Could it be possible to use imagine+subjunctive
ppa...@hanmir.com
I am an Korean English teacher for the students who learn
English as a foreign language
I just happened to meet expressions that I haven't known yet.
There are no time context here.
"A : Imagine you were our English teacher.
B : Then I would give less homework."
I am not sure whether both ' were 'and ' would ' is
subjunctive or indicative.
What do you think and why?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Richard Fontana
> HI, everyone!
>
> I am an Korean English teacher for the students who learn
> English as a foreign language
"I am a Korean teacher of English as a foreign language".
> I just happened to meet expressions that I haven't known yet.
"I came across expressions that I'm unfamiliar with".
> There are no time context here.
"There is no time context here".
> "A : Imagine you were our English teacher.
>
> B : Then I would give less homework."
>
> I am not sure whether both ' were 'and ' would ' is
> subjunctive or indicative.
>
> What do you think and why?
In case A, I think it doesn't matter. I say this after considering the
following two sentences:
"Imagine he were our English teacher".
"Imagine he was our English teacher".
These two sentences are both grammatical in my idiolect and I'm afraid
they mean the same thing to me. Brits should note that the 'subjunctive'
is disappearing in American English too, just at a slower rate.
But I think the grammaticality of the first one suggests that the
subjunctive can be used with "imagine" in the sense you're asking about.
In case B, I really don't know how "would" is classified, but
"subjunctive" doesn't seem an appropriate term.
RF
Charles Riggs
>HI, everyone!
>
>I am an Korean English teacher for the students who learn
>
>English as a foreign language
Then you have some work to do. A corrected version of the above is:
"I am a Korean English teacher of students learning English as a
foreign language." In the preceding sentence, write "Hi", if you
must, not "HI".
>I just happened to meet expressions that I haven't known yet.
"I happened to see expressions that I hadn't known yet" or "I happened
to see expressions I was unfamiliar with".
> There are no time context here.
"is"
Charles Riggs
Fabian
"Richard Fontana" hu kiteb
> > "A : Imagine you were our English teacher.
> >
> > B : Then I would give less homework."
> >
> > I am not sure whether both ' were 'and ' would ' is
> > subjunctive or indicative.
> >
> > What do you think and why?
>
> In case A, I think it doesn't matter. I say this after considering the
> following two sentences:
> "Imagine he were our English teacher".
> "Imagine he was our English teacher".
> These two sentences are both grammatical in my idiolect and I'm afraid
> they mean the same thing to me. Brits should note that the 'subjunctive'
> is disappearing in American English too, just at a slower rate.
>
> But I think the grammaticality of the first one suggests that the
> subjunctive can be used with "imagine" in the sense you're asking about.
>
> In case B, I really don't know how "would" is classified, but
> "subjunctive" doesn't seem an appropriate term.
Ok, first off, some people see no difference between the two sentences. This
makes it harder for the rest of us. For those that do perceive the
difference,
'were' is the subjunctive form, and is used in sentences which are both a)
hypothetical, and b) could not possibly be true.
'was' in the context of the sentence would be: Imagine that [at some point
in the past, maybe yesterday], he was the teacher, but that he is no longer
the teacher.
As a practical point, for elementary students, you could say that either is
correct. Advanced students should be better able to use this distinction.
Context will usually make it clear anyway.
--
--
Fabian
1735 Tirion, Isaak: Nieuwe en Beknopte Hand-Atlas bestande in eene
Verzameling van [...] Landkaarten alle in de Nederduitsche Taal. En na de
allerlaatste outdekkingen van de L' Isle en anderen [...], Amsterdam ca.
1735-1769 Kaempfer: Nieuwe Kaart van't Keyzerryk Japan na nieuste
Outdekkingen. Nieuwe Kaart van het Ostellykste Deel der Weereld dienende tot
Aanwyzing van de Scheepstogten der Nederlanderen Naar Oostindie. 1753.
The Walkers
ppa...@hanmir.com wrote:
[snips for simplicity]
> . . . no time context here.
>
> "A : Imagine you were our English teacher.
>
> B : Then I would give less homework."
>
> I am not sure whether both 'were' and 'would' is subjunctive or
> indicative.
If I understand correctly what the is meant there by "no time context,"
what sentence A seems to me to be expressing is something much like
this: "Imagine this situation: you are our English teacher." In that
restatement, the "are" would mean "have been and continue to be."
That menas in turn that the subjunctive is not wanted in the sentence
as given because the explicit word "imagine" has already done the work
that would otherwise require the subjunctive. That is, we would want
the subjunctive in a slightly different case, one of the form: "Imagine
what you would do were you our English teacher."
If we take the sample as given--"Imagine you were our English
teacher"--it cannot be a valid construction unless the "were" has a
time sense ("that was the situation at that time"), which we have been
explicitly told that it does not; it would also require that the person
addressed was not in actuality their English teacher at the time, but
we need not reach that issue to see that the subjunctive is unwanted.
