MDDM Subjunctive Spaces

[jbor]

on 29/11/01 6:09 AM, Michel Ryckx at michel.ryckx at freebel.net wrote:

> I have no idea wether the way a language is structured influences perception
> of
> reality (doesn't that phrase make me look smart?); nevertheless, two remarks:
> 
> (1) I think it obvious that when a certain grammatical form does not exist any
> longer, or is hardly used anymore, the possibilities of expressing nuances in
> a
> given language do not diminish.  Only the method of expressing changes.  A
> very
> simple example would be the use of the present tense in English, which only
> knows
> two forms (I think in Southafrican even only one, but I'm not certain about
> that).

Actually, the present tense in English (incorporating the present
progressive, present perfect and present perfect progressive) is freighted
with a vast array of temporal categories in both past, present and future
time. Some egs.

Dogs are mammals. (timeless present)

She gets up at 7 am. (habitual activity)

I resign. (single event)

He's drinking rum. (temporary)

You're getting up early nowadays. (temporary habit)

We're moving next week (future time - plan)

The match starts at 2 pm. (future time - fact)

Present Perfect:

I have known her for a long time.

I have seen better movies.

Present Perfect Progressive:

I've been waiting for an hour.

And so on.

> The reason is very simple: you do not need different forms when you prefix it
> with
> I, you, (s)he etc.

That's not quite accurate: nuances are often only denoted by context. Eg.
Pynchon plays around with various forms of the pronoun "you" in _GR_. The
reason that the identity of the subject in those constructions is ambiguous
is precisely because of the common verbal features for the second person
pronoun: tense, mood and aspect.

> 
> The same happens with the subjunctive.  'Long live the King' can be rephrased
> as
> 'May the King live a long time' --

As I mentioned before, the use of a modal auxiliary has a slightly different
connotation. "May" (and "can") express permission, "might" and "could" are
generally phrased in terms of an either/or construction ("The Queen
might/could live a long time."), as a question ("Might the queen live a
long time [...] ?"), or as a way of connoting doubt. "Would" and "should"
are probably the nearest in meaning to the subjunctive, but even there the
semantic nuances are often slightly different (dependency, missed
opportunity, obligation). Because the subjunctive expressions which have
persisted intact in English are little more than clichés, the purport of
that mood of the verb has been lost. Pynchon's point in _M&D_ seems to be
that with its loss (suppression?) in the lead up to and during the "Age of
Reason" a whole "Subjunctive World" (677) also vanished.

not that it happens; and I'm for a
> republic-- but
> the possibility is still there.  Most phrases with a modality or a
> qualification in
> it were used, once upon a time, with a subjunctive.

Perhaps. I think that the term, and various discussions about language and
grammar, crop up often enough in _M&D_ to warrant consideration.

best