[Grammar] Why/How the subjunctive has been replaced with indicative?

[KEN JPN]

This question may have something to do with the history of English.

If it rains tomorrow, I will stay home.

In the if-clause here, "rains"(indicative) is used instead of the subjunctive mood present 'rain'.

I know to say "If it rain tomorrow" is archaic and not used in Modern English any longer and I myself do not say like that, even though it is grammatically correct. (At least, "archaic" means "it was correct in old English, right?)

I would like to know why, and/or how, the subjunctive mood was replaced with indicative.

I think I have read in some book before:
1, English speakers feel more comfortable to say "rainS" when the subject is "it". Saying "rain" with the subject "it" sounds awkward or against ears.
2, If one says "if it rain" , though knowing it is grammatically correct, he may feel uneasy thinking that he would be taken illiterate or uneducated by the listener who believes that, when the subject is "it", the predicate verb MUST be "rains" because he does not know anything about the subjunctive mood. So, to avoid that embarrassment, he dares to say "rains" though it should actually be "rain" in the indicative mood. Thus, this tendency has spread all over until it has become "standard".

In short, to say "rains" is grammatically wrong but has been accepted by most (or all) people. When the majority makes the same mistake, it will be correct.

Do you think my understanding is correct?
Or is there any other historical background, influence of French grammar (in French to use indicative is grammatically correct in if-clause, I hear.) or any other reason?

Thank you in advance.

 

[5jj]

If it rains tomorrow, I will stay home.

In the if-clause here, "rains"(indicative) is used instead of the subjunctive mood present 'rain'.

I know to say "If it rain tomorrow" is archaic and not used in Modern English any longer

It is not used in British English any longer. It may be used in American English. We'll have to wait for an AmE speaker to comment.

and I myself do not say like that, even though it is grammatically correct.

I would say that only 'if it rains' is grammatically correct in modern BrE.

(At least, "archaic" means "it was correct in old English, right?)

It means that it was used and is no longer used. It does not say that it was correct.

I would like to know why, and/or how, the subjunctive mood was replaced with indicative.

Language changes in unpredictable ways. The subjunctive has largely disappeared from modern BrE. It hasn't disappeared from AmE or some other languages. It is hard to say exactly why this should be.

In short, to say "rains" is grammatically wrong

It is not wrong in modern BrE.

 

[TheParser]

NOT A TEACHER


Hello, Ken:

Wow! What a scholarly post!

Yes, you are 100% correct. The world's greatest grammarian * (IMHO) agrees with you.

1. He says that "in plain prose we now use the indicative, since we feel the reality, the actuality, of the problem

stronger than the idea of doubt as to the proper solution."

a. He then cites this line from the famous British poet Tennyson: "She'll not tell me if she love me." The grammarian then

says that in "plain prose" (the language used in everyday speech), we would use " loves."

*****

Finally, here is a sentence written in 1916 by an important American official. Today, his grammar would be considered "wrong":

"I am now going down to Garden City and New York till the President send for me; or, if he do not send for me, I'm going

to his house and sit on his front steps till he come out."


*****

* George Oliver Curme, A Grammar of the English Language (1931), Vol. II, pp. 407, 415.

 

[SoothingDave]

Americans might say "If it were to rain tomorrow," but not "if it rain..."

 

[5jj]

Americans might say "If it were to rain tomorrow," but not "if it rain..."

I thought not, but it is useful to have it confirmed by a native speaker of AmE. We can also use 'If it were to rain tomorrow' in BrE.

 

[emsr2d2]

I think the equivalent phrase without the "s" is "Should it rain tomorrow, I will have to cancel my plans". To start the sentence with "If" I too would use "If it rains" or "If it were to rain".

If it rains tomorrow, I will have to cancel my plans.
If it were to rain tomorrow, I would have to cancel my plans.

 

[5jj]

I think the equivalent phrase without the "s" is "Should it rain tomorrow, I will have to cancel my plans".

As ems knows, but others may not, 'rain' in that sentence is a bare infinitive, not a subjunctive.

 

[KEN JPN]

Thank you very much for your detailed comments with a specific source, which I really need for academic confirmation.

In your comment, you explained the reason why the subjunctive was replaced with indicative as:

>1. He says that "in plain prose we now use the indicative, since we feel the reality, the actuality, of the problem stronger than the idea of doubt as to the proper solution."

If so, the fact is that English speakers purposefully started to use the indicative in if-clauses because they 'feel the reality, the actuality, of the problem stronger than the idea of doubt as to the proper solution'.

Usually, especially in school grammar taught in Japan, the indicative present is used to express what is actually happening, what usually happens, what will surely happen in the near future, etc.

However, in an if-clause, the statement does not 'describe' any reality, because it has not yet happened. An if-clause only remarks something which is 'imagined' with considerable possibility, for which the subjunctive PRESENT (where the predicate verb takes the infinitive form) was used; while the subjunctive PAST was, and still is, used to express something imagined with very little or no possibility, or against the reality.

If she have some money, she will surely buy that. (archaic/ subjunctive present)
----grammatically correct but already archaic
If she has some money, she will surely buy that. (modern/ substitute of the subjunctive present)
----this was regarded grammatically wrong but now this is widely accepted and regarded as correct
<(background: I don't know whether she actually has any money or not, but she may possibly have some.)

If she had some money, she would surely buy that (though actually she does not have any money).


Then, I think I had better update my understanding about the reason why the subjunctive was replaced with indicative:

---It's because the usage of the indicative has been expanded.
The indicative used to express only the actual truth or fact, which already happened, usually happens or is now happening, but lately, the indicative is being used to express an imaginary up-coming future with feeling of reality, positive possibility, too.

I am asking this because I have been thinking of the reasons as I previously said:

1, English speakers feel more comfortable to say "rainS" when the subject is "it". Saying "rain" with the subject "it" sounds awkward or against ears.

2, If one says "if it rain" , though knowing it is grammatically correct, he may feel uneasy thinking that he would be taken illiterate or uneducated by the listener who believes that, when the subject is "it", the predicate verb MUST be "rains" because he does not know anything about the subjunctive mood. So, to avoid that embarrassment, he dares to say "rains" though it should actually be "rain" in the indicative mood. Thus, this tendency has spread all over until it has become "standard".

The reasons in my message seems to be different from the quote 1 above.

I will greatly appreciate if I can receive some additional comments.

 

[bhaisahab]

Language evolves.

 

[5jj]

In your comment, you explained the reason why the subjunctive was replaced with indicative as:

>1. He says that "in plain prose we now use the indicative, since we feel the reality, the actuality, of the problem stronger than the idea of doubt as to the proper solution."

If so, the fact is that English speakers purposefully started to use the indicative in if-clauses because they 'feel the reality, the actuality, of the problem stronger than the idea of doubt as to the proper solution'.

I know of no evidence to support this idea. That is not to say that it is not true, though, personally, I don't believe it is. In my opinion, very few native speakers purposefully choose the verb form they are about to utter.

If she have some money, she will surely buy that. (archaic/ subjunctive present)
----grammatically correct but already archaic

KEN, the grammatically correct form in modern BrE is the indicative. There are a few people who still use the subjunctive, but it sounds strange to many people. I wouldn't actually call it 'incorrect', but it is less natural than the subjunctive.

If she has some money, she will surely buy that. (modern/ substitute of the subjunctive present)
----this was regarded as grammatically wrong but now this is widely accepted and regarded as correct

I doubt if many people have regarded it as grammatically wrong for sixty years or more.

 

[SoothingDave]

In my opinion, very few native speakers ​

purposefully choose the verb form they are about to utter.

And that's why you find many natives who do not use the subjunctive. They will say "If I was you..." because that is just how they talk. They probably don't know that such a thing as a "subjunctive" or "indicative" exists.

Outside of set phrases, the subjunctive seems to be evolving away. From what I read on this forum, this evolution has progressed more in BrE than in AmE. That is, more forms of the subjunctive still exist in AmE today.

I use still use it in many forms. But it would never occur to me to say "If it rain..." That form must have died before I was born.

 

[KEN JPN]

Thank you for your advice.

>"Should it rain tomorrow, I will have to cancel my plans".

In textbook English I learned with, it should be:
Should it rain tomorrow, I would have to cancel my plans.

This is because
1, "Should it rain = If it should rain"--- "IF" with very small possibility or probability.
(= I don't think it will rain tomorrow but should it rain )
2, Under such small possibility, the main clause will be conditional past.

However, I now learned that "Should SV" can also be used like that.

>'rain' in that sentence is a bare infinitive, not a subjunctive.

Sorry, I do not agree with that.
"bare infinitive' is a form of a verb, not a 'mood'.
A bare infinitive is used in many cases like
1, Come here right away. ---bare infinitive for imperative mood
2, I saw him cross the street. (< 'cross' is not the predicate verb of the sentence, so no mood with it.)
3, If it rain tomorrow, ... (archaic) --- bare infinitive for subjunctive present mood
etc.

When a verb is used as a predicate of a sentence, it should always have some 'mood'.
So should the 'rain' in "if it rain tomorrow" too.

 

[Barb_D]

Clearly, I need a lesson in the difference between the subjunctive and the conditional.
If she has money, she'll buy something - I thought this was a conditional. You don't know if she has money or not, but if she does, she'll do something. Just like you don't know if it will rain tomorrow. If it rains tomorrow, we'll cancel the picnic.

If she had money, she would buy something - I would have said this, a situation counter to fact, is the subjunctive. She does not have money, but if she did... etc.

If she had had money, she would have bought something - I would have said this was also the subjunctive, a past situation counter to fact.

But all these "archaic" examples being referred to as the subjunctive confuse me.

Help?

 

[KEN JPN]

Whatever our native language is, we speak following our ears, not grammar books.
This is really true.

My teacher used to say,
"Grammar is not a set of 'rules' but a collection of 'tendencies' how people speak that language. So, when you learn English grammar, do not try to learn any rules by heart without trying to think the psychological, cultural background and reasons."

As a background of the fact that the subjunctive has been being replaced with indicative, there must be some psychological reasons for that, which I want to know.

"We say so because we say so." is not the answer I am looking for here.
I guess it is very difficult to put into words what English natives are 'unconsciously' doing, because they don't even notice it.

Anyway, every word you people here gives me is unexceptionally very instructive for me. I do appreciate everyone's posting here so much.

 

[SoothingDave]

Clearly, I need a lesson in the difference between the subjunctive and the conditional.
If she has money, she'll buy something - I thought this was a conditional. You don't know if she has money or not, but if she does, she'll do something. Just like you don't know if it will rain tomorrow. If it rains tomorrow, we'll cancel the picnic.

If she had money, she would buy something - I would have said this, a situation counter to fact, is the subjunctive. She does not have money, but if she did... etc.

If she had had money, she would have bought something - I would have said this was also the subjunctive, a past situation counter to fact.

But all these "archaic" examples being referred to as the subjunctive confuse me.

Help?

It certainly is difficult to attempt to explain why people stopped using archaic forms, when I didn't even know some of them existed!

 

[KEN JPN]

Do you usually distinguish them, which one to use when?
I mean, do you feel any difference about the possibility or probability of "if"?

If it rains tomorrow,
Should it rain tomorrow, (=if it should rain tomorrow)
Were it to rain tomorrow, (=if it were to rain tomorrow)


According to what I learned at school, these three are different like below:

1, I don't know whether it will rain tomorrow or not, but there is no wonder if it will.
If it rains tomorrow, I will stay home. (If not, I will go out. I can't tell which it will be.)

2, The sky is clear. I see a lot of stars in the sky. I don't think it will rain tomorrow.
But if it should rain tomorrow, I would have to stay home. (I don't think I will, though.)

3, I am sure it won't rain tomorrow. The weather forecast says, it will be fine with 100% probability. The weather map show a high pressure area covers the country.
Were it to rain to tomorrow, I would jump into the river from that bridge!

Any advice will be welcome!

 

[KEN JPN]

It certainly is difficult to attempt to explain why people stopped using archaic forms, when I didn't even know some of them existed!

Oh, that is a very reasonable (rational?) comment.
I should ask people in 16th century or before. (LOL)

But I learned a very important thing:
Contemporary English natives originally started to use the predicative for subjunctive, without knowing the existence of it. Actually, this is a very interesting fast, which suggests me a lot of linguistic matters.

 

[SoothingDave]

I would only distinguish between #1 and #3. #2 isn't really a natural utterance for me at all.

So there is only the "if" which means there is a probability and the "were" which is more of a counterfactual thing.

 

[5jj]

Clearly, I need a lesson in the difference between the subjunctive and the conditional.
If she has money, she'll buy something - I thought this was a conditional.
It is a conditional sentence (or, at least, that is one label often applied to such a sentence, and many would call it a 'first condition[al])'.

If she had money, she would buy something - I would have said this, a situation counter to fact, is the subjunctive. She does not have money, but if she did... etc.
This is also a conditional sentence, and many would call it a 'second condition[al]'. The verb 'had' is said by some to be in the subjunctive mood. However, as the only verb in English that has recognisably different forms in the past indicative and the past subjunctive is BE (I was - indicative; I were - subjunctive) some of us question the value of calling this a subjunctive form

If she had had money, she would have bought something - I would have said this was also the subjunctive, a past situation counter to fact.
This is also a conditional sentence, and many would call it a 'third condition[al]'. Once again, some would call 'had had' a subjunctive form; as it is identical to the indicative form, some of us do not see the point.

5

 

[KEN JPN]

Language evolves.

I do agree. It also applies to Japanese.
However the evolving speed of English is much faster than I have imagined.
What was wrong in the textbook which I learned with in my high school is already correct today.

"I play guitar" was regarded, and is even now at most schools in Japan, wrong.
Students are taught that it should be "I play THE guitar", using the 'instrumental THE'.
If the write "I play guitar", most teachers would not give a score, even though "play guitar" is far more often used than "play the guitar" both in US and UK today (according to what I searched on the net).