In the second sentence, "Then" with the meaning "in that case," with no
time connotation, is common and unexceptionable use, however illogical.
What is "would" there? On that ground I fear to tread, but a hesitant
tiptoe suggests to me that it is indicative, not being contrary to
fact, even if that "fact" be one presumed for the purpose.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Owlcroft House
Peter Hoogenboom
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 ppa...@hanmir.com wrote:
>
> > HI, everyone!
> >
> > I am an Korean English teacher for the students who learn
> > English as a foreign language
>
> "I am a Korean teacher of English as a foreign language".
>
> > I just happened to meet expressions that I haven't known yet.
>
> "I came across expressions that I'm unfamiliar with".
>
> > There are no time context here.
>
> "There is no time context here".
>
> > "A : Imagine you were our English teacher.
> >
> > B : Then I would give less homework."
> >
> > I am not sure whether both ' were 'and ' would ' is
> > subjunctive or indicative.
> >
> > What do you think and why?
>
> In case A, I think it doesn't matter. I say this after considering the
> following two sentences:
I think it's not a case of cases, but of a dialogue. The first sentence is
either in the old-fashioned subjunctive mood or the more progressive (in this
context) indicative mood. As you imply, you can't actually tell, since both
the subjunctive and the indicative call for "were" in the 2d person. The
second sentence is in the conditional. Which is not a mood, as I mistakenly
said earlier. It was a slip of the brain.
> [...]they mean the same thing to me. Brits should note that the
> 'subjunctive' is disappearing in American English too, just at a slower
> rate.
What are you talking about? The subjunctive is all but dead in the US, as
far as I can tell.
> In case B, I really don't know how "would" is classified, but
> "subjunctive" doesn't seem an appropriate term.
Conditional. So called since it describes an act to be undertaken only under
a certain condition.
Peter Hoogenboom
willia...@my-deja.com
Peter Hoogenboom <phoog...@wesleyan.edu> wrote:
> ... The subjunctive is all but dead in the US, as
> far as I can tell.
If I were you, I would not make such a sweeping statement. Many of us
desire that it remain in use. If the subjunctive were dead, no one
would say, "God bless you," nor would they say, "It is essential that he
come."
Dying, maybe. Dead, not yet.
Gary Williams
Richard Fontana
> Richard Fontana wrote:
>
> > [...]they mean the same thing to me. Brits should note that the
> > 'subjunctive' is disappearing in American English too, just at a slower
> > rate.
>
> What are you talking about? The subjunctive is all but dead in the US, as
> far as I can tell.
I suggest that you be more careful when making such assertions.
RF
Peter Hoogenboom
> > far as I can tell.
>
> desire that it remain in use. If the subjunctive were dead, no one
> would say, "God bless you," nor would they say, "It is essential that he
> come."
>
> Dying, maybe. Dead, not yet.
My statement is actually very heavily qualified: "all but" and "as far as I
can tell..."
Most people in the US, or even most native English speakers, I bet, wouldn't
say "it is essential that he come." They might say, however, "It's really
important that he comes." (sic) I find that I hear the indicative mood in
this construction far more frequently than the subjunctive.
The dative case is even more dead in Dutch than the subjunctive mood in the
US, but both survive in well-known expressions. Hardly ever does one here
novel sentences constructed using the subjunctive, unless they be penned by
a particularly pedantic person.
My old boss in Philadelphia obviously didn't understand the subjunctive,
since she was very fond of saying "How dare him" and "How dare her."
Peter Hoogenboom
Donna Richoux
>
> What are you talking about? The subjunctive is all but dead in the US, as
> far as I can tell.
I know it's not the usage you were discussing, but Altameter finds on
the Web:
if I were 200,000 hits
if he were 100,000 hits
if she were 50,000 hits
I don't know if only Americans are saying these, but somebody is.
--
Best --- Donna Richoux
Aaron J Dinkin
> My old boss in Philadelphia obviously didn't understand the subjunctive,
> since she was very fond of saying "How dare him" and "How dare her."
That's not subjunctive and never was. "Dare" was originally a modal, like
"can" or "must", and didn't take the usual third-person "-s" that ordinary
verbs do. "How dare he" is a relic of that; it has exactly the same
structure as "How can he".
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Bob Cunningham
said:
But those who are ready to pronounce the subjunctive dead may say that
those three phrases are mostly spoken by people who have no idea what
the subjunctive is or what shades of meaning might be expressed by a
subjunctive.
This is borne out by observing that when people use the phrases, they
as often as not get them wrong. That is, they say things like 'if he
were' when their intended meaning doesn't call for the subjunctive to
be used.
To many people the rule is '"If" takes "were", not "was",' or 'It's
always wrong to say "if it was"; it's always right to say "if it
were".