Past Subjunctive

Thu Jul 5 13:44:53 UTC 2012

-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Garson O'Toole
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 12:55 PM
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:       Garson O'Toole <adsgarsonotoole at GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Past Subjunctive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

Attempting to use the Buddha in a counterfactual is complicated by the
fact that the Buddha existed in many incarnations according to some
traditions. And he may appear in one or more future incarnations.

Good point. The author seems to have been referring to a single (past)
incarnation. (Don't know; haven't read the book beyond the first two
lines, and don't plan to be reading it.)

Lynne Hunter

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Hunter, Lynne R CIV
SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 71700 <lynne.hunter at navy.mil> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
-----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Hunter, Lynne R CIV SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 71700"
>               <lynne.hunter at NAVY.MIL>
> Subject:      Re: Past Subjunctive
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
Behalf
> Of Laurence Horn
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 3:10 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:       Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: Past Subjunctive
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
> On Jul 3, 2012, at 6:35 PM, Hunter, Lynne R CIV SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC,
> 71700 wrote:
>
>> 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.)
>>
>>
>
> Or these could both be indicative if we (or the author) simply doesn't
> know whether or not Jesus, the Buddha, or whoever dated.  That doesn't
> imply either is still around; "(What) if Moses didn't actually
stutter"
> could be uttered/speculated if I simply want to consider the
possibility
> that the reports of his stuttering were, say, politically motivated.
> Compare also "(What) if Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare", which
> might be uttered by an Oxonian, vs. "(What) if Shakespeare hadn't
> written Shakespeare", as uttered by a counterfactual historian.  Or,
if
> you prefer, "If Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy", by a conspiracy-minded
> Oliver Sands type vs. "If Oswald hadn't shot Kennedy" by the same or
> another counterfactual historian of Warrenite persuasion (e.g. Stephen
> King in explaining his motives for writing _11/22/63_. Whether or not
> JFK and Oswald are still around isn't crucial; it's (lack of)
> counterfactual presupposition that matters.
>
> LH
>
>
>
> Yes, Dr. Horn, but my point wasn't that all constructions like "If the
> Buddha dated" _have_ to be the protases of counterfactual conditions
or
> that such constructions necessarily reveal a person's state of
existence
> (alive or dead), because of course they don't. You could say, "If
> somebody stole my credit cards, I'm up the creek" without knowing
> whether the credit cards have actually been stolen, or the identity of
> the alleged perpetrator, or whether that individual is living or dead.
> Or you could say, "If the Buddha dated, his bride must not have been
too
> happy about it," without knowing whether the Buddha dated. But the
book
> title was, I think, indeed _intended_ as a contrary-to-fact protasis
and
> a _past_ one (because presumably the author knows that the Buddha is
> dead and no longer able to date), to the effect, "If the Buddha had
> dated, then here's what he would have done." That interpretation is
> supported by the book's opening lines (which I've just now felt
> compelled to Google, to my disgust): "Of course the Buddha didn't
date.
> No one really dated in his time." So, if we can limit our scrutiny to
> _counterfactuals_, "If the Pope/Sister Mary/My Maiden Aunt Dated"
works
> fine because those parties are all still able to start dating if they
> want to, but (for me, anyway) "If the Buddha Dated" doesn't; "If the
> Buddha Had Dated" does. I'm just suggesting (again, given that we're
> just dealing with counterfactuals) that the omission of the word 'had'
> can make an intended past counterfactual look like a present one--in
the
> case of the book title, implying that the Buddha is still around to
> perform the action (even though the author clearly knows he's not).
>
> I'll be off line until tomorrow morning PST, so nothing more out of me
> until (at least) then.
>
> (Whew!)
>
> Lynne Hunter
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> -----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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

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

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