Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Counterfactual conditions
80 views
Skip to first unread message
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Nov 16, 2012, 11:34:36 AM11/16/12
to
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?
--
athel
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?
--
athel
Steve Hayes
Nov 16, 2012, 12:17:42 PM11/16/12
to
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Pierre Jelenc
Nov 16, 2012, 12:24:17 PM11/16/12
to
In article <agn88r...@mid.individual.net>,
I think so: when I read the paragraph the first time around, my brain
actually did read "were" even though my eyes read "was".
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc
The Gigometer www.gigometer.com
The NYC Beer Guide www.nycbeer.org
actually did read "were" even though my eyes read "was".
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc
The Gigometer www.gigometer.com
The NYC Beer Guide www.nycbeer.org
Guy Barry
Nov 16, 2012, 12:52:17 PM11/16/12
to
"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
news:tusca8hq82jkedo58...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:34:36 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >Would "were" be better?
> I think so, but I doubt that anyone reading it would notice.
--
Guy Barry
LFS
Nov 16, 2012, 1:01:00 PM11/16/12
to
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Joe Fineman
Nov 16, 2012, 1:53:09 PM11/16/12
to
word than "subjunctive", which has another meaning). In formal
standard English it differs from the past indicative only in having
"were" rather than "was" in the first & third person singular of "to
be". For obvious reasons, it has always been common to ignore that
exception and make the present irrealis the same as the past
throughout. I my childhood, doing so was considered vulgar and was
deprecated in the schools, and one seldom saw it in print. These
days, there is much less discipline in such matters, but still, as a
copyeditor, I would not hesitate to correct "was" to "were" in formal
sentences such as the one you quote.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: We insular peoples prefer our enemies distant. :||
Iain Archer
Nov 16, 2012, 1:50:44 PM11/16/12
to
LFS wrote on Fri, 16 Nov 2012
I seem to be the only one so far who prefers "was", though I will ask
myself again tomorrow.
The reaction in this posited instance "displays" negative cooperativity.
Active mood; no doubt. I don't think I even read it as a
counterfactual. It's one of possibly several possibilities.
--
Iain Archer
myself again tomorrow.
The reaction in this posited instance "displays" negative cooperativity.
Active mood; no doubt. I don't think I even read it as a
counterfactual. It's one of possibly several possibilities.
--
Iain Archer
Jerry Friedman
Nov 16, 2012, 3:32:00 PM11/16/12
to
--
Jerry Friedman
Curlytop
Nov 16, 2012, 4:22:44 PM11/16/12
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden set the following eddies spiralling through the
space-time continuum:
> 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."
Should definitely be "were" after "if".
> Don't worry about whether you find this an elegantly written sentence
> or not,
As a scientist myself (physics rather than biochemistry but the same
considerations aplly) I must say it certainly sounds elegant to me. We
definitely need the "if" after "and" in the third line. In the same line I
had to look again at "effector" but then I found nothing wrong with it.
It's a perfectly good word to use at this point and I can't at the moment
think of an alternative. ("Catalyst" doesn't convey quite the same image.)
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
space-time continuum:
> 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,
considerations aplly) I must say it certainly sounds elegant to me. We
definitely need the "if" after "and" in the third line. In the same line I
had to look again at "effector" but then I found nothing wrong with it.
It's a perfectly good word to use at this point and I can't at the moment
think of an alternative. ("Catalyst" doesn't convey quite the same image.)
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Lanarcam
Nov 16, 2012, 4:27:43 PM11/16/12
to
Le 16/11/2012 17:34, Athel Cornish-Bowden a �crit :
If there was: that would imply a past condition.
If there were: hypothetical alternative.
>
>
> Would "were" be better?
>
>
> 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."
As a non native:
> 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."
If there was: that would imply a past condition.
If there were: hypothetical alternative.
>
>
> Would "were" be better?
>
>
Harrison Hill
Nov 16, 2012, 4:29:57 PM11/16/12
to
lies :)
Robin Bignall
Nov 16, 2012, 5:08:42 PM11/16/12
to
that context.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England
Mike L
Nov 16, 2012, 5:32:28 PM11/16/12
to
English subjunctive is a feeble thing, which I'm generally inclined to
avoid if I can.)
