Past subjunctive

Question

In the following sentence (from here), is it grammatical to use subjunctive were instead of are?

As emphasized in a joke attributed to American philosopher Morris Raphael Cohen (1880–1947), logic texts had to be divided in two parts: in the first part, on deductive logic, unwarranted forms of inference (deductive fallacies) are exposed

Which one of the two moods sounds more natural after had to here?

It could be the simple past "were". I cannot see any reason why the subjunctive might be relevant. — Colin Fine, Dec 31 '18 at 19:00
I can't see the relevance here of the ill-named past subjunctive to your example. As Colin Fine says, "were" would be a preterite (simple past) verb-form. — BillJ, Dec 31 '18 at 19:07
Please search the following sentence in English subjunctive Marjorie had insisted that Barbara spent the morning resting in her stateroom. It seems to me that for the same reason a subjunctive verb can also be used here. Am I wrong in this respect? — Kaveh, Dec 31 '18 at 19:13
The fact that were is spelled the same in both the simple past and the subjunctive is irrelevant. If used in this sentence, it would be the simple past—as per the other comments. The surrounding text doesn't warrant an interpretation of the subjunctive. — Jason Bassford, Dec 31 '18 at 19:49
@Kaveh: You're misinterpreting the Wikipedia article. The sentence Marjorie had insisted ... is an example of British authors using the past indicative rather than the present subjunctive. In contemporary English, Americans otten use the subjunctive after insisted, but I don't believe anybody would use any flavor of the subjunctive in your sentence. — Peter Shor, Dec 31 '18 at 20:36
@PeterShor In the "Marjorie had insisted..." sentence, I would have ended "...that Barbara spend the morning resting". But that has nothing to do with the "subjunctive" - simply that it is a dependent clause. In the same way "I asked that he write me a letter". To make the verb of the dependent clause agree with the main indicative verb in this instance would surely be ungrammatical, wouldn't it? — WS2, Dec 31 '18 at 22:48
@WS2: Apparently, lots of people in the U.K. don't think it's ungrammatical, even though Americans generally do. — Peter Shor, Jan 01 '19 at 10:31
@PeterShor Who are the "lots of people in the UK" who think it grammatical to force agreement of dependent clause verbs with the main verb? There are plenty who don't speak grammatical English, but I can tell you that anyone who said "I simply asked that he wrote me a letter" would not come across well in a university interview for an English degree. — WS2, Jan 01 '19 at 10:58
@WS2 If write in I asked that he write me a letter is in normal indicative why isn't it inflected in agreement with its third person subject? — Kaveh, Jan 01 '19 at 11:31
@Kaveh Umm, yes. My apologies. I must correct what I said, to the extent that it is the subjunctive. But in terms of tense it does not and should not agree with the past tense of the verb in the main clause. However always bear in mind that some professional grammarians (e.g. John Lawler - a contributor to this site) will argue that there is no such thing as the subjunctive. — WS2, Jan 01 '19 at 13:12
@WS2: Wikipedia took the Marjorie had insisted ... from a novel by Peter Lovesey, so one assumes that both Peter Lovesey and his copyeditor think it's grammatical. Wikipedia has several other examples from British authors, as well. — Peter Shor, Jan 01 '19 at 14:27
@PeterShor And Lovesey graduated in English from my own Alma Mater too - University of Reading! There is a genre of modern writing in Britain which affects working-class/less than literate English. 1960s authors like Nell Dunn - Poor Cow is an example I have in mind. Perhaps John Osborne - Look back in anger also did that. Lovesey sounds as if he might be one of those. But I guess Mark Twain reproduced working-class speech in the 1870s. — WS2, Jan 01 '19 at 14:56
@WS2: Peter Lovesey isn't obviously writing in dialect (the way Mark Twain is), but he is using an informal style which wouldn't be suited for formal writing. — Peter Shor, Jan 04 '19 at 12:09

score 2 · Accepted Answer · edited Jun 15 '20 at 07:40

Of Tense, Not Mood

The verb phrase “had to be divided” is not one of those whose subordinate clauses sometimes take something other than the normal indicative by some speakers and writers and occasions.

