Re: [文法] 時態文法題

看板Eng-Class作者l10nel (小失)時間13年前 (2012/12/19 11:15)推噓0(0推 0噓 53→)

留言53則, 2人參與討論串7/8 (看更多)

收到 Geoffrey K. Pullum 教授(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_K._Pullum) 回覆賜教，全文實錄以資參考。 Dear Professor Pullum, I thought that recent literature in descriptive English grammar could not be clearer on what the subjunctive mood is and is not. But I realize that many, including teachers, have abused the term by calling certain constructions subjunctive when they aren't. One instance of such failure is brilliantly refuted in your article, "Blithering idiocy on the subjunctive" on the Language Log. Recently I encountered another example of this miscategorization: In a forum discussing English grammar, someone claimed that the following three sentences are "subjunctive mood" (specifically, subjunctive in the "if" clause and also subjunctive in the main clause): 1) If there is an earthquake tomorrow, we will have worked in vain. 2) If there is an earthquake tomorrow, we will have worked in vain today. 3) If there is an earthquake tomorrow, we will have worked in vain yesterday. When I pointed out that these are simply indicative mood, the claimant sought support from a linguist and English grammar book author, who replied: "We classify as 'indicative' any sentence that makes a statement. Because the sample sentences include a statement, they could be classified as indicative. The problem is that the statements in these sentences are based on a ^^^^^^^^^^ conditional and on this account are more accurately classified as being in ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the subjunctive mood, not the indicative." [emphasis mine] I am dumbfounded by this indiscriminate equating of a conditional construction with the subjunctive mood by a professional in this field. I believe that calling any statement based on a conditional the subjunctive mood is blatantly wrong, rather than "a more accurate way" of looking at the three example sentences. It worries me that the mistaken belief may be more widespread among the English-teaching community than I thought. However, to err on the side of caution, I would like to seek confirmation from you to help dispel such a misconception. I hope to hear your advice. ===================================== 回覆： "More accurately classified as" indeed! You're being bullshitted. People are so confused about this. Once upon a time, English speakers said things like "If it be true...", and there one needs an explanation for why the verb form is "be" rather than "is". So this would be like "It is vital that he be told", where again the verb form is "be", not "is", and it makes sense to say we have a subjunctive construction that demands the plain form, not the 3rd singular present form. But today we say "if it is true...", and a lot of people say "It is vital that he is told", so the subjunctive construction has just fallen out of use there. But the person you consulted wants to say it is "more accurately classified as" a subjunctive anyway, even with no sign of any motivation. It isn't more accurately classified as a subjunctive. You're right, and the "professional" is wrong. GKP -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 76.198.133.1

→