-4

Here are some examples with the putative should. What is the factor which indicates the time reference expressed by the putative should in the examples? Being a foreigner to English I find it hard to clearly see the time reference.

1 I'm surprised that he should say it to you. (Has he already said it or is it going to happen in the future?)
2 It's a pity that they should be so obstinate. (Have they already been obstinate or are they obstinate now?)
3 I don't know why he should go there tomorrow. (Correct in terms of grammar?)
4 I don't know why he should go there yesterday. (Correct in terms of grammar?)

One more thing, do the following unequivocally express the future reference?

5 I'm surprised that he should be going to say it tomorrow. (or I'm surprised that he should be saying it tomorrow.)

To tell you the truth, it's quite easy for me to interpret the first one either as an even which is going to happen in the future or as an even taking place in the past.

3 and 4 are also interesting, as the only difference they have is the words tommorrow and yesterday, by that I want to see whether SHOULD follows them in the time respect or it doesn't. Please comment on each example.

Mari-Lou A
  • 91,183
user1425
  • 988
  • Where did you get these sentences? Did you see them, or did you construct them? Some of them make no sense at all. The examples here all make sense: Putative Should. – anongoodnurse Nov 23 '14 at 06:06
  • I have found them in different English forums (fora). I had read the article before I posted the question. Thank you. – user1425 Nov 23 '14 at 06:08
  • 1
    The English plural forums is preferred to the Latin plural fora in normal English usage. Forums are not always the best place to get your information. – anongoodnurse Nov 23 '14 at 06:13
  • The simple answer is that the question is wrong - the putative should doesn't express time. It expresses emotion and it's use is often triggered by the use of suasive verbs, nouns, or adjectives. – Roaring Fish Nov 23 '14 at 07:25
  • Agreed, but you are nitpicking. Of course "should" on its own doesn't express a certain time, but it's clear from my examples what I mean. Seems to me that your answer is not right. – user1425 Nov 23 '14 at 10:10
  • On the contrary, @RoaringFish is quite right. It seems to me that the question is predicated on a misunderstanding. – Andrew Leach Nov 23 '14 at 10:55
  • Misunderstanding of what? I agree the title is not right, but the contents of the question explains the gist. Every example has a question in parenthesis which hasn't been answered. It feels like people prefer to discredit the question on the grounds of its formal discrepancy found in its title while the gist of the question is very interesting. Well, today you have chosen to ruin rather than create. – user1425 Nov 23 '14 at 11:07
  • 2
    I think the fundamental question here arises from a conflation of two different aspects of English verbs: tense and mood. The putative should speaks to mood, a person's stance with respect to the action, not to tense, the verb's location in time. In every single example given, the tense (time location) is supplied by other words than should, and the should supplies only the speaker's attitude toward the action, as described in the link Medica provided. – Dan Bron Nov 23 '14 at 12:27
  • I completely agree, Dan Bron. Still, it's not clear how to differentiate the time references. – user1425 Nov 23 '14 at 12:30
  • @user1425 ~ if you are now saying that this is nothing to do with using putative should, and that is there just for show, your question is reduced to 'how do I tell whether a sentence is past, present, or future?' and should be in ELL. – Roaring Fish Nov 23 '14 at 12:58
  • Roaring Fish, well, I think it's a complexed matter including different factors and the putative should is one of them but not an only one. Why don't you answer in full by the way? – user1425 Nov 23 '14 at 13:04
  • @user1425 ~ your OP says "What is the factor which indicates the time reference expressed by the putative should" and "I want to see whether SHOULD follows them in the time respect or it doesn't" and I have already told you it doesn't. Ever. Should is there to express emotion. You don't accept that and are now saying it is not about should, so it can only be a basic question of recognising past, present, or future that should be in ELL but you deny that too, so to be quite blunt it is hard to see what you are asking about at all. – Roaring Fish Nov 23 '14 at 15:18
  • What I am asking is clear. Explain the difference please. 1) I'm surprised that he should say it to you yesterday. 2) I'm surprised that he should be saying it to you tomorrow. Why does 1 refer to the past and 2 to the future? Do you understand what "a complex matter" means? Study these 2 examples and see that SHOULD does express emotion but in two different times. – user1425 Nov 27 '14 at 13:25

2 Answers2

2

Setting aside how to label these kinds of sentences, here is what these British-sounding sentences mean to me, a native speaker of American English. I could be wrong.