Even if it were, there are no subordinate clauses here in your original.

That means what you are really asking about here is not mood but tense; that is, whether the tense ought to use the normally inflected present-versus-preterite of be, so either the plural present are or else the plural preterite were.

Perhaps it is bothering you to see the present tense used later in a sentence that first uses the preterite. If so, please see our super-Frequently Asked Question entitled “He didn’t know where New Jersey was” along with its answers and those of its nearly four dozen linked questions.

Of Moods and Modes, and Their Marking

But if you still want something governed by what has sometimes historically been called the “subjunctive” by the more, ahem, diachronically inclined morphologists and syntacticians, but viewed synchronically is actually just a form of modal marking using a “zero”-modal (bare infinitive) or else by using an explicit one like should or must, then here’s what you have to do...

To get something fancier so that it’s “modally” marked, you would need to use a special verb like proposed or suggested or insisted in the main clause so that you could modally mark some other verb in a new subordinate clause governed by the main clause.

Example 1

Either by using the bare-infinitive modality:

As a joke, American philosopher Morris Raphael Cohen proposed that logic texts be divided in two parts:

the deductive part where unwarranted forms of inference are exposed

the inductive part where unwarranted forms of inference are endorsed

Or by prefixing that bare-infinitive with an actual modal verb:

As a joke, American philosopher Morris Raphael Cohen proposed that logic texts should be divided in two parts:

the deductive part where unwarranted forms of inference are exposed

the inductive part where unwarranted forms of inference are endorsed

Example 2

Either by using the bare-infinitive modality:

As a joke, American philosopher Morris Raphael Cohen proposed that unwarranted forms of inference be exposed in the first part on deduction, and that they be endorsed in the second part on induction.

Or by prefixing that bare-infinitive with an actual modal verb:

As a joke, American philosopher Morris Raphael Cohen proposed that unwarranted forms of inference should be exposed in the first part on deduction, and that they should be endorsed in the second part on induction.

On the Absence of a Past Subjunctive in Present-Day English

As you see, even if the main clause is in the preterite, the subordinate one is modally marked using just the bare infinitive, never by using the preterite or in the special, unreal were form for the unique case of be.

This is another reason why calling something “past subjunctive” in Present-Day English strains credibility: we do not change be to were, nor spend to spent, just because the governing clause is in the preterite.

We simply use the bare infinitive in all such subordinate clauses, irrespective of the tense of the main clause.

I cant get the point in "what has sometimes historically been called the “subjunctive” by the more, ahem, diachronically inclined morphologists and syntacticians, but viewed synchronically is actually just a form of modal marking using a “zero”-modal (bare infinitive) or else". It seems you are telling about two views to the same thing, but the bare infinitive, AFAI, is different from subjunctive (be vs are). Isn't it? — Kaveh, Dec 31 '18 at 20:58
And why you are calling those who speak of subjunctive diachronically inclined? — Kaveh, Dec 31 '18 at 21:00
@Kaveh: In present tense, the infinitive is the same as the bare subjunctive, and has been since Shakespeare. For example, Shakespeare wrote If this be error and upon me proved, I never writ, nor no man ever loved, where be is the present subjunctive. — Peter Shor, Dec 31 '18 at 21:56
"diachronically inclined" means they want to understand how it works and how it evolved into what it is. Not a bad thing. I am definitely one of them. The ahem I don't know what is supposed to mean, though. They might not see it as practical or relevant to modern English. In my view, the subjunctive mood is still there and calling it by its name can prove to be useful for comparative linguistics. The same we call adjectives adjectives in languages that treat them differently. It makes it easier to study when you are very logical. But it is a great answer. I wish I had read it before. — Pablo GM, May 06 '21 at 22:34

Past subjunctive

1 Answers1

Of Tense, Not Mood

Of Moods and Modes, and Their Marking

Ex­am­ple 1

Ex­am­ple 2

On the Ab­sence of a Past Sub­junc­tive in Pre­sent-Day English

Example 1

Example 2

On the Absence of a Past Subjunctive in Present-Day English