The analytical forms
§ 79. Most of the later formations are analytical, built by means of the auxiliaries which developed from the modal verbs should and would, plus any form of the infinitive. The auxiliaries, generally called mood auxiliaries, have lost their lexical meaning and are used in accordance with strict rules in certain patterns of sentences or clauses. In cases where should and would retain their original modal meaning or their use is not determined by any strict rules, they should be regarded as modal verbs, forming a compound verbal (or nominal) modal predicate. You should be more palient with the child.
Still, some modal verbs are regularly used to denote hypothetical actions in certain syntactic patterns - may/might + infinitive, can/could + infinitive, but to a certain degree retain their original meaning. These will be regarded as quasi-subjunctive forms.
However much you may argue, he will do as he pleases (expresses possibility).
I wish I could help you (expresses ability).
If you would agree to visit my uncle, ... (expresses wish).
Analytic forms may be divided into three groups, according to their use and function.
I. The forms should + infinitive (for the first person singular and plural) and would + infinitive (for the other persons). This system coincides in form with the future in the past. These forms may be used either in a simple sentence or in the main clause.
There is a strong tendency in Modern English to use would for all persons, in the same way as will is used instead of shall in the indicative mood. Another tendency is to use the contracted form of would –‘d for all person in informal style. (Compare this usage with that of the contracted form ‘ll in the indicative.)
These forms denote hypothetical actions, either imagined as resulting from hypothetical conditions, or else presented as a real possibility.
I would not praise the boy so much.
Would you help me if I need your help?
He would smoke too much if I didn’t stop him now and again.
II. The form would + infinitive for all persons, both singular and plural. This form is highly specialised in meaning; it expresses a desirable action in the future. It may be used both in simple and complex sentences.
Let us invite him. He would gladly accept the invitation.
I wish you would go there too.
III. The form should + infinitive for all persons. This form stands apart in the system of the verb, as contrary to the general tendency to use either two forms - should and would, or else to use one form - would for all persons. The meaning of the form is rather broad - it depends on the context.
It is important that all the students should be informed about it.
It is strange that we should have met in the same place.
It can easily be seen that most of the forms used to express hypothetical actions are homonymous with the indicative mood forms, either with tense forms or with free combinations of modal verbs with the infinitive. Hence most forms are recognizable as subjunctive only under certain conditions:
1) when they are used in certain sentence or clause patterns. We shall regard such cases as structurally determined use of the subjunctive mood;
2) when their use is determined by the lexical meaning of the verb or conjunction (see below examples with the verb wish and the conjunction lest).
3) in some set expressions (formulaic utterances) which have to be learned as wholes and in which no element of the structure can be omitted or replaced. We shall regard these cases as the traditional use of the forms.
The first two conditions very often overlap.
The subjunctive mood and the tense category
§ 80. The category of tense in the subjunctive mood is different from that in the indicative mood: unlike the indicative mood system in which there are three distinct time-spheres (past, present, future), time-reference in the subjunctive mood is closely connected with the idea of unreality and is based on the following opposition in meaning:
| Imagined, but still possible (referring to the present or future indiscriminately) | imagined, no longer possible (referring to the past) |
The difference in meaning is expressed by means of the following contrasting forms:
1) The common or continuous non-perfect infinitive as contrasted with the perfect common or continuous infinitive in the analytical forms with should, would, and quasi-subjunctive forms with may (might).
| Referring to the Present or Future I fear lest he should escape. He would phone you. I suppose he should be working in the library. | Referring to the Past I fear lest he should have escaped. He would have phoned you. I suppose he should have been working in the library. |
2) The forms of the non-factual past indefinite and past continuous contrast with the forms of the non-factual past perfect and past perfect continuous in time reference:
| Referring to the Present or Future If I knew. I wish I were warned when the time-table is changed. | Referring to the Past If I had known. I wish I had been warned. |
In case these forms are used in subordinate clauses (as is usually the case) their time-reference is always relative. The non-factual past indefinite and past continuous indicate that the hypothetical action is regarded as simultaneous with the action expressed in the principal clause; the non-factual past perfect and past perfect continuous indicate actions prior to the action expressed in the principal clause.
We did things and talked to the people as if we were walking in our sleep.
His face was haggard as if he had been working the whole night.
The opposition of the non-perfect continuous infinitive and the perfect continuous infinitive is less distinct, as these forms are not so common: an imaginary action is usually presented as devoid of any aspective characteristics.
The old synthetic forms (he be, he come, he were) have no corresponding oppositions in time-reference.
Structurally determined use of subjunctive mood forms
§ 81. In Modern English the choice of the subjunctive mood form is determined by the structure of the sentence or clause even more than by the attitude of the speaker or writer to what is said or written. There exist strict rules of the use of the forms in different patterns of sentences and clauses.
The subjunctive mood in subject clauses
§ 82. 1. The use of the subjunctive mood forms in subject clauses in complex sentences of the type It is necessary that you should come.
Subject clauses follow the principal clause, which is either formal or has no subject (exclamatory). The predicate of the principal clause expresses some kind of modality, estimate, or some motive for performing the action denoted by the predicate in the subordinate clause. This close connection between the two predicates accounts for the nature of the subordinate clause, which completes, or rather gives meaning to general situation described in the principal clause.
