1

Why does this require the subjunctive (because of the use of "that"):

"It was always inevitable that this virus become endemic"

whereas the following requires the indicative or the infinitive (because of the use of "for")?

"It was always inevitable for this virus to become endemic."

Luke Hutchison
  • 257
  • This is the way the subjunctive works. You use it after that ... phrases, but you use the infinitive after for ... phrases. "It is necessary that he come," but "It is necessary for him to come." There's nothing special about "inevitable" — lots of adjectives behave the same way. – Peter Shor Oct 06 '21 at 02:50
  • Don't ask me why this is the case ... if I knew, I'd be writing an answer and not a comment. – Peter Shor Oct 06 '21 at 02:52
  • That sounds wrong. It was always inevitable that this virus would become* endemic* sounds right. – tchrist Oct 06 '21 at 03:09
  • 4
    "Inevitable" does not licence the mandative subjunctive. However, it sounds OK with a should mandative complement, as in "It was always inevitable that this virus should become endemic", or with non-mandative "would", as in "It was always inevitable that this virus would become endemic". – BillJ Oct 06 '21 at 08:13
  • @LukeHutchison I didn't change anything. You used "become" in your example. – BillJ Oct 07 '21 at 06:41
  • @BillJ Oops, you're right, sorry, that was a total think-o. Deleting my comment, my apologies. – Luke Hutchison Oct 08 '21 at 00:29

1 Answers1

1

I would challenge the premise. Typically, the subjunctive follows phrases that are exhortative. "It is imperative that you come." "I suggest that he study for the exam." "It is essential that you be prepared." I'm not sure that "it is inevitable that" + subjunctive really makes sense. Even if it did, in modern English, many people would just use the indicative: "it is essential that you are prepared."

Honestly, in this particular example, I think the phrasing "it was always inevitable that this virus would become endemic" is much more natural than what you've suggested.

Casey
  • 2,610
  • 18
  • 21
  • Are you American? I am not. The subjunctive is used far more widely in British and British colonial English than in American English. The first example I gave is really the most correct way to say the phrase in New Zealand English. (We were also taught to prefer the passive voice, and that the Oxford comma is incorrect.) – Luke Hutchison Oct 06 '21 at 02:19
  • @LukeHutchison I am indeed American. I suppose you will have to get other Commonwealth speakers to give their opinions, in that case. Even in the examples I did give, they sound a little pretentious, by American standards. – Casey Oct 06 '21 at 02:20
  • 3
    @LukeHutchison My understanding is that British people often use the indicative instead of the subjunctive. See for instance https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-58698895 "The Taliban media office insisted the BBC team travelled with an armed Talib bodyguard". – Acccumulation Oct 06 '21 at 02:38
  • 1
    Yes, Americans use the subjunctive in many cases that sound off to Brits. https://www.lexico.com/grammar/when-to-use-the-subjunctive – Phil Sweet Oct 06 '21 at 10:16
  • @LukeHutchison I'd say the indicative-where-some-use-the-subjunctive is far more common colloquially in the UK than in the US. The boss insists that he goes. The periphrastic-should construction is probably also more common in formal contexts (and disambiguates most powerfully) The boss insists that he should go. // The passive certainly has its place but should not be slavishly employed. // There are instances where the Oxford comma is needed to make things clear, but there are instances where omitting it is required to make things clear. All these have been discussed on ELU. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 06 '21 at 15:13
  • @EdwinAshworth you're right, I used the wrong word for how the Oxford comma is taught in NZ. It's not taught to be wrong per se, it's taught that we should not use it, because it results in stilted speech without offering any of the claimed disambiguation benefits in 95% of cases. – Luke Hutchison Oct 07 '21 at 03:31
  • @EdwinAshworth People never pause between the penultimate and last item of a list in speech. The same argument is made by Mandarin speakers as to why pinyin should not be used: "You can't know the full meaning without seeing the characters, because many characters have homophones". But you can't "see" the characters in spoken Chinese, and nobody has any trouble understanding. All of language is ambiguous, and there is sufficient contextual redundancy without the Oxford comma that makes it impossible to justify the stilted speech that comes from reading a list that uses the Oxford comma. – Luke Hutchison Oct 07 '21 at 03:33
  • @LukeHutchison But the comma doesn't always signal a pause. "Every Tom, Dick and Harry will be there." And disambiguation trumps style concerns. Adam Katz's answer here addresses this well. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 08 '21 at 18:13