In Article Two of the United States Constitution there is this Statement:
shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed
Now I want to know whether "be" can or should be replaced by "are", and why is it not in the said Statement.
Asked
Active
Viewed 721 times
0
-
"are" would be more usual, nowadays. It's an old document and that usage of "be" is quite archaic now. – Max Williams Aug 15 '16 at 14:55
-
1@Max Williams There have been other discussions here about the option of using the indicative rather than an irrealis mood. I'd certainly use 'are' here, but I'm not sure that 'quite archaic' fits, and I'm fairly sure you can expect some flak. – Edwin Ashworth Aug 15 '16 at 15:12
-
Related:Why is American English so wedded to the subjunctive. – Edwin Ashworth Aug 15 '16 at 15:18
-
Irrealis is instanced solely by "were". Your first example is subjunctive; replacing "be" with "are" gives a declarative clause. – BillJ Aug 15 '16 at 15:20
-
@Edwin: Is AmE really that "wedded to the subjunctive"? Surely if they were writing that clause today it would be *...will [must?] ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.* – FumbleFingers Aug 15 '16 at 16:01
-
@FF Hey, I want to visit the States again sometime. If people over there want to pronounce 'Arkansas' (the river) two different ways, that's their prerogative. There are three ways of pronouncing 'Shrewsbury'. I think the Americans are only as idiosyncratic as we Brits are. – Edwin Ashworth Aug 15 '16 at 16:43
-
@FumbleFingers : No, I wouldn't use that form, and I know many others wouldn't. – Michael Hardy Aug 15 '16 at 19:54
-
@Michael: Are you seriously saying you would prefer to use the subjunctive? Wow! You really are happily married! (To a corpse, imho, but I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder! :) – FumbleFingers Aug 15 '16 at 20:25
-
@FumbleFingers : Certainly. Why not? Some uses of the subjunctive have died out, but not that one. See my answer below. – Michael Hardy Aug 15 '16 at 21:00
-
@Michael Hardy: Taking note of the shambles Americans have made re interpretations of the right to bear arms, I think it's a bad idea to assume precise choice of words unambiguously and permanently fixes "meaning". The bottom line is both context and actual usage make far more difference. I don't deny there's some substance to the distinction you make. But I think that It is important that you be here, for example, could be exactly equivalent to ...that you are* here.* And no such distinction can be made anyway with ...that you love me, so it's not even universally applicable. – FumbleFingers Aug 15 '16 at 21:12
1 Answers
0
It is important that John is at the meeting.
It is important that John be at the meeting.
To me these two sentences have different meanings. The first presuppose it to be a fact that John is at the meeting, and says that fact is important. The second requires or recommends or prescribes John's attendance at the meeting.
I think many in England, and some in America, do not use the second form in the present day.
Michael Hardy
- 2,506