- ([info]entangledbank) wrote,
@ 2004-05-31 21:49:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Logic at play

If I was able to take the Classics tripos in the 19th century, I'd be unlikely to suffer from gynaecological infections.

Why does this sentence delight me so much? I think it might be this: it sounds utterly illogical, but is utterly logical. We conflate causation and entailment. Well, we don't, but our formal logic does, with its single connective for 'if...then' that formally means entailment. But we much more commonly speak of causation rather than pure entailment, so we read the above sentence causally. It conjures up some fantasy where taking the tripos back then would have led to a chain of events such as getting a medical degree, finding a cure, ...

What she actually meant* can be reconstructed with the odd suppressed major premiss and modus tollens, in some order or other: no females in the 19th century were able to take the Classics tripos, I suffer from gynaecological infections, therefore I would not be able to take the Classics tripos in the 19th century, therefore I am female... Only we already knew that, so I must have the order wrong. Something o' that, anyway.


* A friend of mine here, quoted with kind permission, in a context that is private but can be summed up briefly: female problems were interfering with her studying for exams.


Oh, one more thing. You can't get much more of a hypothetical situation than that, but the mood is indicative, just as I would say it. I found an example in Tolkien the other day with 'if I was' in a strongly hypothetical situation, confirming that the subjunctive is moribund in colloquial English (of our dialect anyway) and has been so for a long time.



(3 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]libellum
2004-05-31 04:30 pm UTC (link)
isn't the "I would be" in the apodosis subjunctive? I suppose the protasis ought, properly, to be "If I were".

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]entangledbank
2004-05-31 04:58 pm UTC (link)
The terms are a bit arbitrary in English, but the "I'd be" has to be conditional (or whatever you want to call it). No choice in that. The interesting point of grammar is that we have a choice between indicative "I was" and subjunctive "I were", and these days we plump for indicative no matter how irrealis the situation. I think Americans would be more likely to use subjunctive there even in colloquial speech, but I don't trust Americans' self-reporting entirely, as they're much more indoctrinated with traditional-grammar teaching than we are. I'd need to google for real uses.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]foxfour
2004-05-31 09:00 pm UTC (link)
from my observations, un-indoctrinated american speech doesn't use the subjunctive. many of the people i talk with, though, are, say, professors of linguistics and things like that - i.e. people who have been well and truly indoctrinated, and therefore i hear them using the subjunctive. but outside of that, it's not in use much.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(3 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…