> English has ... subjunctive / conjunctive / conditional («went» in «as if they went»)
That isn't the English subjunctive.
You're correct that this construction expresses the same thing that another language might express by marking a non-indicative mood on the verb, but it would not conventionally be said to use a non-indicative mood. That went is a normal past-tense indicative verb and the modality is expressed by the whole structure of the clause, not just by the inflection of the verb.
In linguistics there's a whole set of parallel vocabulary where one set is for grammatical forms and the mirror set is for the semantics usually expressed by those forms. So you have grammatical "tense" and semantic "time" or grammatical "mood" and semantic "modality". You got the modality right, but not the mood.
Compare the conventional analysis that he will be there tomorrow expresses future time, but is not in future tense because there is no English future tense.
No, it is not a proper English subjunctive (a correct example would have been «as if they were» – past subjunctive) or «[we suggested] that they go».
I deliberately lumped subjunctive, conjunctive, and conditional together for brevity. Part of the problem is that many English speakers do not differentiate between subjunctive and conjunctive (conditional) and incorrectly label the latter as subjunctive, but that happens because English does not have a conjunctive (conditional) mood.
English subjunctive is translated into other Indo-European languages either as the conjunctive or indicative mood, as there is no 1:1 mapping in existence.
It does, but like some other English inflectional patterns the syntax is mostly vestigial.
All I ask is that the two of you be polite to each other has be in subjunctive mood; if it were indicative, it would be are instead.
Something that I find interesting is that, while conjugating verbs for mood is largely vestigial in English, the more general phenomenon of paying close attention to the relationship between the sentence and reality, the focus that mood expresses, is very much alive. It's just that it's mostly moved out of the inflectional system.
It has constructs for a few different moods/modes[1], but no conjugation: the morphology used to form moods is borrowed from other verb forms (in your example, the bare infinitive) that were never (as far as I know!) dedicated mood conjugations.
[1]: pedantically they are ‘modes’ in the linguistic jargon, but often referred to as ‘moods’ in discussions of English grammar: linguistically a mood is the grammatical morphology used to signify a mode, which English lacks.
> It has constructs for a few different moods/modes[1], but no conjugation: the morphology used to form moods is borrowed from other verb forms (in your example, the bare infinitive) that were never (as far as I know!) dedicated mood conjugations.
Well, this is mixing an argument about the facts with an argument about the history.
On the facts this is a mood expressed by conjugating the verb. It obviously isn't an infinitive form because it's a finite verb. It is identical with the infinitive form, and this is a general rule of English (only observable with this one verb), but there's nothing stopping different forms from being identical, even identical by rule. In Latin the nominative and accusative case of a neuter noun are always identical.
Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse matters — by pulling in the etymology of the morphology I was trying to be generous to the argument. Namely, I thought there might be a chance that the bare infinitive in e.g. the conditional mood is derived from an older true mood (in the linguistic sense, i.e. a verb form that is sufficient to signify the mode), which I would consider a pretty reasonable justification for considering the bare infinitive there to be a true conditional mood, albeit one that happens to be identical to other forms. I couldn't find evidence for it though, and as far as I know it's not a common feature in other Germanic languages.
As for the syntactic argument — I think it would usually be said not to be the case due to the periphrastic nature of the construction. That is, it's not the verb conjugation itself that signifies the mode but the combination of a conjugation (that is used in a variety of different constructions) with the ‘that’ (or ‘would’, aut cetera, for other moods). As with a lot of these things, though, it's significantly a matter of the conventional definition of terms. For instance in English grammar the ‘full infinitive’ ‹to + bare infinitive› is usually considered a conjugation even though it includes an extra particle. Go figure :)
On that note, it's important to distinguish syntax from semantics: the term ‘bare infinitive’ doesn't mean that morphology is _semantically_ infinitive, the infinitive was just picked as the class representative to name that particular morphology, which is known as the ‘bare infinitive’ wherever it occurs. Ditto with ‘past participle’ and ‘present participle’, and especially ‘gerund’ (which is named after a grammatical function that doesn't even exist in English!).
> I thought there might be a chance that the bare infinitive in e.g. the conditional mood is derived from an older true mood...
CGEL says this:
Given that the three constructions in [24] always select identical verb-forms, it is inappropriate to take imperative, subjunctive, and infinitival as inflectional categories. That, however, is what the traditional grammar does, again retaining distinctions that were valid at an earlier stage of the language but have since been lost
[I'm taking a position that disagrees with this one, but it does address the use of mood in earlier stages of English.]
I feel that that may not directly address your specific question, but it's hard to know what that question is, since English conditional clauses do not use the form you identify as 'bare infinitive'.
