The Semantics of What We Say

There is a big reason that I talk about the subjunctive and indicative moods in English a lot. It's not that I just want to talk about them—the main reason is that it is important to understand the semantics behind what we say so that our meaning not become convolved or confused in any way.

Yes, it is true that English is a syncretic language; therefore the subjunctive plays a minute role, but what little of the subjunctive that we can see is important because if someone were to say it in the indicative one time and then the subjunctive the next, all of a sudden, it would be possible to have two statements that mean entirely different things. Here's a comparitive example:

Example: John, will you make sure that my son is buckled up? (This means semantically that the speaker wants John to check to see whether his son is buckled up.)

Example: John, will you make sure that my son be buckled up? (This means semantically that the speaker wants John to guarantee that his son will be buckled up.)

Again, normally we cannot notice this because of syncretism, but whenever we can, it is important that we differentiate between the two because of its semantic and syntactic differences. Normally, though, any idiot can understand the speaker's meaning by context. This is the one reason that the subjunctive, at least in English, is a moot point.

My biggest pet peeve, though, has to be the use of "would" in the protasis of the past perfect subjunctive. I cannot understand what fool would construct a sentence like this:

Example: If he would have hit the ball to right field, he would have gotten a base-hit. (I heard this one tonight at baseball practice. My friend, Jon said it.)

Correct Example: If he had hit the ball to right field, he would have gotten a base-hit. (This is still part of the subjunctive that grammarians won't let die. May it live on and not be corrupted by fools.)

Again, it's not a big problem because any idiot can figure out what the speaker means. The big question I have about this is the diachrony of this error. Where did it come from? How has it spread? It's the same with the whole "was/were" past indicative/subjunctive constructions. There must be a reason for this diachronic shift in construction. I mean, I seldom hear the pluperfect subjunctive anymore and this is by no means a moribund area of the English subjunctive mood. Here's one that's common though:

Example: I wish this team was our actual team, except for Rubin. (This was said at baseball practice today by my friend, Stephen.)

This is just another attack on the past subjunctive wherein "were" would be the correct verb conjugation, but again, this is picayune. I'm not here to beat a dead horse; I'm here to explain the semantics of these constructions so that there be very little confusion regarding whether it be "was" or "were" or whatnot.

Remember, in formal English writing, whether it be considered didactic or not, it is crucial that you make sure that your reader understand exactly what you want him to know. You should be careful not to confound the reader in any way, shape, or form. If English weren't so syncretic, though, it would be far easier to get your point across. You just have to make due while you write your paper or whatnot.

Perhaps, one day, all of these constructions will be considered grammatically correct. As of now, though, the only concession grammarians have made is to the present subjunctive forms, and this is not a total concession. The past and pluperfect constructions still must be adhered to, or so they say, yet over the last twenty years, this, too, has started to attenuate.

It really doesn't matter, though; this is just some food for thought. Please write to me to tell me about what you think in regard to this topic. I'm curious as to what others might have to say when it appertains to the semantics of these types of construction.