A student enrolled in my foundational grammar course “Core Concepts of English” recently asked me a question about the English subjunctive grammatical mood.
If you have taken “Core Concepts of English,” you would know that finite verbs with subjunctive verb forms express “imaginary” meanings.
We obviously can’t go into the forms and meanings here because that is a big topic. I just want to make a very relevant general point in this email about the subjunctive in current English -- which is that this grammatical mood is no longer a consistent grammatical category now.
In the language produced by native speakers now (across all varieties of English), subjunctive finite verb forms do not consistently appear and do not have consistent meanings when they do appear. As in, in current English, imaginary meanings are primarily expressed through context with or without subjunctive forms (or with a mixture of subjunctive forms and normal indicative forms). This, again, just has to do with language change and is not “bad.”
The student asked about this lyric from a children’s song her daughter was learning to sing:
“If I visit the moon, I will dance on a moonbeam… and I’ll wish I was home again”
「如果我到月亮上，我會踏着月光跳舞……然後，我會希望自己再次回到家。」
Specifically, she asked which -- if any -- of the finite verbs in clauses of the quoted lyric are in subjunctive form, and, if they are not in subjunctive form, whether the clauses still correctly express these clearly imaginary actions.
It is very hard for me to answer questions about the subjunctive precisely because it is no longer a consistent grammatical category in current English, so we can find all sorts of real-life examples -- all of perfectly natural English -- with mixed uses of the subjunctive.
Regarding this line of lyric, the first thing we need to establish is that this is a perfectly natural line in current English, and the “imaginary” scenario is conveyed very clearly to the listener with no ambiguity.
Actually, none of the finite verbs are in subjunctive mood.
The finite verbs “visit,” “will dance,” and “will wish” are clearly not in subjunctive mood -- they are normal indicative verb forms in present tense and future tense.
Even though these finite verbs are “normal” and not in subjunctive form, they are perfectly capable of conveying “imaginary” actions just through the context and the conjunction “if” alone. To a native speaker, this all sounds very natural.
The subjunctive version of this sentence would be:
“If I visited the moon, I would dance on a moonbeam…”
…with the (simple aspect) subjunctive form “visited” and the corresponding “would dance” with the modal verb “would,” whose main function is to express a subjunctive meaning.
The way to understand this is that imaginary scenarios can be expressed with or without (or with a mixture of) subjunctive forms now (as evinced by the song lyric, which expresses an imaginary scenario without the subjunctive at all), but the tone conveyed by the speaker/writer can be different depending on what forms are used.
For example, in this specific case, using normal indicative forms to express “visiting the moon” fits the tone of a child very well -- it is almost like the child is imagining doing this in real life; expressing this with the subjunctive forms “visited” and “would dance” makes the imagined scenario a bit more “distant” in tone and more “deliberately expressed as imaginary.”
What about the form “was” in the last clause?
I am also always asked about this -- and this is another thing that is always hard to explain because it takes several logical steps.
First, we have to understand that the subjunctive form of the verb “be” is “were” -- there is only one form for all persons, so it would be “if he were,” “if she were,” etc. There is no “was.”
“However,” because every other verb’s subjunctive form is actually completely identical to the normal, indicative past tense form -- “visited,” “did,” “won” etc. -- AND because the subjunctive is no longer a consistent category in English now, native speakers tend to also use the form “was” instead of the actual subjunctive form “were” when the subject normally takes “was” in past tense -- like saying “if I was” instead of the “proper” version “if I were.”
So, no, originally, “was” is not a subjunctive form at all -- but because the subjunctive is no longer consistent in current English, native speakers have co-opted it when the subject is “I,” “he,” “she” etc. to express what the subjunctive “were” expresses.
As in, “was” is meant by native speakers now as subjunctive even though it is not actually a subjunctive form (the subjunctive form of “be” is only “were”).
Again, there is nothing “bad” about this. This is just language change. The subjunctive form of “be” is historically just “were” -- so it would be “if I were the Queen” -- but, when native speakers now say “if I was the Queen,” it is accepted, and the meaning is 100% clear.
Of course, if you want to be careful in situations in which readers/listeners might “judge” you for using the “wrong” subjunctive form, you should be careful; but that is a matter of the social side of language and not about actual changing grammar.
Finally, I want to point out that native speakers often express imaginary scenarios with a mixture of finite forms now, and there is often no discernible difference in meaning.
For example:
If I visited the moon, I would dance on a moonbeam.
If I visit the moon, I would dance on a moonbeam.
「如果我去了月球，我會踏着月光跳舞。」
The top sentence has the subjunctive form “visited” in the first clause, followed by “would dance” in the next one. The bottom sentence has no subjunctive form in the first clause -- just the normal present tense “visit” -- followed by “would dance” also.
These two sentences have no functional difference in meaning to native speakers now, and both are completely accepted -- even though the “proper” subjunctive one is the top one.
It is the same thing with different aspects when subjunctive forms are involved. For example:
If I had done that, I would not have won.
If I did that, I would not have won.
「如果我當時那樣做了，我就不會贏了。」
The top sentence has the subjunctive form in perfect aspect “had done” in the first clause, and “would not have won” -- which is also in perfect aspect -- in the second clause. The bottom sentence has the subjunctive from in simple aspect “did” in the first clause -- which originally only expresses “open” imaginary actions and not “completed” imaginary actions -- followed by the perfect aspect “would not have won.”
These two sentences also have no functional difference in meaning to native speakers now, and both are completely accepted -- even though the “proper” one is the top one.
The overall point is that, in current English, the subjunctive is not a consistent grammatical category, and native speakers use a variety of subjunctive and non-subjunctive forms to express imaginary meanings, with many ways of expressing these meanings being functionally identical.
My conclusion to the student is that she doesn’t need to be too caught up in subjunctive forms, what they mean, and when they should be used to express imaginary scenarios in light of this inconsistency now. She can a bit more careful in certain “formal” situations, but, all in all, the more important thing is to understand how imaginary scenarios are actually expressed in English now, which is, with a mixture of subjunctive and non-subjunctive forms.
今天的 email 是一段較長的文法討論！
最近，一位修讀過我的基礎文法課程《英文概論課程》的學生，問了我一個關於英文假設語氣 (subjunctive) 的問題。
如果你修讀過《英文概論課程》，你會知道，帶有 subjunctive 字形的限定動詞會表達想象意思。
我們當然不可能在這裏詳細講解這些字形和意思，因為這是一個很大的課題。我在這裏只想提出一個與此非常相關、關於現今英文中 subjunctive 的整體重點——就是這種文法語氣在今天已經不再是一個一致的文法類別。
在現今母語者所產生的語言中（無論是哪一種母語英文種類），subjunctive 的限定動詞字形多數不會一致地出現；即使出現，所表達的意思也不一致。換句話說，在現今英文裏，「想象」意思主要是透過語境表達的：可以有 subjunctive 字形，也可以沒有，亦可以混合使用 subjunctive 字形和一般陳述語氣（indicative）字形。這只是反映語言文法演變，並不是「不好」的英文。
這位學生問到她女兒正在學唱的一首兒歌裏的一句歌詞：
“If I visit the moon, I will dance on a moonbeam… and I’ll wish I was home again.”
「如果我到月亮上，我會踏着月光跳舞……然後，我會希望自己再次回到家。」
她具體想問的是：這句歌詞各個子句裏的限定動詞，究竟有沒有任何一個用了 subjunctive 字形？如果沒有，這些子句是否仍然能夠正確表達這些顯然是想象的動作？
我一向都覺得很難回答有關 subjunctive 的問題，正正是因為 subjunctive 在現今英文裏已經不再是一個一致的文法類別。因此，我們在真實語言中可以找到各式各樣的例子——全部都是完全自然的英文——當中會混合使用不同的 subjunctive 和非 subjunctive 字形來表達想象意思。
關於這句歌詞，我們首先需要確立的是：這是一句完全自然的現今英文，而當中的「想象」情境亦非常清楚地傳達給聽者，沒有任何含糊之處。
其實，當中的限定動詞沒有一個用了 subjunctive 字形。
限定動詞 “visit”、 “will dance” 和 “will wish” 顯然都不是 subjunctive 字形——它們只是一般陳述語氣的 present tense 和 future tense 字形。
雖然這些限定動詞都是「一般」字形，並不是 subjunctive 字形，但它們單靠語境和連接詞 “if”，已經完全能夠表達「想象」動作。對母語者來說，整句聽起來非常自然。
這句句子的 subjunctive 版本會是：
“If I visited the moon, I would dance on a moonbeam…”
當中包括 subjunctive 字形 “visited”，以及相應的 “would dance”，即有情態動詞 “would” 的限定動詞組，而 “would” 的主要功能正是配合表達 subjunctive 意思。
我們可以這樣理解：在現今英文裏，想象情境可以有 subjunctive 字形，也可以沒有，亦可以混合使用不同字形。正如這句歌詞所顯示，它完全沒有使用 subjunctive 字形，但仍然清楚表達了一個想象情境。不過，說話者或作者使用不同字形時，所傳達的語調可以有所不同。
例如，在這個具體例子裏，用一般陳述語氣字形表達「到月亮上」，非常符合小朋友的語調——感覺就像這個小朋友正在想象自己真的會到月亮上做這件事。相反，如果用 subjunctive 字形 “visited” 和 “would dance”，這個想象情境在語調上便會稍為「遙遠」一些，也更像是說話者刻意把它表達為一個想象情境。
那麼，最後一個子句裏的 “was” 又是甚麼情況呢？
我也經常被問到這個問題，而這亦是另一個很難解釋清楚的地方，因為當中涉及幾個邏輯步驟。
首先，我們需要明白，動詞 “be” 的 subjunctive 字形是 “were”——所有人稱都只有這一個字形，所以會是 “if he were”、 “if she were” 等等。Subjunctive 裏並沒有 “was” 這個字形。
「不過」，由於其他所有動詞的 subjunctive 字形，實際上都和一般陳述語氣的 past tense 字形完全一樣——例如 “visited”、 “did”、 “won” 等等——再加上 subjunctive 在現今英文裏已經不再是一個一致的類別，因此，當主語在一般 past tense 中本來會配搭 “was” 時，母語者也往往會用 “was” 代替真正的 subjunctive 字形 “were”。例如，他們會說 “if I was”，而不是原來 subjunctive 字形的 “if I were”。
所以，從原本的文法字形來說，“was” 根本不是 subjunctive 字形；但由於現今英文的 subjunctive 出現已經不再一致，母語者現在會借用 “was”，在主語是 “I” 或任何單數主語的情況下，表達原本由 subjunctive 字形 “were” 所表達的意思。
也就是說，母語者現在會把 “was” 當作 subjunctive 來使用，雖然它本身實際上並不是 subjunctive 字形——因為 “be” 的 subjunctive 字形本是 “were”。
同樣，這並沒有任何「不好」，這只是語言演變。從歷史字形來說，“be” 的 subjunctive 只有 “were”，所以會是 “if I were the Queen”；但當母語者現在說 “if I was the Queen” 時，這現在是同樣獲得接受的，而意思亦百分之百清楚。
當然，如果你身處某些讀者或聽者可能會因為你使用了「錯誤」subjunctive 字形而批評你的場合，那麼你便應該小心一點；但這屬於語言的社會層面，而不是實際文法本身的問題。
最後，我想指出，母語者現在經常會混合使用不同的限定動詞字形來表達想象情境，而不同說法之間往往沒有任何可辨別的意思差異。
例如：
If I visited the moon, I would dance on a moonbeam.
If I visit the moon, I would dance on a moonbeam.
「如果我去了月球，我會踏着月光跳舞。」
第一句的第一個子句使用了 subjunctive 字形 “visited”，下一個子句則使用 “would dance”。第二句的第一個子句沒有使用 subjunctive 字形，只是使用一般現在時態的 “visit”，下一個子句同樣使用 “would dance”。
對現今母語者來說，這兩句在功能和意思上沒有分別，而且兩句都完全可以接受——儘管從「標準」subjunctive 句子來說，第一句才是較「規整」的版本。
當 subjunctive 涉及不同體貌（aspect，即表達動作發生狀態的字形）時，情況也是一樣。例如：
If I had done that, I would not have won.
If I did that, I would not have won.
「如果我當時那樣做了，我就不會贏了。」
第一句的第一個子句使用了完成式（perfect）體貌的 subjunctive 字形 “had done”，第二個子句則使用 “would not have won”，同樣是完成式體貌。
第二句的第一個子句使用了簡單式（simple）體貌的 subjunctive 字形 “did”——這個字形原本只表達「開放空泛」的想象動作，而不是「在想象中已完成」的動作——但下一個子句卻使用完成式體貌的 “would not have won”。
對現今母語者來說，這兩句在功能和意思上同樣沒有分別，而且兩句都完全可以接受——儘管從「標準」subjunctive 來說，第一句才是較「正確」的版本。
整體重點是：在現今英文裏，subjunctive 已經不再是一個一致的文法類別。母語者會使用各種 subjunctive 和非 subjunctive 字形來表達想象意思，而不同的字形表達方式在功能上很多時候是完全相同的。
所以，我給這位學生的結論是：既然現今英文的 subjunctive 本身已經如此不一致，她不需要過分執着於某個字形究竟是不是 subjunctive、它表達甚麼意思，以及在甚麼情況下應該使用哪一種字形來表達想象情境。
在某些較「正式」、或者別人可能會對你的語言字形作出判斷的場合，她當然可以稍為小心一點；但總括而言，更重要的是理解現今英文實際上如何表達想象情境——也就是混合使用 subjunctive 和非 subjunctive 字形。