English Subjunctive Test

[ol bofosh]

I insisted that they be locked up.
I insisted that they were locked up.

Apparently in American English these two sentences exhibit a difference of indicative and subjunctive. In British English they don't (I'm English, but for me there is a difference, perhaps showing American influence on my language (rotten Hollywood!), and the lack of distinction seems a bit BBC posh period drama to me).

Do you make a subjunctive-indicative distinction between the two? If so, which one is which?

EDIT: it'll be interesting to see what non-native English speakers make of the above two sentences.

[Magb]

To my non-native self, the first sentence means "I insisted that they must be locked up (in the future)", and the second one means "I insisted that they were locked up (in the past)", and making the distinction is obligatory.

[Grath]

To my non-native self, the first sentence means "I insisted that they must be locked up (in the future)", and the second one means "I insisted that they were locked up (in the past)", and making the distinction is obligatory.

Seconded (native, Canadian but have been living abroad for 20 years), although I probably wouldn't say "I insisted that they be locked up" but rather "I insisted that they had to be locked up" or something like that.

[Echobeats]

This is nothing to do with US vs UK, and everything to do with the speaker's level of education. The distinction is dying, but some people will be aware of it if they were taught it in school.

[clawgrip]

Apparently in American English these two sentences exhibit a difference of indicative and subjunctive. In British English they don't (I'm English, but for me there is a difference, perhaps showing American influence on my language (rotten Hollywood!), and the lack of distinction seems a bit BBC posh period drama to me).

Do you make a subjunctive-indicative distinction between the two? If so, which one is which?

EDIT: it'll be interesting to see what non-native English speakers make of the above two sentences.

The two sentences are plainly different to me (also Canadian), and I have trouble understanding how they could be interpreted with the same meaning, or which of the two meanings it would be. The first, "they be" is clearly present subjunctive, so I interpret it with a subjunctive meaning, while the second "they were" is only possible as indicative, which is how I interpret it.

I insisted that they be locked up. - I insisted on my desire for their being locked up.
I insisted that they were locked up. - I insisted on the past truthfulness of their being locked up.

[Pole, the]

"I insisted that they be locked up." - Sorry, I don't speak American.
"I insisted that they were locked up." - I insisted that they were locked up in the past.

(Non-native btw.)

This is nothing to do with US vs UK, and everything to do with the speaker's level of education. The distinction is dying, but some people will be aware of it if they were taught it in school.

The uneducated language is as proper as the educated one.

[Nortaneous]

I insisted that they be locked up. - I insisted on my desire for their being locked up.
I insisted that they were locked up. - I insisted on the past truthfulness of their being locked up.

Same for me.

This is nothing to do with US vs UK, and everything to do with the speaker's level of education. The distinction is dying, but some people will be aware of it if they were taught it in school.

I wasn't taught anything about English in school; apparently to do so would be racist or something. But most of what I read was written before WWI, so.

[clawgrip]

"I insisted that they be locked up." - Sorry, I don't speak American.
"I insisted that they were locked up." - I insisted that they were locked up in the past.

I'm not sure where people get the idea that this is American, or what specifically is considered American. Is it the use of subjunctive with the verb 'insist'? use of subjunctive with 'insist' but without 'should'? Or something more general?

[ol bofosh]

This is nothing to do with US vs UK, and everything to do with the speaker's level of education. The distinction is dying, but some people will be aware of it if they were taught it in school.

When I have time I'll post the entire entry I read in my grammar dictionary. The grammarian is American but lived and worked in England for most of his professional life (I gather).

This has a little about it near the end: http://www.subjunctives.com/english.php

And we're not talking of UK vs. US, I agree. The difference is between the two varieties of Standard English, which local varieties of these regions may diverge from.

[Imralu]

This is nothing to do with US vs UK, and everything to do with the speaker's level of education. The distinction is dying, but some people will be aware of it if they were taught it in school.

I was never taught present subjunctive in school (or any grammar beyond "a noun is a naming word, a verb is a doing word" etc.), but I use it. I recommend that he come and see it for himself. I demand that she shut up! It's just possible that I picked it up from reading, but it seems completely unnatural to me to put the -s on those verbs.

[clawgrip]

I did a Google Books search for various other permutations of insist + subjunctive, and it seems that all the results are indeed American. In fact, I cannot find one British source with 'insist' + subjunctive (though it's pretty hard to search for subjunctive, and it is unclear with verbs other than 'be' whether it is subjunctive or indicative, outside of 3rd person singular). It seems like perhaps the British usage prefers "insist (up)on + gerund", or otherwise requires a modal verb.

Examples of modal verb usage:
"I therefore must insist you will now state to me..." -King George III
"It was insisted they should plead over to the assize" - House of Commons papers: Volume 6 - Page 396

[Bob Johnson]

I insisted that they be locked up.
somebody should have locked them up, because they weren't locked up

I insisted that they were locked up.
somebody said they weren't when in fact they were

Edit: how do people who don't know subjunctive say passive imperatives? "I insist that somebody lock them up"?

