[The Montana Professor 19.2, Spring 2009 <http://mtprof.msun.edu>]

Unsure of reality

Linda Gillison
Classics
UM-Missoula
linda.gillison@mso.umt.edu

Quite amazingly, the subjunctive mood has popped into my consciousness in more or less public arenas during the past few weeks. One of the contexts is most troubling; the other, at least semi-facetious. But in both cases, the subjunctive mood—hated by beginning Latin (and Italian, and Greek, and German, and...) students everywhere and always—appears as a measure of expressive competence. From both examples, I think, we can say that the subjunctive does have important uses and for some pretty important reasons ought not be lost from conscious usage.

As Fowler indicates in the third citation above, the subjunctive mood is used when the sentence does not state a simple fact; rather, a subjunctive verb expresses something like a wish or a purpose or a command or a deliberation or some such. In an exchange like "Where are you going"..."We are going to town," the verbs state a fact or ask a question which can be answered by a statement of fact. Nothing subjunctive here. On the other hand, should I ask "Where are we to go?" and you respond, "Let's just go away," many languages will use the subjunctive: the question contemplates an action; the response urges one; neither is a simple statement of fact.

In English we use the subjunctive mood often but without thinking of it. The sentence, "I recommend that he be promoted," is subjunctive in mood; only with the statement, "He is promoted," do we deal with a statement of fact and the indicative mood. Hardly ever is the old, conditional "If I be understood" heard. "If I were you" and "if I had known that" are both conditional expressions, and the former uses a subjunctive verb even in English. We mostly don't talk about grammar anymore, and to insist on its "rules" often has the feel of aristocracy or autocracy or reaction or at least something besides the "we're all just common folks in this language thing together" democratic mode/mood.

Now, I am not agitating for a return to the King's English or even the English that lots of us learned in school back in the '50s. But this formation which has been referred to so lately as a notable feature of public discourse—in one case a young defendant's testimony, in another the Supreme Court's written decision on a controversial case—at least deserves some consideration from anyone who would be happy to live in a world without the subjunctive.

The first citation above concerns the murder trial of Amanda Knox, a former University of Washington student who worked hard to spend her junior year studying in Perugia, Italy. Unfortunately, only a month or so into her stay, a housemate died by violence and Amanda is currently charged with her murder. She has spent most of her dream year in Italian jails—every parent's (darned near) worst nightmare. Sex and drugs seem to have been involved, and the press has managed to construct for us a pretty tawdry scene. Part of a drug-fueled sex game, it is alleged, Amanda was instrumental in the death of her fellow student.

Ms. Knox testified in her own defense a few weeks ago. Reporting on the trial for the New York Times, Rachel Donadio closed her story with the notice of Amanda's fluency in the "subjective voice that allowed her to navigate the many hypothetical clauses in her testimony." Possibly Ms. Donadio is not in as firm command of her English grammatical terminology as Ms. Knox apparently is of her Italian usage. She must want, with "subjective voice," to refer to the "subjunctive mood." I applaud her notice of this grammatical matter and her somehow surprising, attention-drawing mention of it in her story. The subjunctive mood is exactly what Ms. Knox needed, questioned by an Italian prosecutor who was likely searching out every "could have," "would have," "might have," element in a tricky and sad situation.

Italy does not have capital punishment, but a life—or even part of a life—spent in an Italian prison cannot be what Ms. Knox had in mind when she worked so hard to prepare for this year in Italy. I hope that the subjunctive and her patently considerable language skills can save her, or at least allow for a clear presentation of the situation. I am not being facetious. (I urge my own Italy-bound students to avoid the Italian justice system with all the wit they can muster. I don't want one of them to have to rely on matters of grammar in a criminal defense. By many accounts, the prosecutor in the Knox case is hyper-intense and almost pathologically "focused" on the accused.)

Last week, my daughter, who is an attorney reared by a grammar nut and with whom I had discussed the Knox story when it appeared in her hometown newspaper, sent on to me a much lighter piece which may give some meager comfort to those of us who, although we may have serious doubts about certain decisions which come down from our land's highest court as currently constituted, are devotees of grammar.

An "expert" on legal writing (the self-identified "LegalWritingPro" cited above) just disseminated the results of a "study" which he had undertaken in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent Ricci decision. ("Ricci," as you probably know, is the case involving the city of New Haven, CT, an examination which was to determine promotability of certain city firefighters, and the legacy of affirmative action.) From the opening of the Pro's report comes the second citation above: "The Justices have a sterling command of the subjunctive mood, and they place the word 'only' with great care." On that basis, our Pro gives the Court an "A," though he does suggest improvements in various other grammatical areas.

I would like to think that the Pro's remarks are at least semi-facetious, but grammar nuts are not always endowed with rich veins of humor. Be (subjunctive) that as it may, there is something very important about the subjunctive mood as used by the judges who apply our nation's laws at the highest level. I've looked through the first few of the decision's ninety-some pages and can attest not only to the judicious (pardon the pun) placement of "only"—"the City could be liable...only if the exams at issue were not job related..."—but also to the accuracy of subjunctive use.

Now, what is it that the subjunctive allows which is crucial both to the beleaguered Ms. Knox and to those of us who rely on the "Supremes" to apply our laws appropriately and to announce their decisions clearly and precisely? What can we lose if we lose the subjunctive mood?

I want to maintain that incompetence in or unconcern about the use of this verbal form can betray or even nurture a lack of clarity about reality. Only with the subjunctive can I indicate an awareness that my own statements are not "simple" or "hard" fact but drift off into some other range of meanings.

As you can imagine, such situations arise frequently during court testimony and when a board of judges publishes a decision. But the subjunctive view of an action can be very helpful in day-to-day life, as well. What's the difference, say, between "We agree" and "Let's agree"? Between "She is honored" and "I recommend that she be honored"? Between "They have WMD's" and "They may have WMD's," or "They would have had WMD's if..."? Between "You'll pass this course" and "You would pass this course if..."? Between "Your house is safe from foreclosure" and "Your house would have been safe from foreclosure if..."?

The difference is all in the subjunctive (or some equivalent usage, whatever its label). When we lose the subjunctive, we are unsure of reality or at least of how to express it clearly to others: we may come to consider our statements as unfailingly indicative—the good, old "states a fact or asks a question which can be answered with a statement of fact" sort of sentence which demands the indicative mood. We may forget or be unable to acknowledge verbally that we live in a contingent world and that our own perceptions and actions are contingent. If language can help to create reality, a language without awareness of subjunctiveness can create arrogance and shallowness. Let's hang onto the subjunctive mood. Coraggio, Ms. Knox; thanks, Justices.

[The Montana Professor 19.2, Spring 2009 <http://mtprof.msun.edu>]