5

Consider this sentence:

We demand that the university close all bookstores on Sunday.

The hypothetical "close" is not in the normal present tense "closes" that I would use if I were to describe the university's response:

The university now closes its bookstores on Sunday.

I believe both sentences are grammatically correct (being a native speaker), but I do not know, formally, why the first is correct. What is the tense used in the hypothetical clause, and what are the rules for when to apply it?

Tim Lymington
  • 35,168
thirtythreeforty
  • 240
  • 2
    Close is in the present subjunctive and closes is in the present indicative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive – Anonym Nov 12 '15 at 18:22
  • Depending on your point of view, you could either call *close* there an unmarked infinitive or a subjunctive form. Bear in mind that increasing numbers of native speakers would inflect it as *closes* in the first example. So it's often I demand he apologises, rather than *I demand [that] he apologise*** – FumbleFingers Nov 12 '15 at 18:22
  • @FumbleFingers I've heard it both ways! But I was pretty sure that the way I wrote it is "more correct," no? – thirtythreeforty Nov 12 '15 at 18:27
  • thirtythreeforty: I'm sure you'll still find plenty of grammarians (particularly, older ones) who support your idea of "more correct". But it's increasingly seen as an antiquated usage - I'm not convinced English ever really had a "subjunctive" like that outside of Latin-based academia, and you encounter it less and less these days. – FumbleFingers Nov 12 '15 at 18:31
  • Fair enough. Things like subjunctive "if it were" do seem to be shoehorned into the language (although again, such phrases that don't use the subjunctive sound wrong to me). – thirtythreeforty Nov 12 '15 at 18:34
  • 3
    They're not shoehorned in; they're grandfathered in. They're old ways of speaking that are still around in special idioms and archaic constructions, like dost thou and so mote it be. It pleases some people to call it subjunctive, because it reminds them of Latin subjunctive, which was a normal productive part of the language, unlike English. – John Lawler Nov 12 '15 at 19:16
  • +1 Very interesting question! I'd consider it stylistic to some extent, but I think @Anonym is on the right track. Anonym, could you please consider elaborating on your comment by posting it as an answer? – Dog Lover Nov 12 '15 at 21:10
  • 2
    If you think that the English subjunctive is an invention of Latin grammarians, I urge you to look at any Old English verbal paradigm (e.g. etan 'to eat' http://hord.ca/projects/eow/grammar/verb.php?id=4067&output=macron). It was very much alive and well, remaining a vital part of the language through Middle English and into Early Modern English. You can scarcely read through one of Shakespeare's monologues without encountering at least a few times. – Anonym Nov 12 '15 at 21:40
  • 1
    @TimWard Though it appears to a command, this is not in the imperative mood. We no longer use the third-person imperative in English, only the second-person. A third-person imperative would look something like this: If any man see this comment, do he read it. – Anonym Nov 12 '15 at 21:51
  • @Anonym Heaven forbid that we should still use third-person imperatives! :) – tchrist Nov 13 '15 at 01:15
  • @tchrist that's it! I didn't know enough to be able to search for that question directly, but I do now :) – thirtythreeforty Nov 13 '15 at 04:22

0 Answers0