[Travis B.]

I likewise was never taught about the subjunctive in school, but find its use natural in cases like this, and use it myself.

As for the two sentences:

I insisted that they be locked up.
The speaker is insisting that someone ought to be locked up (presumably because they are not).

I insisted that they were locked up.
The speaker is insisting that someone has already been locked up (presumably because someone else denied it).

[Travis B.]

"I insisted that they be locked up." - Sorry, I don't speak American.

I always find it cute when people call (North) American English American, even though it generally is not native English speakers who do this.

[Torco]

yeah, we should call it yankspeak

EDIT: or if we follow the tradition of eponimous people-conlangs, just "murican"

[Radius Solis]

Look what happens when you use different verbs:

I demanded that they be locked up.
*I demanded that they were locked up.

I desired that they be locked up.
*I desired that they were locked up.

I suggested that they be locked up.
I suggested that they were locked up.

*I said that they be locked up.
I said that they were locked up.

All the first sentences report a past demand, exhortation, desire, etc. that the proposition come true; all the second sentences report a past discourse about a situation that was already true. Only verbs that can be used for both forming deontics and reporting discourse seem to allow both subclause types.

As for Echobeats' "dying", maybe it is, but it's a very slow death if so. In the USA it continues to be used, and if there is any slant towards educated speakers using it more, it is due to exposure to literature and to other educated speakers (schools have nothing to do with it, here in this country where grammar is not part of any public school curriculum and even the teachers think the word refers to punctuation rules).

[Christopher Schröder]

I insisted that they be locked up. - I insisted on my desire for their being locked up.
I insisted that they were locked up. - I insisted on the past truthfulness of their being locked up.

Same for me.

I have the same general Distinction.

[----]

I have the distinction, but the first sentence should have 'get' as the auxiliary instead of 'be'. 'Be' sounds a bit stilted there.

[Radius Solis]

Edit: how do people who don't know subjunctive say passive imperatives? "I insist that somebody lock them up"?

1. That's still a subjunctive.
2. It is also neither passive nor imperative.
3. Passive imperatives do not involve the subjunctive.

[Herr Dunkel]

I insist they be locked up

That's still subjunctive, though.

I insist they get locked up?

[Bob Johnson]

Edit: how do people who don't know subjunctive say passive imperatives? "I insist that somebody lock them up"?

1. That's still a subjunctive.
2. It is also neither passive nor imperative.
3. Passive imperatives do not involve the subjunctive.

gee I'm definitely not a newbie any more!

do pray tell who the explicit agent of the locking up part of "I insist they be locked up" is
it must be right there, since it's not passive
i just can't see it

edit: this makes criticism of me being unhelpful even more ironic

edit 2 or did sal hijack your account, i knew he was a jerk but I used to think you were nice

edit 3 and not stupid

[Hakaku]

I wouldn't really describe the first as insisting on "my desire", but rather that I'm insisting that they *should* be locked up for a reason that is contextually-dependant. There's no implication of whether they actually will be locked up though. The following are all fairly synonymous to me (Canadian English):

I insisted (that) they be locked up.
I insisted (that) they should be locked up.
I insisted (that) they ought to be locked up.
I insisted on them being locked up.

I insisted (that) they get locked up.
I insisted (that) they should get locked up.
I insisted (that) they ought to get locked up.
I insisted on them getting locked up.

The other sentence simply means that you're putting insistance on the fact that they were - to the best of your own knowledge - locked up. They might still be locked up or they might not be.

I insisted (that) they were locked up.
(I insisted (that) they had been locked up.
I insisted on them having been locked up.)

The distinction between the two is pretty marked to me, though I would personally tend to drop the word "that" in these examples when talking. I also don't agree with Grath that "I insisted that they had to be locked up" is synonymous with the first, since this sentence implies to me that the action of locking up has already been done.

[Ziz]

I definitely still use the subjunctive. At first I thought the second example didn't sound right at all, at least out of context, but I guess now I'm starting to see it.

I insisted that they be locked up. (ergo, their being locked up is my fault, because I ordered it)
I insisted that they were locked up. = I insisted that they were in a state of being locked up, presumably on someone else's orders. (this only works if their being locked up is not my doing)

In any case, they're not really interchangeable. Neither works for the other.

[TaylorS]

I likewise was never taught about the subjunctive in school, but find its use natural in cases like this, and use it myself.

As for the two sentences:

I insisted that they be locked up.
The speaker is insisting that someone ought to be locked up (presumably because they are not).

I insisted that they were locked up.
The speaker is insisting that someone has already been locked up (presumably because someone else denied it).

It's the same in my speech.

[Pinetree]

I likewise was never taught about the subjunctive in school, but find its use natural in cases like this, and use it myself.

As for the two sentences:

I insisted that they be locked up.
The speaker is insisting that someone ought to be locked up (presumably because they are not).

I insisted that they were locked up.
The speaker is insisting that someone has already been locked up (presumably because someone else denied it).

It's the same in my speech.

Same here, with the connotation(?) that the former sounds more posh.