then in Britain, and
>these days it is common in formal writing and even occurs in speech.
>It deserves a name of its own.
What are some decent books that cover these things.
