- Joined
- Oct 14, 2010
- Member Type
- English Teacher
- Native Language
- British English
- Home Country
- Czech Republic
- Current Location
- Czech Republic
There is a risk (inevitable, unfortunately), of cross-dialogues confusing us; So, this is:
Response to Post #15
"Chalker: [...] especially in BrE, it [= the mandative subjunctive] can be replaced by a should-construction.
Chalker's use of replaced by suggests to me that she does not consider a should-construction to be a subjunctive form."
I have re-read that, and can't see the problem. If A can be replaced by B, then B is not A. Chalker implies that a should-construction is not a mandative subjunctive. If that's still not clear, please tell me what part is not clear, and I'll try again.
Response to Post #15
I wrote:It wasn't the authorities cited that failed to sway my opinion, [...] but rather the way in which their ideas were presented that had me somewhat lost, and in need of clarification (especially where you interpreted Chalker's words on the mandative subjunctive).
"Chalker: [...] especially in BrE, it [= the mandative subjunctive] can be replaced by a should-construction.
Chalker's use of replaced by suggests to me that she does not consider a should-construction to be a subjunctive form."
I have re-read that, and can't see the problem. If A can be replaced by B, then B is not A. Chalker implies that a should-construction is not a mandative subjunctive. If that's still not clear, please tell me what part is not clear, and I'll try again.
Last edited: