1

It is to my understanding that it is grammatically correct to say:

If I be [something], then [something].

because 'were' is the subjunctive of 'to be'. However, is it correct to use the subjunctive of other words in a similar way? For example:

If he jump, the trampoline will shake.

or

I request that he file these papers.

If it is correct, is it incorrect to use the simple present tense in those contexts?

Kris
  • 37,386
Adetque
  • 11
  • 2
    In North America, it is considered incorrect to use the simple present in “I request that he file these papers” instead of the mandative subjunctive as used here. In the British Isles, it is not wholly uncommon to neglect the subjunctive there. In other words, saying “I request that he files” sounds completely and utterly wrong to my ear as an American, but I’ve heard (not necessarily the most careful of) British speakers say that sort of thing. – tchrist Jun 08 '12 at 00:40
  • Related: http://english.stackexchange.com/a/96164/2085 – tchrist Dec 11 '16 at 01:13

3 Answers3

2

Your last example - an indirect command or request - is quite common in formal contexts, such as minutes of meetings, and even in speech for some speakers, though many would say "that he files".

The other examples are much rarer: they are archaic, and few people would use them except in special registers. But anywhere you could use "If I be", you could equally use "If he jump".

Colin Fine
  • 77,173
  • What about "should he jump"? That does not seem archaic. Isn't that also subjunctive? – JeffSahol Jun 07 '12 at 22:53
  • 1
    It is neither archaic nor subjunctive. It is a complex verb phrase with the auxiliary "should" followed by the bare infinitive "jump". It may be an appropriate translation of a subjunctive in other languages, but does not exhibit a special "subjunctive" form in English, whereas "If he jump" does. – Colin Fine Jun 07 '12 at 22:59
  • Thanks for clearing that up. I'd thought "should" was a way to express subjunctive mood in English but had also heard that English has no true subjunctive. – JeffSahol Jun 08 '12 at 00:44
  • It is a way of expressing a meaning which is often expressed by a subjunctive form in other languages, so people sometimes loosely refer to it as subjunctive. In my view this is misleading and unhelpful. – Colin Fine Jun 08 '12 at 10:23
1

Per this NGram, although technically speaking "If I be [something], then [something]" might be (or at least, was) grammatically correct, it's not a form we use today. Best avoid it, I'd say.

enter image description here

I'm no grammarian, but personally I think the subjunctive form there would be "If I were wrong" anyway. I don't know what to call OP's version - all I know is if I be and if he jump sound archaic.

On the other hand, "I request that he file these papers" sounds current, if a little formal. And I'm pretty sure that is a standard example of the subjunctive. Bear in mind that, slowly but surely, use of the subjunctive mode is declining. So there are bound to be marginal cases still acceptable to some, but not to others.

FumbleFingers
  • 140,184
  • 45
  • 294
  • 517
  • 1
    The difference between "if I be" and "if I were" (historically, present vs. past subjunctive), apart from the fact that the latter is still current for many people, is that "if I were" is counterfactual, but "if I be" is not. The current equivalent for "If I be" is "If I am", not "If I was/were" – Colin Fine Jun 07 '12 at 23:01
  • @Colin Fine: Ah right - I see it now. But the net position for me at least is that "If I be lying then may God strike me dead" sounds archaic/rustic. But "If I were lying then God would have struck me dead" still sounds perfectly reasonable (though "If I had been* lying"* sounds less formal and more "current"). – FumbleFingers Jun 07 '12 at 23:10
  • 1
    Yes, but your tenses are a bit confused. If I be ... may God ... is archaic, and has a present non-contrafactual meaning. (The particular content of that prayer implies that the "If" clause is not true, but the grammatical construction does not). If I were ... God would strike ... _ is present contrafactual, _If I had been ... God would have ... is past contrafactual. Both are common but not universal, and the distinction I have made is not observed by everybody who uses the forms. – Colin Fine Jun 07 '12 at 23:22
  • @FumbleFingers I always waver on whether to use stricken for the past participle of to strike, or just to use struck. – tchrist Jun 08 '12 at 00:37
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers I don’t think that the mandative subjunctive is in any way declining in North America. It actually sounds wrong to us not to use it. – tchrist Jun 08 '12 at 00:41
  • @ColinFine “Present contrafactual” was not a tense ever taught in my grammar books! When translating to other languages like Spanish or Portuguese, “If I were” takes the past (and in particular, the imperfect past) subjunctive, although in French it takes imperfect indicative instead. The perfect tenses are the same with regard to their modality, and I see no cause for a new tense just because it’s perfect. In summary, I see no use in these strange “tenses” like “present/past contrafactual”. – tchrist Jun 08 '12 at 00:44
  • Sorry, I didn't intend "present contrafactual" as a tense, but as a description of the meaning of the form. I actually maintain that modern English has only two tenses - present, and past - and that all the many complex verb forms are best not called tenses, because to do so is misleading and difficult make rigorous. (My principal beef is that "I will go" and "I can go" behave identically in all ways in English, so to include one of them in the category "tense" but not the other doesn't make sense). – Colin Fine Jun 08 '12 at 10:32
1

The verb 'to be' is not special here.

Your examples are correct but only in a stilted, overly formal, hardly used context. In the rare context it would be incorrect to use the simple present.

But if you used those forms nowadays, it would sound strange to most English speakers of most current varieties (exceptions?).

The current pattern is to not use the subjunctive form at all and to use the simple past or present.

Mitch
  • 71,423
  • 1
    I have the feeling "to be" is something of a special case in respect of the subjunctive today. It seems to me plenty of people are still happy to say "If I were* you". I suspect lots of people don't know/don't like the subjunctive in general, but because "to be"* is so common, they'll accept it there because they still hear/read it quite often. – FumbleFingers Jun 07 '12 at 23:02
  • 3
    @FumbleFingers The hypothetical or past subjunctive is still alive and well, but the present subjunctive is virtually gone, as Mitch correctly observes. You occasionally see it still in formulaics like “whether it be true or not”, but for the most part it is no longer with us. The “were” situation is for something else. “I wish it were so” or “If only it were so” or “Unless it were for a good cause, I wouldn’t do it” are all the living version, but “If any be ready to speak up, let them do so” or “... until he be dead” really doesn’t have much life left in it; it sounds funny. – tchrist Jun 08 '12 at 00:29