Past Subjunctive

[Hunter, Lynne R CIV SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 71700]

The title of the book apparently sprang from the author's unawareness
that the Buddha had "dated," and therefore seems to have been _meant_ as
a contrary-to-fact. To me, the title _If the Buddha Dated_ suggests a
present, rather than a past, contrary-to-fact, implying the Buddha's
existence in the present day, which I don't think was the author's
intent.  (_If Jesus Dated_ would have been less jarring to me, whether
or not Jesus actually dated, because it could be argued--at least by
some--that Jesus, unlike Buddha, is still around.)

Lynne Hunter (with apologies for prescriptivist leanings)



-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of W Brewer
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 7:31 AM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Past Subjunctive

---------------------- Information from the mail header
-----------------------
              American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Poster:       W Brewer <brewerwa at GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Past Subjunctive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

"what if the Buddha would have dated"
He married his sixteen-year-old cousin, Yasodhara, and had a kid. As the
prince of Kapilavastu for 29 years, he probably had a few broads on the
side, too. I don't get the contrary-to-fact implication here.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org