One of those days, watching Friends, I heard Ross say something like, "I´d prefer that you didn´t do that."  That sentence sounded perfect to me at first, but then I pondered whether the subjunctive wouldn not be more appropriate or even the correct choice in a formal context, owing to the fact that it is the mood (or mode) used in sentences that have something indicating desirability, be they verbs, adjectives or nouns, like recommend(ation), suggest(ion), important, need, fundamental, essential, etc.  So a plausible alternative to me would be "I´d prefer that you not do that" which, I don´t know why, I would never say in real life.
Regards,
Brazilian dude

I think you are right, and it is interesting that you are reluctant to phrase it correctly.

I think the reason we sometimes avoid the proper usage when the meaning is adequately conveyed with a more vulgar idiom is because we are afraid, possibly correctly, that our interlocutors might consider us to be putting on airs when we "show off" our erudition by using good grammar or words with which, we assume, they are probably unfamiliar.

In fact, this probably shows a kind of patronizing attitude on our parts. Would it not be better if we always gave our fellows the benefit of the doubt and assume that they understand our common language as well as we do, or grant them the character to ask for an explanation if required, and thus benefit from our knowledge?

Unless we are talking to a traffic cop we should not assume that they will churlishly think ill of us for implying to them what turkeys they might think we might think they might be.

With a traffic cop, it’s best to say simply, "Please don’t."

—Bob

The problem here isn’t the verb ‘prefer’; it is the auxiliary verb ‘would’.

I prefer that you are here on time like you are today.

I prefer that you be here on time like you are today.

I prefer that you be here on time like you were yesterday.

I prefer that you were here on time like you were yesterday.

I would prefer that you were always on time.

This is a very confusing subject for me.  Even if you think you know the rules, you always say something different when you’re not thinking about it!

Someone found a good link for this here.

Sitran

English at its peak[....]was limber, yet hard-edged and surgical when it needed to be. [....] A robust subjunctive gave it a subtlety that is the purpose of subjunctives…]

[url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed23.html] Good English, RIP

by Fred Reed[/url]

No comment at this time!

Sitran

No comment at this time!

Well, I’ll stick my neck out. I agree with virtually everything said in the article, but disliked it enormously. It might’ve been the "holier-than-thou" tone that jangled; it could’ve been the "old fart tells young whippersnappers that things were better before" mantra that got my goat. In any event, the goat was finally bleating so loudly that I had to scape it.

- PW

[quote author=Palewriter link=board=grammar;num=1073589025;start=0#4 date=01/08/04 at 23:47:43]In any event, the goat was finally bleating so loudly that I had to scape it.

Nice one PW. I agree fully with your comments on the article.

I would prefer that he had not written it!

You guys are hysterical! ;D  Wonderful comments, PW and Derek.

One of his closing remarks really caught my attention: "Television bathes us all in the moral and cultural drains from which there is no escape."

Unfortunately, I believe this is accurate… But, to an extent, couldn’t the same be said of the Internet?  (Shouldn’t that be lowercase by now?)  I guess right now the Internet is like a huge amalgamation of commercial and public television and radio, combined with the best and worst of the old Bulletin Board Systems of yore…

-Tim

Thanks for the comments on the subjunctive, guys. Sitran, with you, however, I don´t quite agree.  What I have always known is that the tense in which the main verb is put does not alter the use of the subjunctive, so you would still have sentences with the same subjunctive form, irrespective of the tense: I insist that she LISTEN to me, I insisted that she LISTEN to me, I will insist that she LISTEN to me, I have insisted that she LISTEN to me.  Any thoughts?
Brazilian dude.

PW:

I agree with virtually everything said in the article, but disliked it enormously.

Yes, I believe that Mr. Reed has a very warped sense of what the totality of English is.  He has a very narrow view.  The vast majority of English-speaking people throughout the ages has not used a prestige dialect, and the examples he cites are all written English, which is hardly how we talk in our day-to-day exchanges.

Mr. Reed stubbornly looks back to a non-existent, idealized time of yesterday, when English was something it has never been, or always will be.

Sitran

PS Thanks for opening the discussion, PW.  I wanted to hear some reaction to the article first, not so much to my own opinion of the article.

I believe that Mr. Reed has a very warped sense of what the totality of English is.

Sitran, you have a very delicate way with words. I couldn’t have put it that nicely. "Wanker" was the word that sprang to my addled mind. I’ve met far too many of these pontificating nonces in one of my previous lives as a university lecturer to put up with much of their nonsense. (Hm, there’s a pun there somewhere.) I find the Mr Reeds of this world very tiring.

- PW

[quote author=Palewriter link=board=grammar;num=1073589025;start=0#4 date=01/08/04 at 23:47:43]
the goat was finally bleating so loudly that I had to scape it.

- PW

Now that’s good writing!  What wordplay! Huzzah!

[quote author=Tim Ward link=board=grammar;num=1073589025;start=0#6 date=01/09/04 at 07:29:05] . . . But, to an extent, couldn’t the same be said of the Internet?  (Shouldn’t that be lowercase by now?)  . . .

Putting on the geek-speak hat for a moment, the short answer is "No!"

The Internet is the world-wide collection of interconnected networks available to the public.  An internet is a smaller collection of interconnected networks.  One could conceivably have an internet of only two networks.

Two new words have arisen over the last several years:  intranet and extranet.  

An intranet is a private collection of interconnected networks (i. e., an internet) normally accessible to employees of a business or members of an organization, and usually used for internal business functions.  

An extranet is a private collection of interconnected networks (i. e., an internet) that a company or organization uses to allow trading partners and other business partners external to the company or organization to transact business with the company or organization, or, if allowed, with each other on business related to the company or organization.  

Internet derives from internet protocol, the ip in tcp/ip, the lingua franca The Internet.  The internet protocol is a protocol used for communication between (inter) different networks.

Now, if you want to know the time, I’ll be glad to tell you how to build a watch . . .  :D

Time to put the Shady Brady back on and mosey on home for the evening . . .