> ...an older true mood (in the linguistic sense, i.e. a verb form that is sufficient to signify the mode)
This doesn't make sense. A verb form is never sufficient to signify the semantic mode of a sentence. Nobody ever argues that Latin didn't have inflectional mood, but good luck identifying why a verb appears in the subjunctive if you can't see the rest of the sentence around it.
(There is a whole traditional taxonomy of different Latin subjunctives; the most common cases are conditional clauses, which use subjunctive mood to indicate counterfactuality, commands ("jussive subjunctive"), and wishes ("optative subjunctive"). Another case is "the verb is part of an indirect question". [Do indirect statements use subjunctive verbs? Nooooooooo...])
So, for English, we have a distinction in semantic modality that obligates us to use an exotically-conjugated verb. Why is this not an example of grammatical mood?
On further investigation I guess that Old English did indeed have a dedicated subjective conjugation, unique at least in the plural!
> good luck identifying why a verb appears in the subjunctive if you can't see the rest of the sentence around it.
The question of _why_ a verb is in a particular conjunction is one thing; the question of _whether_ a verb is conjugated, though, shouldn't really be in doubt.
> A verb form is never sufficient to signify the semantic mode of a sentence.
In languages with conjugated grammatical mood, the conjugation is indeed enough to signify the mood of the verb, just as in languages with conjugated past tense verbs in the past tense can be recognized by their conjugation.
> So, for English, we have a distinction in semantic modality that obligates us to use an exotically-conjugated verb. Why is this not an example of grammatical mood?
I think we might be talking at cross purposes. English certainly does have (several! though the precise set might depend on whom you ask) grammatical moods (in the English-grammar sense of grammatical constructions that convey mode). I don't know of anybody who argues that it doesn't. What English doesn't have, and Turkish (as well as Latin) does, is _conjugated_ mood, i.e. a particular mutation of verbs that associates a particular mode with that verb.
> I don't know any other language where flexible argument order would work so well.
What kind of sample size is that? A case system and flexible argument order are largely the same thing.
Note also that flexible argument order is a robust phenomenon in English:
1. Colonel Mustard killed him in the study at 5:00 with his own knife.
2. Colonel Mustard killed him at 5:00 in the study with his own knife.
3. Colonel Mustard killed him in the study with his own knife at 5:00.
4. Colonel Mustard killed him with his own knife at 5:00 in the study.
5. Colonel Mustard killed him at 5:00 with his own knife in the study.
6. Colonel Mustard killed him with his own knife in the study at 5:00.
But if you insist on looking in other languages, there's a famous Latin poem beginning Quis multa gracilis te puer in rosa perfusus liquidis urget odoribus grato, Pyrrha, sub antro?
Translating this as closely as possible to a one-word-for-one-word standard, it says What slender boy soaked [in] liquid odors presses you among many rose[s], Pyrrha, beneath [a] pleasant cave?
(Notes: rosa is singular for unclear reasons. There is nothing corresponding to the in of "in liquid odors"; the relationship between the odors and the soaking is expressed purely by case. There is also nothing corresponding to the article in "a pleasant cave"; Latin does not mark definiteness in this way. Location inside a cave is expressed with "beneath"; compare English underwater.)
Anyway, the actual word ordering, using this translation, is: What many slender you boy among rose[s] soaked liquid presses [in-]odors pleasant, Pyrrha, beneath [a-]cave?
I've heard that Russian poetry is given to similarly intricate word orderings.
> Ironically, the root of "salutation" in latin is "salutare," to wish good health.
This is an incomplete description. There is a Latin verb salvere, meaning "to be in good health".
The Latin word "hello" is salve, the direct imperative form of salvere. It is a command, not strictly a wish, to be well. It's essentially the exact equivalent of the English expression "farewell". (Except that it means "hello" rather than "goodbye".) And like "farewell", it is understood in the derived meaning, "hello", not in the literal meaning.
You could understand salvtare as meaning "to health someone" (it is technically derived from salvs "health", and not from salvere "to be healthy"), but you could also understand it as meaning "to say 'salve(te)'". It's relevant here that valere also means "to be healthy", and its imperative form vale means "goodbye", but salvtare is never going to refer to saying vale.
Lewis and Short doesn't distinguish the senses "wish health" and "greet"; salvtare does have a more direct health-related sense, but it is "to keep something safe" rather than "to wish something safety".
That entry also notes that the sense "keep safe" of salvtare derives from sense I.A. of salvs, '"being safe and sound, health, welfare, safety" in general', while the sense "wish health, greet, salute" derives from sense I.B., '"a wish for one's welfare, a greeting, salutation" in particular'.
(Tangentially, I was charmed by the second citation for salvs I.B.: Non ego svm salvtis dignvs? "Am I not worthy of a hello?")
