2

I am writing a paper in which I need an object to satisfy a condition. (I can give the specifics here, but it seems to be irrelevant to the question.) The object is singular, so I originally wrote (using the "academic we"):

  1. We require that the object satisfies the condition.

However, (1) sounds weird to me; for some reason, this:

  1. We require that the object satisfy the condition.

sounds better.

(The reason may have something to do with the subjunctive mood, but, every time I refer to the subjunctive mood, I get something wrong—for example, I don't know if this sentence is even properly described as being in the subjunctive mood—so I won't try it outside of parentheses.)

Which one, if either, is to be preferred?

tchrist
  • 134,759
LSpice
  • 409
  • 2
    The subjunctive in English has mostly gone away, and it is left in two almost completely unrelated grammatical constructions. This one is the "mandative subjunctive" or "present subjunctive", where the form of the verb is the same as the infinitive. The other one is the "irrealis subjunctive" or "past subjunctive", where the form of the verb is the same as the past tense. Calling them both the subjunctive is very confusing, but maybe not as confusing as renaming them (as has been done by some grammarians). – Peter Shor Aug 11 '21 at 15:54
  • 1
    Untensed verbs do not inflect for number, so the question does not make sense at face value. – tchrist Aug 11 '21 at 15:55
  • @PeterShor, thanks! So is it the case that a reference to the subjunctive does not belong here? – LSpice Aug 11 '21 at 15:57
  • @tchrist, thanks! Is it just that I should not have referred to the number of the verb in the title (in which case, please feel free to edit the title to something more appropriate), or is there some deeper flaw in the question that would, say, prevent my using either construction? – LSpice Aug 11 '21 at 15:58
  • 1
    No, if you google "present subjunctive" or "mandative subjunctive", you should find references to this construction. If you just google "subjunctive", you will also find references to the "irrealis subjunctive", which is completely unconnected with this construction in 21st-century English (even though historically they were both two instances of a much more widely used subjunctive mood). – Peter Shor Aug 11 '21 at 15:59
  • 1
    We require the object satisfy the condition. We recommend the object satisfy the condition. Funny thing though, here, I would make it passive: The object is required to satisfy the condition, – Lambie Aug 11 '21 at 16:04
  • 1
    @LSpice When we use the base form of the verb (or bare infinitive if you prefer) in these cases, we *“modally mark”* the clause as “not-real” just as much as we do when we use a modal verb like should or must in front of it. These never have number. It's usually in the deontic mode of permissions and commands (hence “mandative”) but like any modal use can also be in the epistemic mode in other circumstances. I talk about a little bit about this so-called "zero-modal" in this answer. – tchrist Aug 11 '21 at 16:08
  • @PeterShor, thanks again for the clarification and, especially, further pointers to terminology! – LSpice Aug 11 '21 at 16:44
  • @tchrist, thanks again for the reference! I will have a look. – LSpice Aug 11 '21 at 16:44
  • @Lambie: that's only because the subject is the academic we, and thus can (and maybe should) be omitted. – Peter Shor Aug 11 '21 at 16:57
  • The mandative subjunctive (or subjunctive mandative) is not some kind of "replacement" for anything. It is the correct name for the traditional subjunctive construction, i.e. the one headed by a plain form verb, as in "It is vital [that I be kept informed]". And we don't call the 'irrealis' the 'irrealis subjunctive'. Irrealis is a mood form, unlike the subjunctive mandative, which is a type of clause construction. This is an important distinction. Note that English does not have a subjunctive mood. – BillJ Aug 11 '21 at 17:33

0 Answers0