LEND ME YOUR EAR: DEATH OF SUBJUNCTIVE EXAGGERATED

Today we resume our discussion of verbals, this time to expound on the unpopular subjunctive mood. Like the passive voice, the subjunctive has always been disparaged even by scholars of note, and the mere mention tends to put many writers in a contrary mood.

Trouble is, the subjunctive is a mood -- one of three verbal forms that high school students in my day were expected to master. The three moods are indicative, imperative, and subjunctive. The indicative makes a statement or asks a question; the imperative issues a command or a wish; the subjunctive expresses the idea of possible rather than actual being or action. As the noted authority Edward D. Johnson phrases it in "The Handbook of Good English," the greater part of our life is spent in the world of if, ought, might, and must, and we use the subjunctive more often than we know.

To proceed with Johnson's weighty assessment, everyone who writes including writers of distinction uses the subjunctive to express doubt, duty, desire, and conditions that are contrary-to-fact. Often, the subjunctive is identical with the past indicative, which is why many experts on the art of writing consider the mood they dislike wholly dispensable.

What these alleged masters overlook is that we live not only in the past, but also in the present and future. Even writers of average ability sometimes prefer the verb of being -- "be" -- to the present indicative "is", choosing "If that be true" over "If that is true." This includes a number who would rather be sued for plagiarism than rated fussy or picky picky. If such I be, so be it.

Widely prevalent is the misuse of the past indicative "were" for "was" in statements expressing doubt. What seems to have eluded legions of knowledgeable writers is that not all "if" clauses are subjunctive. Confusing the past indicative with the subjunctive, these misled souls are likely to write: "If he were at the meeting, I didn't see him." Though this sentence expresses uncertainty, the mood is past indicative. The only acceptable construction is: "If he was at the meeting, I didn't see him."

Controversy abounds in the use of "were" versus "was" in contrary-to-fact conditions. More and more Americans are committing what the English view as unpardonable in statements such as: "If he were home with his children, it would make their day." Likewise, we who are sensitive to sound and style concur with the creators of our language: to use "was" for "were" in contrary situations is a sin.

Although authorities on usage advise all writers to be sure to use "were" in clauses contrary-to-fact, they caution us to be wary in choosing "were" over "was" in other situations. Edward D. Johnson teases readers with the suggestion that in a few more generations, we will be saying "I wish I am rich" instead of wishing we were.

In a more serious vein, however, Johnson explains that "were" is used in future conditions even though the future is unpredictable, thus rendering contrary-to-fact inapplicable. But probability is also expressed in the subjunctive, wherefore we addicts continue to toe the mark. If there were (or should be) a nuclear attack on our country, we would probably not survive to lay the blame on the subjunctive mood. Just on the mood of our crazed attackers.

Should we survive, the mood we so staunchly defend would surely remain intact despite all efforts to bury it in unhallowed ground.

Wordmaster James Kilpatrick puts it more succinctly. In his delightfully readable book "Fine Print," now in second printing, he writes: "For at least two hundred years language commentators have been remarking the death of the subjunctive mood. That is a long time to read obituaries for something that won't lie down."

Amen to that!