--
Mike.
Jerry Friedman
Nov 16, 2012, 5:43:20 PM11/16/12
to
cooperativity."
--
Jerry Friedman
Eric Walker
Nov 16, 2012, 7:08:01 PM11/16/12
to
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
reaction in another pathway, then &c &c
The two "if's" appear to actually be one for the purposes of the "then"
clause.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
LFS
Nov 17, 2012, 1:14:04 AM11/17/12
to
Guy Barry
Nov 17, 2012, 1:37:27 AM11/17/12
to
"Joe Fineman" wrote in message news:usj89q...@verizon.net...
> It is what linguists call these days the "irrealis" mood (a better
> word than "subjunctive", which has another meaning).
that "irrealis" is an umbrella term covering a variety of different moods,
including the subjunctive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrealis_mood#Main_irrealis_moods
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Nov 17, 2012, 2:27:26 AM11/17/12
to
"Eric Walker" wrote in message news:k86kh0$qj5$2...@dont-email.me...
> 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.
of whether to include the second "if" is merely a matter of clarity.
--
Guy Barry
Dr Nick
Nov 17, 2012, 2:45:29 AM11/17/12
to
correct "were" (which our US friends have come out strongly for) and the
now more normal British "was" - which I am comfortable with in this
sentence.
Curlytop
Nov 17, 2012, 3:59:59 AM11/17/12
to
Guy Barry set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:
>> The two "if's" appear to actually be one for the purposes of the "then"
>> clause.
>
> The two versions are logically equivalent as far as I can see. The choice
> of whether to include the second "if" is merely a matter of clarity.
As stated elsewhere, we need the second "if" in the construction "if A and
if B" simply because A and B are rather long.
A similar usage is "Whereas . . . and whereas . . . and whereas . . ." in
legal documents, where if the various clauses were [that word again!] short
enough, the repeated "whereas" could be dropped. But we all know what legal
documents are like. . .
continuum:
>> The two "if's" appear to actually be one for the purposes of the "then"
>> clause.
>
> The two versions are logically equivalent as far as I can see. The choice
> of whether to include the second "if" is merely a matter of clarity.
if B" simply because A and B are rather long.
A similar usage is "Whereas . . . and whereas . . . and whereas . . ." in
legal documents, where if the various clauses were [that word again!] short
enough, the repeated "whereas" could be dropped. But we all know what legal
documents are like. . .
James Silverton
Nov 17, 2012, 8:14:50 AM11/17/12
to
people of a certain Mediterranean country.
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
Peter Brooks
Nov 17, 2012, 8:21:48 AM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 3:14 pm, James Silverton <not.jim.silver...@verizon.net>
wrote:
A slur? It seems quite a kindly epithet for warmongers.
wrote:
CDB
Nov 17, 2012, 8:36:15 AM11/17/12
to
On 17/11/2012 8:14 AM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 1:14 AM, LFS wrote:
[imaginary mode]
> On 11/17/2012 1:14 AM, LFS wrote:
>> Oh, I like "irrealis". That's the world I live in, most of the time.
> I was stopped for a second since "irrealis" looked like a slur on the
> people of a certain Mediterranean country.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Nov 17, 2012, 8:41:34 AM11/17/12
to
On 2012-11-16 21:22:44 +0000, Curlytop said:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden set the following eddies spiralling through the
> space-time continuum:
>
>> 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."
>
> Should definitely be "were" after "if".
>
>> Don't worry about whether you find this an elegantly written sentence
>> or not,
>
> As a scientist myself (physics rather than biochemistry but the same
> considerations aplly) I must say it certainly sounds elegant to me. We
> definitely need the "if" after "and" in the third line. In the same line I
> had to look again at "effector"
It's a technical term that encompasses both inhibitors and activators.
> Athel Cornish-Bowden set the following eddies spiralling through the
> space-time continuum:
>
>> 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."
>
> Should definitely be "were" after "if".
>
>> Don't worry about whether you find this an elegantly written sentence
>> or not,
>
> As a scientist myself (physics rather than biochemistry but the same
> considerations aplly) I must say it certainly sounds elegant to me. We
> definitely need the "if" after "and" in the third line. In the same line I
> had to look again at "effector"
There is no alternative (other than "inhibitor or activator").