1 I'm surprised that he should say it to you. (Has he already said it or is it going to happen in the future?)

He has already said it. The speaker is surprised to learn that he has said it.

2 It's a pity that they should be so obstinate. (Have they already been obstinate or are they obstinate now?)

They are already obstinate and may continue to be obstinate.

3 I don't know why he should go there tomorrow. (Correct in terms of grammar?)

Grammatical, yes. The speaker does not know of any reason why he would want or would be obliged to go there tomorrow.

4 I don't know why he should go there yesterday. (Correct in terms of grammar?)

Not grammatical to my US ears. I would expect "should have gone".

One more thing, do the following unequivocally express the future reference? 5 I'm surprised that he should be going to say it tomorrow. (or I'm surprised that he should be saying it tomorrow.)

The speaker expresses surprise upon learning of "his" intention to say something tomorrow. Because of "tomorrow" the future is unequivocally the time in question. But even without "tomorrow", "going to say" points to the future. And so of course the something has not yet been said. The speaker been informed in some manner or has learned through some means that he intends to say something tomorrow. He may never say it. The belief that he intends to say something tomorrow may be wrong.

"Saying" or "going to say" both work.

But if you remove "tomorrow" and choose "saying it" instead of "going to say", then he is already (alleged to be) saying it.

TimR
  • 21,116
0

Is "putative should" a good grammar term or is it one of those wishy-washy terms? In my view grammar explanations about this special use of should in that clauses after expressions of personal judgements of a certain fact are rather vague.

No grammar hints at how unnatural this use of should really is. The normal thing would be:

  • It'a shame that you think so. (This formulation is possible.)

But instead you often find the formulation:

  • It's a shame that you should think so.

This should somehow has the value of a subjunctive which is totally inappropriate as it is a personal judgement of something that is a fact. The speaker talks about the way of thinking of the person spoken to. No grammar talks about this curiosity and no grammar talks about how this curious use of should came into being.

You may also be interested in my post: Should: It's funny you should say that.

Community
  • 1
rogermue
  • 13,878
  • Thank you but I don't like your answer. It doesn't tackle my examples at all. – user1425 Nov 23 '14 at 10:12
  • By the way, whether "putative should" is a good term is beyond of my position to answer. But you can read about it here http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/Putative-Should.htm – user1425 Nov 23 '14 at 11:16
  • 1
    Apparently "putative should" (aka "emotional should" or "attitudinal should") does have some currency. Personally I see it as very much indicative of *surprise/disbelief, and it doesn't work very well for me with other emotions such as regret. To me, "I'm surprised you should think that"* seems "normal", but "I'm sorry you should think that" just seems a bit "weird" (though as you say, "should" is totally redundant in both cases anyway). I quite agree it has strong echoes of the standard French usage. – FumbleFingers Nov 23 '14 at 14:13
  • Putative should is real enough, and has been discussed by Neels and in more depth by Quirk. The 'wishy-washy term' notion stems from the mistaken belief that the putative should is just a subjunctive by another name, but Quirk showed that the real-life usage is distinct, specifically that the subjunctive is used "especially when immediate action seems desirable" and the putative should is used to convey "the notion of a 'putative' situation, which is recognized as possibly existing or coming into existence" – Roaring Fish Nov 23 '14 at 15:41
  • 1
    So how many named special cases of each modal verb are there, in toto? There's subjunctive should, and mandative should, and putative should, at least; and I spose Should we? is suggestive should, and Shouldn't we? is tag should, and I can think of a lot more. Does this naming game help anybody understand or learn or write English? Only if one reads Victorian novels, I suspect, or Victorian grammars. – John Lawler Nov 23 '14 at 16:37