Johanna, I'm not a traditionalist.  Traditionalists worship at the shrine of
the past.  I relish the living force of the present.  I fully recognize the
inevitability of language change and I participate in it every day in my
classrooms, in my home, on the streets. That change reinforces my awareness
that grammatical constructions are, indeed, fellow-participants in
communication elegance and style.  When I say that there is an inherent
elegance in a particular structure, I say so referring to a relative
fashion.  Indeed, it is a fashion.  And for each new generation language
fashion changes.

One thing, however, is constant.  The most successful communicators take
advantages of current linguistic constructions that communicate best.  At
the moment, we don't have a clear new alternative to the subjunctive. Those
who have abandoned it have sawed the proverbial limb from under themselves
and must dangle from their climbing gear until another limb grows. Perhaps,
the subjunctive is near dead, but I still find it a solid perch from which
to scan the trunk for new wood to replace it. I'll encourage students to sit
there with me for yet a while.

Jeff Glauner
Associate Professor of English
Park University, Box 1303
8700 River Park Drive
Parkville MO 64152
[log in to unmask]
http://www.park.edu/jglauner/index.htm


-----Original Message-----
From: Johanna Rubba [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 4:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Verb form of if-subjunctive


Jeff's words here bring into sharp focus the differences between the
linguists' take on grammar and, shall we say, a more traditional take: