zompist bboard

Here's something inspired by something I read in The Complete Plain Words of 1976.

Assuming you speak English, is it typically British or American English? (Or something else?) And do you interpret:

"It is important that we have a good supply of bombs"

as

1. "We do not have a good supply of bombs, and it is important that we acquire one"

or

2. "We have a good supply of bombs, and this is important"

?

My English is British English, but I have to reply "not sure".

I interpret it as neither of those, but rather not commenting on whether or not we currently have any bombs, and simply stating that it is important that the supply exists.

I speak American English and automatically feel inclined to interpret it as 1.

KathTheDragon wrote:I interpret it as neither of those, but rather not commenting on whether or not we currently have any bombs, and simply stating that it is important that the supply exists.

I agree.

But if I had to express the meanings of sentences #1 and #2 in a clear and unambiguous way, I'd have to reword #2 significantly to something such as "Keeping our good supply of bombs is important" whereas #1 would just need a simple bandaid in the middle, something like "It is important that we secure a good supply of bombs" rather than a gross reorganization of the whole sentence.

I hadnt heard of this being a transatlantic thing, and you didnt say which was which, but Im inclined to think British syntax leans towards #1 since British English is stereotypical more formal and makes frequent use of lesser-known practices like subjunctive embedding.

I agree with Kath— the sentence just says that a good supply is important, and doesn't say whether we have one or not.

American English, if you couldn't guess

I agree as well, but it's not my automatic interpretation.

alice wrote:Here's something inspired by something I read in The Complete Plain Words of 1976.

Assuming you speak English, is it typically British or American English? (Or something else?) And do you interpret:

"It is important that we have a good supply of bombs"

as

1. "We do not have a good supply of bombs, and it is important that we acquire one"

or

2. "We have a good supply of bombs, and this is important"

?

My English is British English, but I have to reply "not sure".

For me (American English), it is technically ambiguous without context.

"It is important for us to have a good supply of bombs" seems the most likely intepretation to me in the typical context I expect to see the sentence. Looking at it, I imagine it being said about some plan for future circumstances: "It is important that we have a good supply of bombs when we do X." As KathTheDragon, Soap and zompist said, this interpretation doesn't clearly specify whether or not we have them currently; it does imply that there are some relevant actions we could take that would affect whether or not we have them at the relevant time (e.g. if we don't have them, we need to get them, or if we do have them, we need to make sure we keep them).

The alternative interpretation "[The fact that we have [currently] a good supply of bombs] is important" also seems possible to me, in an appropriate context, but it's harder for me to imagine what that would look like. Something like "Something to remember when you're planning your strategy: it is important that we have a good supply of bombs." But that sentence actually seems a bit unnatural to me.

In the third-person singular, the ambiguity between these two interpretations would not exist for "It is important that he/she/it have a good supply of bombs", which I could only interpret as the former. But "It is important that he/she/it has a good supply of bombs" seems like it could take either interpretation, although I'm not quite as comfortable with it taking the former as I am with it taking the latter interpretation.

Soap wrote: I hadnt heard of this being a transatlantic thing, and you didnt say which was which, but Im inclined to think British syntax leans towards #1 since British English is stereotypical more formal and makes frequent use of lesser-known practices like subjunctive embedding.

Hmm, my stereotype about the plain-form subjunctive and British English speakers is actually that they avoid it more than American English speakers and use "should" constructions instead. E.g. "It's necessary that he should go" sounds more British, and "It's necessary that he go" more American. But I don't know if that would show up in this context ("It is important that we should have a good supply of bombs"?).

I agree with Kath as well, and I am a speaker of North American English.

I agree with Kath. English is the second language I've learned, but it is the only one I'm fluent in. I live in America, but I've been heavily influenced by British authors. Combined with other influences, I kind of speak my own weird variety of English. I guess I lean American, even though I type British (that's only as mèþru; IRL I type American).

The subjunctive and indicative merge, and hence are ambiguous, in the plural.

Compare "it's important that he have a good supply" with "it's important that he has a good supply", where the ambiguity is much less (although the indicative form is sometimes used in place of the subjunctive anyway).

Let's see...

