Hi Parveen,
On Thursday 23 March 2006 06:47, Parveen Lallmamode wrote:
>
> I find it difficult to digest this construction even though I am not a
> prescriptivist. In Br Eng, we find the following construction for
> conditionals:
>
> If + past tense, ... would (verb). [if he came, we would go ....]
> If + past perfect, ... would have (+ past participle).[if he had come, we
> would have gone ]
>
> While in Am Eng, I was told that the conditionals can take the following
> forms:
>
> If + would (verb), ... would (verb). [if he would come, we would go ...]
> If + would have (+ past participle), ... + would have (+ past participle).
> [if he would have come, we would have gone ....]
You probably know this already, but what we are talking about here is not
really a conditional but a case of the rapidly retreating English subjunctive
(c.f. "If I *were* you...", "it is important that he *be* on time" etc.) i.e.
not strictly a conditional, but a "contrafactual".
In moving from "had" to "would" in American English, according to the theory I
read, English was just following the pattern of Frankish Latin, which
historically replaced the subjunctive with the conditional in certain cases
(e.g. "C'est possible que je *serais* bonne, si je *saurais* pourquoi", a
"would .. would" usage?)
As I recall, in the account I read, this was done in Frankish Latin under the
influence of the invading Germanic dialect. I don't think the same can be
true of Am. Eng., though :-) (and even the historical French case mystifies
me) because as far as I know modern German still uses the subjunctive (c.f.
"had"/"hätte") to express this meaning.
-Rob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2006 - 01:01:37 MET