After our rigorous three-part review of the subjunctive, this form of the English language should no longer hold any terrors for us. But even with a good grasp of the subjunctive, we must remain cautious in using it. Subjunctive constructions, particularly those using “that”-clauses to state a desired outcome, often sound too formal and officious. It has a language register that we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be caught using if we had a choice or if we knew better.
In fact, not everybody can normally give utterance to statements that use subjunctive “that”-clauses. They can arguably be used only by individuals who can invoke a vested power—whether real or imagined—to compel those beholden to them to follow what they say. Among them can be counted notable statesmen, legislators, bureaucrats, jurists, lawyers, ideologues, and clerics.
Subjunctive “that”-clause constructions are not for laypeople who deal with one another on equal terms and who expect to reach agreement largely on the basis of the intrinsic worth and logic of their respective ideas. For instance, without a particular audience in mind and without imagining yourself to be a hotshot legislator or political guru, try saying this sentence aloud: “
It is imperative that we hold snap elections for national posts right now.” At once you’ll see how absurd it is for people to use such “that”-clause subjunctives if they neither have vested power nor overriding moral authority to do so.
Fortunately for us laypeople, English has two grammatically simpler and less formal-sounding alternatives to the “that”-clause” subjunctive form. Much better suited for the mostly egalitarian communication situations that we will encounter in our daily lives are these two alternatives:
(1) Using “should” rather than “that” in clauses that state commands or express intentions or necessity. An effortless way to minimize the officious subjunctive tone is to use the auxiliary verb “should” instead of “that” in the command or intention clause, as in these extremely strong subjunctive statements: “
We insist that she be allowed to leave at once.” “
It is crucial that we be authorized to sign on the company’s behalf.”
In a good many situations, simpler and more forthright English that avoids such grandiosity and overt commanding tone can get the desired concurrence: “
She should be allowed to leave at once.” “
We should be given the authority to sign on the company’s behalf.”
(2) Using the “for + infinitive” form of the verb of command or intention instead of its subjunctive form. This is a more radical but not necessarily a better substitute for officious subjunctive “that”-clause constructions like these two: “
We suggest that Eduardo defer his trip indefinitely.” “
We recommend that she go on terminal leave.”
The operative verb in such subjunctive “that”-clauses can be made to take the “for + infinitive” form by changing the verb in the main clause to a milder, less demanding “concept expectation” noun like “suggestion” and “recommendation,” as follows: “
Our suggestion is for Eduardo to defer his trip indefinitely.” “
Our recommendation is for her to go on terminal leave.”
The above alternative statements smoothly do away with confusing subjunctive grammar, but they can reduce the proposed courses of action to an excessively passive and deferential request. As such, they are appropriate only for dealing with highly difficult and authoritarian superiors who demand total obeisance.
We don’t have similar grammar alternatives for the “if” and “wish” subjunctive forms. The best we can do is to minimize mistakes in using them by strictly observing this rule:
put the verb in the subjunctive “if…were” form only if the stated condition is hypothetical, unreal, or contrary to fact.
If the situation described by the “if” clause is not false but has actually happened, its operative verb should be rendered in the indicative form instead:
“If she was [not “were”] sick that week, then it’s obvious why she wasn’t able to attend her classes.”
We are done with our discussions of the subjunctive.
This essay, 2,141st of the series, appears in the column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in the Campus Press section of the March 9, 2023 digital edition of The Manila Times
, ©2023 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.Read this essay and listen to its voice recording in
The Manila Times:
Simpler alternatives for the subjunctive(Next:
Dealing with various levels of intransitivity) March 16, 2023
Visit Jose Carillo’s English Forum, http://josecarilloforum.com. You can follow me on Facebook and Twitter and e-mail me at j8carillo@yahoo.com.
