The ways of expressing unreal actions

The subjunctive mood is the category of the verb which is used to express non-facts: unreal or hypothetical actions or states. A hypothetical action or state may be viewed upon as desired, necessary, possible, supposed, imaginary,orcontradicting reality.

Different forms of the verb are employed for this purpose.

The synthetic forms . In Old English the subjunctive mood was expressed by a special system of forms with a special set of inflections, different from those of the indicative. In the course of time, however, most of the inflections were lost, and the difference between the forms of the subjunctive and those of the indicative has almost disappeared. In Modern English there remain only two synthetic forms of the old regular system of the subjunctive, which differ from the forms of the indicative. Although their meaning and use have changed considerably, they are often called by their old names: the present subjunctiveand the past subjunctive.

I. The present subjunctive coincides with the plain verb stem(be, go, see) for all persons in both the singular and the plural. It denotes a hypothetical action referring to the present or future. Of these surviving forms only be is always distinct from the indicative forms and is therefore rather current.

He required that all be kept secret.

Other verbs are rarely used in the subjunctive in informal style, because their subjunctive forms coincide with the indicative except in the 3rd person singular. They are confined mainly to formal style and formulaic expressions - prayers, wishes, which should be memorized as wholes.

It is natural enough the enemy resent it. / Heaven forbid! The devil take him!

Long live freedom! God save the king!

II. The past subjunctive is even more restricted in its usage; it exists in Modern English only in the form were, which is used for all persons both in the singular and plural. It refers the hypothetical action to the present or future and shows that it contradicts reality.(If I were you! )

The modem tendency, however, is to use was and were in accordance with the rules of agreement (he was, they were).

The non-factual forms of the tenses

Owing to the same process of the obliteration of distinctions between the old subjunctive and the indicative the same forms have come to be used for both purposes in Modern English. To differentiate those used to express hypothetical actions or states (non-facts) from tenses in the indicative they will be called non-factual forms of the tenses.

The analytical forms

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.