-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Subjunctive Mood
- Thread starter ppp
- Start date
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
That's kind of a potentially interesting thought, I guess. Would you suggest that the subjunctive mode or mood would convey a nominally spiritual way of making association?
ppp
Well-Known Member
Interesting question. Well, the subjunctive is the heart of the hypothetical, and what is the spiritual is not hypothetical trials at explain ourselves and the world in which we live.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That you are in effect doing a self-referring absurdity. Now I accept that you do that and if I need to do it differently, I will. But in the end I accept it, because reality seems to be a self-referring absurdity.
In the romance languages it is really taken seriously.
It is very difficult. To know when it must be used and when it mustn't.
They will crucify me here, if I do not use it properly
In French, for example, two tenses of the subjunctive, that is Imparfait and Plus-que-parfait have disappeared since the 19th century.
Basically replaced with Subjunctive present.
It is very difficult. To know when it must be used and when it mustn't.
They will crucify me here, if I do not use it properly
In French, for example, two tenses of the subjunctive, that is Imparfait and Plus-que-parfait have disappeared since the 19th century.
Basically replaced with Subjunctive present.
Last edited:
ppp
Well-Known Member
Yeah. I remember those from reading Tartuffe and Pascal's Pensees. Well, I remember that I remember that. It's been 30+ years.In the romance languages it is really taken seriously.
It is very difficult. To know when it must be used and when it mustn't.
They will crucify me here, if I do not use it properly
In French, for example, two tenses of the subjunctive, tgat is Imparfait and Plus-que-parfait have disappeared since the 19th century.
Basically replaced with Subjunctive present.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I would think the same if I were you. Personally, I'm more a fan of the conjunctive mood.
It is also the mood for unreal propositions, however, so it fits right in.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
We don't live in the same world as such. We share a world for same, similar and/or different.
I just use different trials in some cases and the same in others.
I would say the use of "the language" here rather than e.g., "English" is potentially offensive to some.
I would also somewhat agree, albeit with many, many caveats, that in English the term "subjunctive mood" is hardly warranted.
It is unfortunate that English grammar (as well as many other non-Romance languages) has historical roots that long predate even early forms of the modern study of linguistic structures (e.g., Sapir and the American Structuralists, pre-cursers of some aspects of Greenberg in continental linguistic schools, etc.). As a result, many of the grammatical categories, and indeed the approach to the different components of languages and their relations, was heavily influenced by classical and medieval grammatical thought. So we have multiple terms for certain tenses rarely used (in the perfective class, for example), a slew of moods that English has almost lost and certainly lacks morphosyntactic distinctions we would expect to correspond to the distinctions made, etc., that are still taught to (some) children in English classes today.
Meanwhile, vital components of English grammar, such as our rich system of modal verbs, are almost second thoughts when covered in English classes, with names like “helping verbs” or “auxiliary verb”. The vast and varied verbal structures that English features using things like prepositions together with verbs in prefabricated constructions is seen almost solely through, on the one hand, the notion of transitive vs. intransitive verbs (where the manner in which intransitive verbs in English still have something as rich and syntactically complex as “arguments”) and, on the other, through the notion of the infinitive which English essentially lacks (we use “to + verb”).
But that’s English. I can’t imagine what I would do to understand the Latin verbal system, let alone the much more complicated Greek verbal system, without the subjunctive mood. Other modern languages still possess morphosyntactic distinctions that merit the term as well. In fact, a great variety of languages rely heavily on inflection and/or agglutination of verbs in particular to convey a vast range of nuances and meaning that in English requires the use of prepositional phrases, “auxiliary” verbs, and so forth.
So as a grammatical category and concept, I would vehemently disagree that the subjunctive mood is "pointless."
***Staff Advisory***
Thread moved to General Debates.
Thread moved to General Debates.
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
Why? (given it is not just concerned with the spiritual).
I demand to know, given you just made me look up what it is.
exchemist
Veteran Member
I disagree. If one removes the subtlety from a language one impoverishes it. I agree these complexities make it harder to learn a language, but they add richness of expression and preserve its history. A lot of effort is made to preserve languages that might die out without help, such as Welsh and Gaelic, even though from a strict utility viewpoint it is more efficient if they die and everyone in the UK speaks English. So we do recognise that language carries more cultural value than simply the efficiency and simplicity with which one can speak it.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
If it was less complex it would be too easy
anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
Be that as it may, suffice it to say that if I were you I would be in agreement with myself. : )
PureX
Veteran Member
I'd say that you have a deep-seated issue with the inexplicable, especially from/within your fellow humans.
Hey, you asked.
If I weren't a pedant, I wouldn't use it.
Let us confront two sentences
1) You are a smart person
2) I think that you are a smart person
As you can see, in English there is no difference between the two tenses (you are a smart person). They are both present indicative.
In my language 1) is present indicative, 2) is present subjunctive .
And if I dare use the present indicative in the second sentence, I will be called ignorant, donkey, etc...etc...
1) You are a smart person
2) I think that you are a smart person
As you can see, in English there is no difference between the two tenses (you are a smart person). They are both present indicative.
In my language 1) is present indicative, 2) is present subjunctive .
And if I dare use the present indicative in the second sentence, I will be called ignorant, donkey, etc...etc...
Lest we forget, it seems there are needless things in every language.
Ditto.