1

During an interview of Antonin Scalia by Charlie Rose, Scalia criticized the grammar he heard on a commercial flight:

"It's required that your luggage is under the seat in front of you"

Would it be more correct to say:

"It's required that your luggage be under the seat in front of you"?

Why or why not? Thanks.

mattliu
  • 238
  • The second would be subjunctive. It is MUCH more formal and by now, most people would think you made a mistake and not that you used the correct mood. – laureapresa Feb 16 '16 at 05:26
  • 4
    @laureapresa: that depends on what dialect of English you speak. In New England, where I live, people use the subjunctive in sentences like this all the time. – Peter Shor Feb 16 '16 at 05:31
  • @PeterShor interesting, I lived in NY and I only found it in writing.

    BTW, Welcome to english.SE mattliu!

     – laureapresa Feb 16 '16 at 05:35
  • This question also gives a bit of history – laureapresa Feb 16 '16 at 05:38
  • 1
    The second conveys the intended meaning, since it indicates where your luggage should be. "It's required that your luggage is..." doesn't really make sense. Regardless of where it is, under the seat is where it should be. Scalia was right. – Kai Maxfield Feb 16 '16 at 05:41
  • Scalia was right. Probably the only time. – deadrat Feb 16 '16 at 07:23
  • Is the question what is wrong with the first sentence (i.e. why did Selia criticise it); or is it which of the two is better. I suspect Selia was getting at the fact that luggage cannot be "required" to be anywhere, only people can be required to do, or not do, things. – davidlol Feb 16 '16 at 15:07
  • @PeterShor Even as far west as Michigan, I'd use the subjunctive in this sentence. – Andreas Blass Feb 16 '16 at 19:48
  • I marked an earlier question as having a correct answer because it taught me about the subjunctive mood.

    I do want to point out that @davidlol does raise an interesting question about Scalia's criticism of the original sentence.

     – mattliu Feb 17 '16 at 19:28

2 Answers2

4

Excuse me sir, do you know where your luggage should be right now? Do you not realize that it is required that your luggage be stowed under the seat?

As opposed to:

Excuse me sir, do you know where your luggage is right now? Do you not realize that it is required that your luggage is stowed under the seat?

That last phrase doesn't seem to flow or make as much sense. It doesn't carry the same weight and doesn't seem to communicate that it's the passenger's responsibility to make sure it is.

Using be carries the idea of where the luggage belongs, where it should actively be placed, as to where it can be found. If it isn't under the seat in front you, you should be putting it there!

^_^

OneProton
  • 4,199
2

I hope the purpose of the announcement is not to accuse passengers of having their luggage in the wrong place, but rather to ask them to put it in the right place.

It's required that your luggage is under the seat in front of you"

means that the luggage should NOW be there. If it is not there the passenger has already not met the requirement, and it is rude for the airline employee to suggest that.

"It's required that your luggage be under the seat in front of you"

informs the passengers of the requirement that the luggage should SOON be there, and this is much more polite as it is asking the passenger to do something to meet the requirement (put the bag in the right place) rather than implicitly criticising him/her for not having already done it.

So, yes, I think the second is much more polite.

However the main problem applies to both versions. The requirement is not on the luggage to be or move anywhere, the requirement is on the passenger to put it there. So it would be much better to say

Passengers are required to place their luggage under the seat in front of them

or more politely

Passengers are requested to place their luggage under the seat in front of them

or better still

Ladies and gentlemen, please place your luggage under the seat in front of you

as this directly addresses the passengers rather than speaking about them, or their bags, in the third party.

davidlol
  • 4,343
  • Very good point about the politeness level! I agree with you that the direct request is preferable for clear and concise communication. However, I do think that addressing the luggage in this case shifts the tone from instructive to passive. Directing the request towards the issue and not person I feel is a question of etiquette.

    It would be interesting to see how different language-speakers phrase this. My guess is that Japanese attendants speaking in English would prefer to state the issue, while German attendants might directly request the passengers to stow their bags.

     – OneProton Feb 16 '16 at 20:07
  • @Armstrongest - I see your point. In many cultures directly asking someone to do something is rude. I spent a few months in Japan. One colleague kept telling me he knew I was much too busy to visit his home. I became a little exasperated. If he didn't want to invite me then fair enough, but just don't keep rubbing it in. It was much later I learned that actually, from his point of view, he was inviting me. I was expected to reply that not at all, however busy I might be, I would love to visit his home. Differing linguistic usage is so fascinating. – davidlol Feb 18 '16 at 00:50