Should + infinitive or present subjunctive is generally used in this pattern in the subject clause.
| It is (was) necessary It is (was) important It is (was) only right It is (was) curious It is (was) funny It is (was) good (better, best) It is (was) cruel It is (was) shameful It is (was) a happy coincidence It is (was) considered strange It is (was) recomended It becomes (became) a custom It seems (seemed) to me prophetic How wonderful What a shame How strange etc. | that he should say so. (that he say so). |
It is sad that you should have heard of it on the day of your wedding.
It is a happy coincidence that we should meet here.
It shocked him that he should have been so blind.
It was suggested that somebody should inform the police.
It was more important that he should care for her enough.
In American English the present subjunctive is predominant in this sentence pattern:
It is sad that you be here.
In exclamatory complex sentences:
How wonderful that she should have such a feeling for you!
What a scandal that Palmer and Antonia should go to the opera together!
If the principal clause expresses possibility (it is probable, possible, likely) may (might) + non-perfect infinitive is used, because the action is referred to the future (Возможно, что...; похоже, что...; видимо...)
It is likely the weather may change.
It is possible the key may be lost.
In negative and interrogative sentences, however, should + infinitive is used:
| It is not possible that he should have guessed it. Is it possible that he should refuse to come? | Невероятно, чтобы... Возможно ли, чтобы... |
Note:
If in sentences introduced by it the reference is made to an existing fact or state of things, the indicative mood may be used in the subordinate clause.
It is strange that he behaves like that.
Is it possible that he has taken the key?
2. After the principal clause expressing time - it is time, it is high time -the past subjunctive or non-factual forms are used.
It is time you went to bed.
It is high time he were more serious.
It was hight time he had come to a decision.
The subjunctive mood in object clauses
§ 83. The choice of the subjunctive mood form in object clauses depends on the meaning of the verb standing before the object clause.
1. In object clauses after verbs expressing order (to order, to command, to give orders, to give instructions, to demand, to urge, to insist, to require), request (to request, to appeal, to beg), suggestion (to suggest, to recommend, to propose, to move, to advise) either should + infinitive or the present subjunctive is used, the first form being more common than the second.
We urged that in future these relations should be more friendly.
Mr. Nupkins commanded that the lady should be shown in.
In American English the present subjunctive in this sentence pattern is predominant.
People don’t demand that a thing be reasonable if their emotions are touched.
I suggested that she give up driving, but she looked too miserable.
The same form is used after the predicative adjectives sorry, glad, pleased, vexed, eager, anxious, determined, etc., if the action is regarded as an imagined one.
I am sorry she should take such needless trouble.
His brother’s suggestion was absurd. He was vexed his relatives should interfere into his private matters.
2. In object clauses after the verb wish and phrases expressing the same idea I had better, I would rather, or the contracted form I’d rather -different forms may be used, depending on the time-reference of the action in the object clause. If the action refers to the present or future, or is simultaneous with the action expressed in the principal clause, the non-factual past indefinite, past continuous, or past subjunctive is used. After I’d rather the present subjunctive is also possible.
I wish I knew something of veterinary medicine. There’s a feeling of helplessness with a sick animal.
I wish you came here more often. I hardly ever see you.
I would rather you went now.
I’d rather you didn’t help me, actually.
Note:
To express a realizable wish an infinitive, not a clause is generally used:
I want him to come.
I should like to discuss things in detail.
He wished it to be true.
If the action refers to the past or is prior to the moment it is desired the non-factual past perfect or past perfect continuous is used, no matter in what tense the verb in the principal clause is. Thus in both the sentences I wish I hadn’t come and I wished I hadn’t come the non-factual past perfect denotes a prior imaginary action, contradicting reality.
We wished we hadn’t left everything to the last minute.
I wish I had been taught music in my childhood.
If the desired action refers to the future the following subjunctive forms may be used:
would + infinitive (only when the subject of the subordinate clause and that of the principal clause do not denote the same thing or person). It denotes a kind of request.
could + infinitive
may (might) + infinitive
The form would + infinitive is used when the fulfilment of the wish depends on the will of the person denoted by the subject of the subordinate clause. If the fulfilment of the wish depends more on the circumstances, the quasi-subjunctive form may (might) + infinitive is preferable, to show that the realization of the action is very unlikely.
I wish you would treat me better.
I wish I could help you.
I wish he might have helped me.
When rendering wish-clauses into Russian it is possible to use a clause with the opposite meaning, introduced by the impersonal «жаль», «как жаль», «какая жалость» or by the finite form of the verb «сожалеть».
| I wish I knew it. I wish I didn’t know it! I wish I had known about it! | - Жаль, что я этого не знаю. - Какая жалость, что я это знаю! - Жаль, что я не знал об этом! |
3. In object clauses after verbs expressing fear, apprehension, worry (to fear, to be afraid, to be terrified, to be anxious, to worry, to be fearful, to be troubled, to be in terror, to tremble, to dread, etc.) two forms are used, depending on the conjunction introducing the clause:
a) after the conjunction that or if the clause is joined asyndetically, the quasi-subjunctive may/might + infinitive is used. The choice of either may or might depends on the tense of the verb in the main clause.
| They trembled (that) they might be discovered. I fear (that) he may forget about it. | Они дрожали, что их могут обнаружить. Боюсь, как бы он не забыл об этом. |
b) after the conjunction lest the form should + infinitive is used.
| The passengers were terrified lest the ship should catch fire. | Пассажиров охватил ужас, как бы корабль не загорелся. |
The indicative forms are also possible in clauses of this type if the action is regarded as a real one: