Pedants' Paradise

[jean]

Yes of course. And Pinker is a linguist, and knows all that.

The silliness must be Conrad's. But Pinker must have quoted Churchill - I wonder what he really did say?

[Beef Oven!]

If Churchill was speaking in the second person, wouldn't he have said 'you will never surrender'?

This sort of thing is not my strong-point

[jean]

You're a better grammarian than Peter Conrad!

[Pabmusic]

You're a better grammarian than Peter Conrad!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

If Churchill was speaking in the second person, wouldn't he have said 'you will never surrender'?

This sort of thing is not my strong-point

Neither is the subjunctive.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

If Churchill was speaking in the second person, wouldn't he have said 'you will never surrender'?

This sort of thing is not my strong-point

Neither is the subjunctive.

[jean]

Beefy just knows instinctively that the sentence he wants to write is not the right place for the sort of subjunctive you'd like him to have written.

If Churchill were speaking... is appropriate as part of an unreal condition referring to present time. It needs to be followed by wouldn't he say? which would be all wrong as Churchill is dead and incapable of saying anything.

He could of course have said (Beefy that is, not Churchill) If Churchill had been speaking... but then you couldn't have told whether it was subjunctive or not.

.

[mangerton]

This is a fascinating thread. I remember my father expounding the shall/will rule to me, as given above by Jean.

And the pluperfect.... It seems to me it is much under-used today, and what a useful tense it is.

If I were in charge (subj. ) I should attempt to widen its use.

[jean]

...I should attempt to widen its use.

And the use of the 'traditional' shall/will rule as well, I see.

But the trouble with using should as part of first-person shall is that it collides with the much more common use of should for obligation, and can be ambiguous.

[Serial_Apologist]

the subjunctive...

http://www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/subjunctive.html

Oh well, I'm only a writer

[mangerton]

[I]
But the trouble with using should as part of first-person shall is that it collides with the much more common use of should for obligation, and can be ambiguous.

Yes, indeed. I should of ( ) thought of that.

[Nick Armstrong]

Yes, indeed. I should of ( ) thought of that.

Shouldn't you be queuing at the polling station?

(Perhaps you are, and you're tapping on yer handheld android!)

[vinteuil]

My father was a stickler for "I should like / We should like... " ; he objected to "I would like / We would like... " on the grounds that "I would / We would... " already contains the element of liking, willing. I find as a consequence I usually say "I should like... " - but am not overly irritated by those who opt for "I would like..."

[jean]

He could have avoided the problem by always opting for I'd like...

It used to amuse me when I was teaching abroad and a student would approach me at the end of a class with the rather Shakespearean 'I would speak with you...'

[vinteuil]

He could have avoided the problem by always opting for I'd like...

... not so easy given his formal manner of speech - and not easy in formal or semi-formal writing!