> One thing I've observed is trying to arrange people to play board games is quite difficult because you can't predict how many people will show up. People get sick, misread the times, etc. And a lot of games are very sensitive to player count, so having 2 people too few or too many has the ability to make the game somewhat unplayable
You're trying to arrange the wrong type of event. A board game group plays a variable number of games simultaneously to accommodate the number of players each game can support. A board game group does not try to fit everyone into the same game as a matter of principle.
A legacy taxi firm faces extinction from ride-share apps. Instead of lobbying for regulations or cutting fares, they pivot to 'Executive Mobile Offices,' equipping luxury vans with high-speed Wi-Fi and desks for traveling executives. They stop fighting for general transport to create a new category.
[A] Lower fares to undercut ride-share apps
[B] Lobby the government for stricter industry laws
[C] Launch 'Executive Mobile Offices' for productivity
[D] Upgrade current fleet for better fuel efficiency
You might notice that there is no question. We have a case study, and then four multiple-choice "answers". Answers to what, we're not sure.
When there is a question, this format is the same thing you'd find in a textbook, except that the questions in a textbook have been chosen to be instructive and these questions haven't. Why is this beneficial? Content generation means you can generate a large number of questions of varying quality levels. But you only ask one, which removes your only theoretical advantage over a textbook, while imposing severe downsides.
For material that starts with "features don't matter", dynamic question generation sure feels like it was intended to help the marketing team rather than the user.
3. The market simulator reports "missed sales due to low stock" and "staff could not process orders". I find this annoying; if my staff are saturated, I can't be missing any sales due to low stock. It is admittedly useful to have perfect information about how many sales I could make with more staff.
After the "stock" bar is full, I can continue to produce more stock.
The only way to produce stock is to click a button that produces one stock. This should be fixed.
The event 'market downturn: demand collapsed' lasted for one day. This seems unreasonable. Maybe the unit of time should be months.
Does the math feel balanced?
The simulation feels extremely simplistic. If you have unmet demand, hire more workers. If you have idle workers, produce more stock. If you have excess stock, boost ads.
Can a scenario arise where it's not obvious what you should do?
-----------------
There is a typo, "encaging", in one of the early lessons.
> cancel culture is a modern phenomenon that is facilitated by modern media formats -- it could not have existed earlier.
> shaming is about making a persons' opinion known to the public to receive outcry. Cancel culture includes deplatforming, legal action, soap-boxing, algorithmic suppression, networked coordination between nodes, and generally the crowds exert institutional pressures against the targets' backing structure rather than to the person themselves or individuals near them in order to get their target fired or minimized somehow.
Eiji Yoshikawa's 1939 novel depicts a woman who follows Musashi around Japan waging a campaign to smear him over something he didn't do, ultimately preventing him from being hired into a lord's retinue.
> I thought the reason for this to be a visa is because their fields' activities were in-person (acting in movies/plays/shows, academic life & research, sports training & leagues, etc). A streamer / OF worker is not like that as far as I know
An OnlyFans worker may make the bulk of her money by meeting fans in person for dates. That can't be done over the internet.
While possible to be for physical sex work, I think the previous commenter meant by meeting fans, would be like at a meet-and-greet at a Con, so they can further increase the parasocial relationship with the people giving them subscriptions, signing autographs. Also, they may be doing collabs with other content creators, just as comedians and actors will be on each others podcasts.
INA §212(a)(2)(D) renders inadmissible any alien who:
(i) is coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitution, or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status,
(ii) directly or indirectly procures or attempts to procure, or (within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status) procured or attempted to procure or to import, prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or receives or (within such 10-year period) received, in whole or in part, the proceeds of prostitution, or
(iii) is coming to the United States to engage in any other unlawful commercialized vice, whether or not related to prostitution
Obviously these people should be applying for EB-1s since that is the established visa program for prostitutes.
If they stream the sex on their OF feed, then it's not prostitution. Even if model is paid by the other person, it would be difficult to legally separate it from any other adult entertainment contract.
> An OnlyFans worker may make the bulk of her money by meeting fans in person for dates.
I don't believe it. Do you have any evidence? As I understand, the money is made two ways: (1) regular subscriptions and (2) whales that pay for extra content. Also, most of them have private chat and email, which I assume is serviced offshore from somewhere like the Philippines where it is cheap and easy to hire English speakers.
That isn't the English subjunctive.
You're correct that this construction expresses the same thing that another language might express by marking a non-indicative mood on the verb, but it would not conventionally be said to use a non-indicative mood. That went is a normal past-tense indicative verb and the modality is expressed by the whole structure of the clause, not just by the inflection of the verb.
In linguistics there's a whole set of parallel vocabulary where one set is for grammatical forms and the mirror set is for the semantics usually expressed by those forms. So you have grammatical "tense" and semantic "time" or grammatical "mood" and semantic "modality". You got the modality right, but not the mood.
Compare the conventional analysis that he will be there tomorrow expresses future time, but is not in future tense because there is no English future tense.
reply