> but then I found nothing wrong with it.
> It's a perfectly good word to use at this point and I can't at the moment
> think of an alternative. ("Catalyst" doesn't convey quite the same image.)
--
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Nov 17, 2012, 9:30:07 AM11/17/12
to
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Nov 17, 2012, 9:30:54 AM11/17/12
to
--
athel
LFS
Nov 17, 2012, 3:16:18 PM11/17/12
to
Marius Hancu
Nov 17, 2012, 4:36:19 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 16, 7:08 pm, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
Joe Fineman
Nov 17, 2012, 5:33:17 PM11/17/12
to
will be best to go back to calling "If I were" counterfactual, which
bears its meaning on its face.
||: You're never too old for trouble. :||
erilar
Nov 18, 2012, 5:27:57 PM11/18/12
to
In article <uzk2fq...@verizon.net>, Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>
> > "Joe Fineman" wrote in message news:usj89q...@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:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrealis_mood#Main_irrealis_moods
>
> 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?
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
wrote:
> "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>
> > "Joe Fineman" wrote in message news:usj89q...@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:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrealis_mood#Main_irrealis_moods
>
> 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.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
annily
Nov 19, 2012, 12:26:28 AM11/19/12
to
Guy Barry
Nov 19, 2012, 4:10:41 AM11/19/12
to
"erilar" wrote in message
news:drache-AB56E6....@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <uzk2fq...@verizon.net>, Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
> > "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>
> > > "Joe Fineman" wrote in message news:usj89q...@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:
> What ever happened to "subjunctive?
--
Guy Barry
erilar
Nov 19, 2012, 1:14:03 PM11/19/12
to
In article <fImqs.23174$kt5....@fx08.am4>,
My question was as to the need for the longer "counterfactual
conditions".
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
conditions".
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Joe Fineman
Nov 19, 2012, 2:20:32 PM11/19/12
to
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
>> 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"?
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.
||: The middle class needs a drink first; the working class :||
||: needs one afterward. :||
Jack Campin
Nov 19, 2012, 3:29:23 PM11/19/12
to
>>>> It is what linguists call these days the "irrealis" mood (a
>>>> better word than "subjunctive", which has another meaning).
>>>> 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
>> Nothing. It was mentioned twice in the post that you replied to.
> My question was as to the need for the longer "counterfactual
> conditions".
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
Eric Walker
Nov 19, 2012, 7:36:44 PM11/19/12
to
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:20:32 -0500, Joe Fineman wrote:
[...]
> It ["subjunctive"] is ambiguous. It might refer to the mood (which
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.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
[...]
> 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"
> 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.
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.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Guy Barry
Nov 20, 2012, 2:58:32 AM11/20/12
to
"Joe Fineman" wrote in message news:u6251p...@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...
with "be" is the present subjunctive. Same mood, different tenses.
--
Guy Barry
Joe Fineman
Nov 20, 2012, 5:24:09 PM11/20/12
to
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.
||: WYSIWYG, but NWYW. :||
PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}
Nov 20, 2012, 5:27:39 PM11/20/12
to
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)
PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}
Eric Walker
Nov 20, 2012, 5:50:03 PM11/20/12
to
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:
> 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.
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)
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Guy Barry
Nov 20, 2012, 11:20:59 PM11/20/12
to
"Joe Fineman" wrote in message news:uobiro...@verizon.net...
> "Guy Barry" <guy....@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".
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.
--
Guy Barry
David Combs
Jan 15, 2013, 8:57:41 PM1/15/13
to
In article <agndb0...@mid.individual.net>,
LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
Spanish or French?
David
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?
>>
>>
>
>> 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
>Laura
>(emulate St. George for email)
>
>
>
>
Spanish or French?
David
David Combs
Jan 15, 2013, 9:04:08 PM1/15/13
to
In article <u6251p...@verizon.net>, Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net> wrote:
Web sites too.
>--
>--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
>
>||: The middle class needs a drink first; the working class :||
>||: needs one afterward. :||
Thanks
David
>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.
>...
>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.
Web sites too.
>--
>--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
>
>||: The middle class needs a drink first; the working class :||
>||: needs one afterward. :||
David
0 new messages