"should",Is it really strict?

[keannu]

My grammar book says the following is a wrong answer that should be replaced by "should be", but I wonder if it is really strict grammar-wise or practically.

ex)A little stress can actually do more good than harm. For example, it can lead to heightened memory and a lower sensitivity to pain. While these are positive changes, it's important that they are followed(=> should be followed) by the activation of the body's relaxation response, which allows us to return to a normal state once the stressful event is over.

 

[Coolfootluke]

I am not a teacher.

The American English that I speak makes that "important that they be followed by the activation ...." The subjunctive is alive here, if not particularly well. I would never say the two choices you present.

Other types of English do it differently.

 

[ostap77]

I am not a teacher.

The American English that I speak makes that "important that they be followed by the activation ...." The subjunctive is alive here, if not particularly well. I would never say the two choices you present.

Other types of English do it differently.

Do you happen to substitute "ought to" for "should" in the affirmative sentence?

 

[Coolfootluke]

Do you happen to substitute "ought to" for "should" in the affirmative sentence?

It depends. We use both, sometime interchangeably. The variations are too many to name.

 

[bhaisahab]

I'd say "it's important that they be followed" too. "Are" and "should be" seem clumsy to me.

 

[Tdol]

I'm not a big user of the present subjunctive, so are sounds fine to me.

 

[mayita1usa]

My grammar book says the following is a wrong answer that should be replaced by "should be"...

ex)A little stress can actually do more good than harm. For example, it can lead to heightened memory and a lower sensitivity to pain. While these are positive changes, it's important that they are followed (=> should be followed) by the activation of the body's relaxation response, which allows us to return to a normal state once the stressful event is over.

BLECHH! "Should be" sounds awful in this sentence! I would never use this.

The American English that I speak makes that "important that they be followed by the activation ...." The subjunctive is alive here, if not particularly well. I would never say the two choices you present.

I agree. However...

I'm not a big user of the present subjunctive, so are sounds fine to me.

- Are sounds fine only if the meaning is that the stress changes are always "followed by the activation of the body's relaxation response".

Therefore,
- My guess is that be (the subjunctive) is the better verb form, because the relaxation response does NOT always follow the stress changes, so it is a speculative "untrue" situation. Thus...,

... the best sentence (in my opinion) is:
- While these are positive changes, it's important that they be followed by the activation of the body's relaxation response,...

 

[Khosro]

While these are positive changes, it's important that they are followed(=> should be followed) by the activation of the body's relaxation response, which allows us to return to a normal state once the stressful event is over.

As some other members here, I am in favour of "subjunctive" here. Actually I need it. I can't say "are" instead of "be".

If I were to use "should", I would omit "it is important".

 

[5jj]

- Are sounds fine only if the meaning is that the stress changes are always "followed by the activation of the body's relaxation response".

That is not true for most speakers of BrE, for whom the present subjunctive is dead.

I am surprised that a couple of people find 'should be' clumsy or unacceptable. It is quite common for 'should' to be used as a pseudo-subjunctive.

 

[bhaisahab]

That is not true for most speakers of BrE, for whom the present subjunctive is dead.

I am surprised that a couple of people find 'should be' clumsy or unacceptable. It is quite common for 'should' to be used as a pseudo-subjunctive.

In many cases I like "should" used in that way, but in that particular sentence I think it flows better with "be".

 

[Khosro]

That is not true for most speakers of BrE, for whom the present subjunctive is dead.

I am surprised that a couple of people find 'should be' clumsy or unacceptable. It is quite common for 'should' to be used as a pseudo-subjunctive.

I always thought that subjunctive "be" is a necessary part of language. I seldom came across "should" as a pseudo-subjunctive. I should study more about "should" and "subjunctive" both. (Is my use of "came across" correct here?)

 

[5jj]

1. I always thought that subjunctive "be" is a necessary part of language. 2. I seldom came across "should" as a pseudo-subjunctive. I should study more about "should" and "subjunctive" both. 3.(Is my use of "came across" correct here?)

1. Some people still use the present subjunctive - I do myself. Some of those who do claim that use of the indicative is incorrect, and that all educated speakers use the subjunctive when it should be used. This is just not true. The majority of native speakers of BrE have no idea of what the present subjunctive is, and use it only in certain fixed expressions, such as 'so be it', 'long live the Queen,' etc.
2. If nobody else has done so when I get back to my study tomorrow, I'll post a couple of references.
3. Your choice of the phrasal verb is correct, though a present perfect would be more natural in BrE.

