Re: [文法] 時態文法題

[l10nel (小失)]

收到 Geoffrey K. Pullum 教授(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_K._Pullum)
回覆賜教，全文實錄以資參考。


Dear Professor Pullum,


I thought that recent literature in descriptive English grammar could not be
clearer on what the subjunctive mood is and is not.  But I realize that many,
including teachers, have abused the term by calling certain constructions
subjunctive when they aren't.  One instance of such failure is brilliantly
refuted in your article, "Blithering idiocy on the subjunctive" on the
Language Log.  Recently I encountered another example of this
miscategorization:  In a forum discussing English grammar, someone claimed
that the following three sentences are "subjunctive mood" (specifically,
subjunctive in the "if" clause and also subjunctive in the main clause):


1) If there is an earthquake tomorrow, we will have worked in vain.
2) If there is an earthquake tomorrow, we will have worked in vain today.
3) If there is an earthquake tomorrow, we will have worked in vain yesterday.


When I pointed out that these are simply indicative mood, the claimant sought
support from a linguist and English grammar book author, who replied:


"We classify as 'indicative' any sentence that makes a statement. Because the
sample sentences include a statement, they could be classified as indicative.
 The problem is that the statements in these sentences are based on a
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^
conditional and on this account are more accurately classified as being in
^^^^^^^^^^^                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the subjunctive mood, not the indicative."  [emphasis mine]


I am dumbfounded by this indiscriminate equating of a conditional
construction with the subjunctive mood by a professional in this field.  I
believe that calling any statement based on a conditional the subjunctive
mood is blatantly wrong, rather than "a more accurate way" of looking at the
three example sentences.  It worries me that the mistaken belief may be more
widespread among the English-teaching community than I thought.  However, to
err on the side of caution, I would like to seek confirmation from you to
help dispel such a misconception.  I hope to hear your advice.


=====================================
回覆：


"More accurately classified as" indeed!  You're being bullshitted.
People are so confused about this.


Once upon a time, English speakers said things like "If it be
true...", and there one needs an explanation for why the verb form is
"be" rather than "is".  So this would be like "It is vital that he be
told", where again the verb form is "be", not "is", and it makes sense
to say we have a subjunctive construction that demands the plain form,
not the 3rd singular present form.


But today we say "if it is true...", and a lot of people say "It is
vital that he is told", so the subjunctive construction has just
fallen out of use there.  But the person you consulted wants to say it
is "more accurately classified as" a subjunctive anyway, even with no
sign of any motivation. It isn't more accurately classified as a
subjunctive.  You're right, and the "professional" is wrong.


GKP



--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 76.198.133.1
→ tijj:ョxE(x) Λ ョw → V(w)
→ tijj:除了您引用的部份外,請問上面部份,是被截掉了? 教授的看法是?
→ tijj:我是不相信您會截斷啦
→ tijj:應該還是要誠實的完整而非片面呈現Williams教授的想法,也算是
→ tijj:基本做人對他的一種尊重,無論主流派或非主流派.能任教在UCLA,
→ tijj:當過Stanford Univ等名校研究會士/院士,應該還值得這種尊重才
→ tijj:是.
→ l10nel:我另發文回了,指出此邏輯式不僅無關且格式錯誤,空洞無意義.
→ tijj:(抱歉  我推錯篇 寫在18004)
→ tijj:我應該還算是有寫清楚,就是還是想聽教授的說法.因為就算是
→ tijj:Williams教授的嚴重「錯誤」主張,汙染太多人,那也還是他的
→ tijj:勇敢非主派主張.他擺明就是不想當主派.美國的自由學術學風
→ tijj:也並不會因為是非主派,就必須要被錯誤不認同.或許如主派所
→ tijj:聲稱,很多人包含許多老師都搞混了,那不也是個好機會來加以
→ tijj:解釋. 但,為何要片面截斷詢問? 網路無遠弗界
→ tijj:http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Eng-Class/index902.html
→ tijj:從這裡推敲,都可以知道你與Pullum教授信中所指的專家就是
→ tijj:Williams教授,事實上,我以美國律師的經驗忠告您,就是
→ tijj:您這樣的行為已經涉及詆毀之嫌,雖沒指名,但從網址推敲
→ tijj:都可以知道你與Pullum教授信中所指的專家就是Williams教授
→ tijj:您未全盤詢問乃為事實,使得Pullum教授有[But...]那段話,其實
→ tijj:對Williams教授是非常嚴重的傷害.

Thank you for your “legal advice”.  Tell me, in which state are you
admitted to the bar?

You say that I have defamed Williams.  (I will refer to California law
because that is what I’m familiar with and because I live in California.)
 Tell me, what false publication have I made? (Cal. Civil Code sec. 45.)
 (Note that an omission cannot be a publication.)  Is it defamatory on its
face? (Cal. Civil Code sec. 45a.)  If so, how so?  If not, what special
damages has Williams suffered?  (Cal. Civil Code sec. 45a, 48a(4)(b).)

The actual legal definition of defamation is so far from anything I have done
as to make me doubt your understanding of the law.

You, on the other hand, have accused me of dishonesty (不誠實) and
fabrication (造假): “→ tijj:不誠實跟造假還真是你的專長啊 :) [12/20 19:06].”
 This seems considerably closer to defamation on its face.


※ 編輯: l10nel          來自: 76.198.133.1         (12/22 17:19)
→ tijj:13277 文章代碼(AID): #1EpYLKx
→ tijj:未誠實呈現我的原始context,然後問完說來源者(我)想法是錯.
→ tijj:14200 文章代碼(AID): #1FGWSJ9V
→ tijj:"The person quoting you believes that your earlier
→ tijj:response is proof that this sentence is perfectly
→ tijj:fine to appear in the scholastic ability test for
→ tijj:English"
→ tijj:所以the person是我,當時是我引用Watkins教授的話, 但我可不
→ tijj:覺得認為出在考題是完美的好. 我很遺憾與您討論問題,不知道
→ tijj:為什麼最後都會是某一方「先」出現「不誠實」的言論.
→ tijj:還有,我不覺得您會進去修改,我對上兩篇文章都已做了備份為據.
敬告 tijj：

我上面指出和誹謗相關的法條，並嚴肅請你具體陳述你指控我「涉及詆毀之嫌」（你的後
文明顯指的是「詆譭Williams」）的根據在哪，引用法條中的哪一點、哪個定義，並有什
麼法理。

然你上述回答完全迴避我對你的挑釁提出的嚴肅法律問題，卻裝迷糊扯到和Williams無關
的另兩則討論內容，無理取鬧，增加我的困擾、擾人心神，為的就是騷擾恐嚇。

故我在此要嚴正對你提出忠告：你若再一次做出明知沒有法理根據的法律威脅，就是繼續
假借法律之名，行挑釁、滋擾、恐嚇、阻撓言論自由之實，目的在妨礙他人為研討英文所
做的自由論述、發表意見和評論，使人心生畏懼，不敢以具體論點挑戰你或你引述的見解
。這種威嚇行為不消說早已違背自由討論的精神，若非已觸犯板規，則明顯在挑戰板規。

煩請板主明察並同警示之。


※ 編輯: l10nel          來自: 76.198.133.1         (12/23 16:00)
→ tijj:(抱歉,我突然發現不知為何,我無法寫私下信給您) 謝謝敬告.
→ tijj:http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Eng-Class/M.1322132820.A.EE9.html
→ tijj:http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Eng-Class/M.1329727251.A.25F.html
→ tijj:之所以會選擇引用上述兩篇文章,是因您先前已有這些不妥行為:
→ tijj:「改掉我原先的context去問人,問完說來源者(我)想法錯」
→ tijj:「說我認為該題出在考試是完美的好」, 因已有兩次這樣的記錄
→ tijj:可以輔助判斷,您回覆我的發言時的意圖,是否正當性記錄足夠.
→ tijj:我不願看到這次的討論又淪為類似局面.我與您較長的討論串,
→ tijj:因你我各為主辯方,我有權要求當您引用我的資料來源時,必須
→ tijj:是盡可能的完整呈現.所以我"恐嚇、阻撓言論自由", 這說法
→ tijj:可能太過嚴重了. 所謂自由是建立在正當性充足的前提下,當
→ tijj:正當性不足,就不太應該再用自由二字來包裝.每個人的確有發
→ tijj:言權,但自己不確定是否滿足正當性,不應該是他人的義務或教導
→ tijj:之責. 我忠告您,您可以選擇無視我的忠告.繼續暢所欲言.
→ tijj:愛怎麼引用就怎麼引用,愛怎麼改就怎麼改.
→ tijj:還有,我提到您涉及詆毀之「嫌」≠您詆毀人. 您說我:
→ tijj:"You say that I have defamed Williams" 我可沒這樣說.
→ tijj:這可能也是您的不當回應.是否又涉法? 就留給您求證.
→ tijj:實務上,若您選擇興訟,或建議我主動提起興訟以捍衛您的正當性,
→ tijj:或許是個不錯的選擇,也請讓我知道,我會在此等你.