User talk:Brianlacey/sandbox

1) Why say "the form of the subjunctive is discernible..."? Why not "The subjunctive is discernible..." or "The subjunctive form is discernible...?" The way you've said it trips me up: I'm trying to imagine a time when I'm looking at the subjunctive but I can't discern its form. This seems impossible to me. If I know I am looking at the subjunctive, I can discern its form by just looking at it. What may be hard, is to discern that I am in fact looking at a subjunctive or a subjunctive form.

2) I believe there is a 4th case where one can discern the subjunctive is being used (and therfore also discern its form), and that occurs when the sense if clearly about the past but the form one must use is present:

"When we adopted the authorities required that we own a home." ("own" for "owned" because of subjunctive)

Compare to:

"When we adopted the authorities knew that we owned a home."

The sense in both is past. Present home ownership status is not being talked about in either. But in the first, English grammar requires that we shift to what would be called the present. That shift, to me, is shifting into the subjunctive. In the second sentence, which is parallel in construction except the verb in the main clause changes from the subjunctive-requiring "required" to the indicative-requiring "knew", "own" is in its "past" mode. This use of "present" when the sense is about the past, to me is a discernible case of the subjunctive. I discern that it is subjunctive because we are saying "own" rather than "owned" and I discern that the form of the subjunctive in the first person singular when the meaning is about the past is "own" rather than the indicative "owned."

JimLuckett 15:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'discernible' is the spelling I learned, as opposed to 'observable'
"If he be here now" is correct, as I have learned it. This phrase would be used by someone who does not know that "Person A" is in the room, and wishes to state to everyone that "Person A" is the subject of the clause "If he be here now", such as

"If he be here now, let him speak (or forever hold his peace)". This would be jussive, as you have said before.

Other subjunctive phrases

"If I knew you were coming, I'd a baked a cake". Andrews Sisters? song

Would it be possible to use the term "fixed phrase" rather than "fossil phrase". The phrases are still vital in American English. --Ancheta Wis 03:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I have taken so long to look at this. On the whole it is very good. A couple of minor points:

Rather than talk about British dialects, I suggest you simply use the more general "varieties of British English". This avoids the fraught question of what is a dialect, and the confusion that you may be talking about really marked dialects like Yorkshire or Scots (if it is one - you get my point) where in fact we are thinking of regional variation in the standard language. (Aren't we?)
For ungrammatical, unacceptable or hypothetical forms, use an asterisk rather than a question mark before the word or phrase. But be careful, Wikipedia will turn this into a listing bullet, so you have to use the nowiki command:

*I move that the bill were put to the vote.

If you want to mention that the irregular forms of be are discussed at Indo-European copula, the place to do this would be under your table.
I would include the "thou" forms in the table. Anyone able to read this article knows that they are not usual in modern English, but if you are worried about that you can always add a note. For historical and comparative purposes they are interesting, they are still part of the language, if only in some kinds of poetry, and including them is certainly more useful than giving "you" twice.
Are you quite sure that if he be here now is grammatically incorrect? Possibly a little archaic...

Just my quick thoughts. But you are the guy who's done all the work, so I will leave it to you. Thanks for alerting me to this, though. Keep up the good work. --Doric Loon 22:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]