 

[5jj]

If nobody else has done so when I get back to my study tomorrow, I'll post a couple of references.

Well, here is one to start with:

"In formal British English, should can be used in that-clauses after adjectives and nouns expressing the importance of an action (e.g. important, necessary, vital, essential, eager, anxious, concerned, wish).

.....It's important that somebody should talk to the police. [...]

This also happens after some verbs expressing similar ideas, especially in sentences about the past.

.....He insisted that the contract should be read aloud. [...]

In less formal style, other structures are preferred.

.....It's important that she talks to me when she gets here.[...]

In American English, this use of should is unusual; subjunctives may be used.

.....It's important that somebody talk to the police. "

Swan, Michael (2005) Practical English Usage (3rd edn.), Oxford: OUP

 

[keannu]

Well, here is one to start with:

"In formal British English, should can be used in that-clauses after adjectives and nouns expressing the importance of an action (e.g. important, necessary, vital, essential, eager, anxious, concerned, wish).

.....It's important that somebody should talk to the police. [...]

This also happens after some verbs expressing similar ideas, especially in sentences about the past.

.....He insisted that the contract should be read aloud. [...]

In less formal style, other structures are preferred.

.....It's important that she talks to me when she gets here.[...]

In American English, this use of should is unusual; subjunctives may be used.

.....It's important that somebody talk to the police. "

Swan, Michael (2005) Practical English Usage (3rd edn.), Oxford: OUP

Why is it called "subjunctives"? I found the definition in the dictionary and found "subjunctive" means hypothetical expression, so does it assume "if somebody talks to the police"?

"..It's important that somebody talk to the police.

 

[birdeen's call]

That is not true for most speakers of BrE, for whom the present subjunctive is dead.

I am surprised that a couple of people find 'should be' clumsy or unacceptable. It is quite common for 'should' to be used as a pseudo-subjunctive.

I found a note that may or may not be interesting to you, from Joseph Priestley (1761):

This form of the conjunctive subjunctive tenses is very little used by some writers of the present age; though our forefathers paid a very strict and scrupulous regard to it. It seems to be used with propriety only when there is implied some doubt or hesitation; since when an event is looked upon as absolutely certain, though in speaking of it we make use of the conjunctive participles, &c. the usual change of terminations is retained: to give a familiar example of this; we should say, in pursuing a person, We shall overtake him though he run; not knowing whether he did run or not; whereas upon seeing him run, we should say, We shall overtake him though he runneth, or runs.
Almost all the irregularities in the construction of any language arise from the ellipsis of some words which were originally inserted in the sentence, and made it regular: let us endeavour to explain this manner of speaking, by tracing out the original elipsis: may we not suppose that the word run in this sentence is in the radical form (which answers to the infinitive mood in other languages) requiring regularly to be preceded by another verb expressing doubt or uncertainty, and the intire sentence to be, We shall overtake him though he should run?
​

(Vallins GH (1956). The pattern of English (London: Andre Deutsch Ltd.), found here.)

 

[mayita1usa]

That is not true for most speakers of BrE, for whom the present subjunctive is dead.

I am surprised that a couple of people find 'should be' clumsy or unacceptable. It is quite common for 'should' to be used as a pseudo-subjunctive.

Well, I just learned something new about British English - thanks! :up:

 

[mayita1usa]

... I seldom came across "should" as a pseudo-subjunctive ... (Is my use of "came across" correct here?)

In this context, I wouldn't use simple past, but one of these two tenses:
- I seldom come across... (to me, this implies frequent, ongoing contact with English, so your statement is based on lots of experience)
- I have seldom come across... (to me, the present perfect implies more likelihood that you will come across it in the future, now that you know what to look for!)

The difference is subtle, I know...

 

[Coolfootluke]

Why is it called "subjunctives"? I found the definition in the dictionary and found "subjunctive" means hypothetical expression, so does it assume "if somebody talks to the police"?

"..It's important that somebody talk to the police.

I am not a teacher.

Look again. The subjunctive mood is used for more than hypotheticals. The subjunctive in English is a can of worms; it is different in Britain and America, and it is in tatters in both places---only vestiges remain.