[Gllug] plurals

[Jack Bertram]

* Pete Ryland <pdr at pdr.cx> [030620 11:29]:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:53:07PM +0100, Jack Bertram wrote:
> > * Pete Ryland <pdr at pdr.cx> [030619 20:26]:
> > > Nowadays, the subjunctive form is the same as the past, so we would now
> > > write:
> > > 
> > > If he delighted in him, let him deliver him.
> > > 
> > > Just like:
> > > 
> > > If I was going to the shops, I'd bring you back some chocolate.
> > 
> > This isn't a subjunctive.
> 
> Yes, it is.  The "if" and "would" give that away.

As I understand it, there are two different forms.  The indicative form
takes "was", and the subjunctive form takes "were".  This gives rise to
the two different meanings described below.  However, since English
grammar is rarely taught any more, in practice the distinction is
withering away.

> > There's a difference in meaning between this phrase and the equivalent
> > with "were".  With "was", the sentence means 
> > 
> > "I'm not going to the shop, so I'm not going to bring you back any
> > chocolate"
> > 
> > whereas with "were", it means
> > 
> > "Hypothetically speaking, if I were going to the shops, of course I'd
> > bring you back some chocolate"
> 
> Interesting you say that.  I would think that either sentence could have
> either connotation.

In practice, I don't believe many people would have been taught the
difference.  As language is about communication rather than pedantry,
you are probably right that either sentence could have either meaning.
However, I think a strict reading would distinguish between them.

jack

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug