0

In the sentence "the tradition wants that it be always the same person who handles the teapot" (where "be" is a subjunctive), I was wondering if "handles" should not be replaced by the subjunctive "handle" too.

Andy
  • 51
  • I can suddenly see why so many people are totally abandoning what distinguished grammarians say is misnamed the 'English subjunctive'. 'Tradition requires / The tradition is that it should always be the same person who handles the teapot.' – Edwin Ashworth Dec 30 '15 at 12:17
  • 5
    I've never heard of tradition wanting anything. As expected, there are dozens of written instances of tradition requires that it be (whatever tradition requires), but not a single one for tradition wants that it be (so). – FumbleFingers Dec 30 '15 at 12:32
  • Well, the question is left wanting. – Andy Dec 30 '15 at 13:13
  • Ya' could eliminate the subjunctive altogether and say simply, "The tradition is for the same person to handle the teapot." (Or am I oversimplifying?) Don – rhetorician Dec 30 '15 at 13:26
  • 1
    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=tradition+wants%2Ctradition+demands%2Ctradition+requires%2Ctradition+asks&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ctradition%20wants%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ctradition%20demands%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ctradition%20requires%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ctradition%20asks%3B%2Cc0 – TimR Dec 30 '15 at 13:28

2 Answers2

3

The verb in the relative clause (who handles) is unaffected by the verb in the main clause, wants, or be in it be. The verb could be an infinitive "...that it be the same person to handle the tea pot" or a participle "...that it be the same person handling ..." or simple present "...that it be the same person who handles the teapot." That verb is part of a phrase modifying person.

P.S. You might also find a modal:

"...that it be the same person who should handle the teapot."

TimR
  • 21,116
  • Well, in a "latin" analysis "who handles" (or "who handle") does belong to the hypothetical relative clause. That's why in French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. the verb to handle is also in the subjunctive mood. (La tradition veut que ce soit la même personne qui prenne...) – Andy Dec 30 '15 at 13:32
  • 1
    It ain't Latin. – TimR Dec 30 '15 at 13:34
  • This is a good answer. However, I have heard structures to the tune of, "...that it always be the same person that handle the teapot." Incorrect? Maybe. American usage? To an extent. – Chuckk Hubbard Jun 30 '18 at 10:01
  • @Chuck Hubbard. I am a speaker of American English and the subjunctive does come naturally to me, but that it be the same person that handle seems rather antique to me. – TimR Jun 30 '18 at 12:52
-1

The subjunctive mood is also known as the conjunctive mood because the mood is mostly found in clauses introduced by a conjunction.

Your example:

The tradition wants that it be always the same person who handles the teapot.

The word that is a conjunction that leads the following subjunctive mood clause.

However, the word who is a restrictive subjective relative pronoun which could introduce only something that is actually the case or that is actually not the case, which is called the indicative mood.

[Wikipedia, Wiktionary]

Daniel Asimov
  • 268
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
    English, unlike many other languages, doesn't have a subjunctive mood (or a conjunctive mood.) It does have different ways of constructing sentences with different tense inflections, but giving them the label 'subjunctive' is just misleading and confusing. – curiousdannii Dec 30 '15 at 12:22
  • @curiousdannii I have seen a few who say there is no subjunctive mood in English. I respectfully disagree with them and I know it is fading away, but it does exist. I will elaborate on it further if need be. –  Dec 30 '15 at 12:24
  • 1
    If there is a grammatical mood, then what are its inflections? No, there are just alternate ways to use the standard tenses. – curiousdannii Dec 30 '15 at 12:26
  • @curiousdannii I 110% understand what you are suggesting. However, it is difficult to explain if need be without using the subjunctive mood. There are other cases. –  Dec 30 '15 at 12:29
  • I'm happy to call it a "subjunctive" construction for lack of an alternative label, just not a mood. But anyways, it doesn't matter. Sorry for the fuss. – curiousdannii Dec 30 '15 at 12:35
  • 1
    @Rathony: This page explains If need(s) be as an "idiom", meaning that it's effectively a "set phrase" adhering to the obsolete syntax that once allowed us to say If it be right (which no-one ever says now; the modern version is If it is* right*). – FumbleFingers Dec 30 '15 at 12:39
  • @FumbleFingers I know it is an idiom. But originally it comes from the Subjunctive Present tense which is now 99% dead with only residual expressions such as if need be, be it enough to say that..., suffice it to say that....or suffice it that.... –  Dec 30 '15 at 12:49
  • 1
    You're not understanding what people are saying here. Many (eg Huddlestone and Pullum) are not saying 'The subjunctive usages are dying out'; they're saying 'These usages are so dissimilar to subjunctive usages in Latin that the term is incorrect'. Oh, and they seem to be on the decline, whatever we call them. – Edwin Ashworth Dec 30 '15 at 12:53
  • @EdwinAshworth You are wrong to say that I don't understand it. What did I comment to Curiousdanni in my second comment? Do I have any obligation to follow those who say what you commented? No. Never. –  Dec 30 '15 at 12:58
  • @rathony Your answer is clear. If I understand well, I should leave "handles" (which was the first solution my ear suggested), and not replace it with "handle" (which a "latin" analysis would suggest, because it would be correct in latin based languages). – Andy Dec 30 '15 at 13:10
  • @Andy Grammar rules and terms can never explain everything 100%. There are those who believe in grammar rules and terms as if they were some kind of religion. There are many theories in religion and people choose them whatever way they like. As long as they make sense to you, I think they are OK. I don't think we should force others to follow what we feel is right. –  Dec 30 '15 at 13:18
  • @FumbleFingers We no longer say "If it be right...", but we still say "Lest I be right, I won't suggest anything more..." :-) – Andy Dec 30 '15 at 13:26
  • @Andy I agree. The Ngram Viewer supports your comment. There is no reason to use be after it. Lest is a completely different story. FF says which no-one ever says now. –  Dec 30 '15 at 13:29
  • @Andy: Lest others be misled, I think it should be pointed out that we don't still use forms like that (except facetiously! :) – FumbleFingers Dec 30 '15 at 13:51
  • @rathony Your comment 'But originally it comes from the Subjunctive Present tense which is now 99% dead' fails to accept that many grammarians (eg John Lawler) believe there never was one in English in the first place. Look at my first comment of three hours ago for a statement which isn't an arrogation about there being an English subjunctive. – Edwin Ashworth Dec 30 '15 at 15:29