It's important that the country be safe.
It's important that the country have a good supply of bombs.
It's important that the grammar cover this construction.

The more I look at these, the weirder they look. I guess they're OK, but I would prefer to say "...for the country to be safe", etc. But there's no presupposition that the subclause is true or false.

A straight-out desire sounds better: "It's desirable that [etc.]."

With the indicative, they're all fully grammatical for me, but I still don't see a claim that subclause is true or not. I could definitely use them either way. But this is partly lexical: e.g. this sentence can only be used when the country is safe:

It's delightful that the country is safe.

Also worth noting: it may be that we're dealing with temporal rather than regional variation. The book in question was published in 1954, and the author was born in 1880. That's plenty of time for usage to change!

KathTheDragon wrote:it is important that the supply exists.

You are not the first Brit I've seen who didn't use the subjunctive in what would typically be a subjunctive phrase. One of my curriculum guides at school which comes from Switzerland and so I assume is written in British English is wrought with expressions like:

It is important that the student is on time.
It is necessary that the student considers the importance of each task.

I've seen this before in British texts. Is the subjunctive weaker on your side of the Atlantic?

It's essentially extinct outside of "to be", tmk, and even there it's moribund.

I think the same is true for me, and I'm American.

Vijay wrote:I think the same is true for me, and I'm American.

Really?

So if I said, "I request that he reconsiders his action," you would find that acceptable?

For me, the present subjunctive is fully productive, and it sounds odd to me when it is not used when expected.

Travis B. wrote:For me, the present subjunctive is fully productive, and it sounds odd to me when it is not used when expected.

My view as well. Sometimes I might allow the indicative with "to have" but not "to be" and not any regular verbs.

"It is important that he have all necessary documents."
"It is important that he has all necessary documents."

The latter almost sounds more natural. But the same can't be said for other verbs.

"It is essential he always be on time."
"It is essential he is always on time."

"I'm requesting that she take another look at the offer."
"I'm requesting that she takes another look at the offer."

The subjunctive sounds more natural here.

*Edit*

I found an example of a sentence where, for me, the indicative is not even optional.

"The report recommends that he face the tribunal."
"The report recommends that he faces the tribunal."

The latter is not at all acceptable for me, whereas above I could accept the indicative forms even if I might not use them myself. In fact, the indicative form of "faces" in this example almost sounds like the man in question needs to physically face the tribunal as if he were turned away from them.

Viktor77 wrote:

Vijay wrote:I think the same is true for me, and I'm American.

Really?

So if I said, "I request that he reconsiders his action," you would find that acceptable?

I think I might, actually, but I guess I misunderstood what Kate was saying. I meant I'd just not bother with the subjunctive at all (if I could get away with it). I'd probably try to get away with "I'd request him to reconsider his action," even if that sounds a little odd to me compared to "I request that he reconsider his action." Of course, both of those come off as more formal to me than "I want him to reconsider what he did" or (needless to say) something like "fuck you, you little piece of shit! Do what I want!!!"

I agree about have and has - for me they are pretty interchangeable here - but for most verbs this is not true.

Viktor77 wrote:So if I said, "I request that he reconsiders his action," you would find that acceptable?

Fwiw, that sounds a little awkward for me (but not totally unacceptable), and would prefer "should reconsider"

KathTheDragon wrote:

Viktor77 wrote:So if I said, "I request that he reconsiders his action," you would find that acceptable?

Fwiw, that sounds a little awkward for me (but not totally unacceptable), and would prefer "should reconsider"

For me, both "I request that he reconsiders" and "I request that he should reconsider" are both ungrammatical, the second one really gratingly so.

In the SSBE I hear, the subjunctive is alive and well, although it's true that it's less common that a few centuries ago. "Were" is often replaced by "was", and there's a general movement to alternative constructions like 'that' - but direct replacement by the indicative, other than with 'to be', is still rare, I think.

However, the subjunctive is a shibboleth for class and education - a lot of working class people would get angry if you used a subjunctive in front of them, and contrariwise failing to use the subjunctive where appropriate is frowned upon in polite society. This may be why there's been a movement toward alternative constructions where the subjunctive isn't required, to avoid the risk of 'errors' in either direction.