最近被英语语法的虚拟式（虚拟语气）打傻了，1.在所谓的现代语法中，虚拟语气的形式只有“be型”和“were型”；也就是把之前的一些“动词过去时，动词过去时完成体,would+动词原形”踢出虚拟语气了？之前虚拟语气≥表示非事实，现在表示非事实≥虚拟语气？
按照《音标英语语法教程》给的解释和例句，it作形式主语，to do不定式也能用来表示虚拟语气？真的迷啊(≖_≖ )
按照《音标英语语法教程》给的解释和例句，it作形式主语，to do不定式也能用来表示虚拟语气？真的迷啊(≖_≖ )
1 Like
还有一些其它的疑惑
1.条件句能够包括“主句+从句”，不等于条件句？
2.一个句子的主句和从句能用两种不同的语气？例如：主句用直陈语气，从句用虚拟语气？
3.旋元佑的文法俱乐部中的“条件语气”是不是直接无视就可以了？
4.《新编英语语法教程》提到的用动词过去时表假设意义，难道不是和were型虚拟语气重合了吗？
在经历了一番思考后，鄙人得出了一个想法，既然虚拟式表假设意义、用动词过去式表假设意义、用语气助动词过去时形式表假设意义，三者重合了那么多，干嘛要把后两者从虚拟式踢出去？直接统讲虚拟式不行吗？不然后人学这些东西的时候还得从“表假设意义”再细分哪些是虚拟式表假设意义，哪些不是；不是强行复杂化了吗？
我没办法和那些权威语言学家进行问答，理解不了他们的想法；还请前辈们指点
1 Like
粗略看了一下赵俊英的《现代英语语法》（据闻是讲解传统语法的佳作），好像没有把用动词过去式表假设意义、用语气助动词过去时形式表假设意义单独拿出，而是放在虚拟语气了
1 Like
先有语言，后有语法。不同人有不同的解释方式，信一个你觉得说得通的就好。
不知是否可以分享一下，你截图中这个彩色版本的电子书？我网上找到带目录的第六版是灰白色的，怎么都没有搜到像你截图那么高清的彩色版。
另外，你几个帖子的看法我都有同感，尤其语法书的，所以冒昧关注了。 
不同的书用的体系可能不一样。
简单的说，“虚拟式”是指动词的一种形态，就像“过去式”“过去分词”“现在分词”等等都是动词的不同形态。（不严谨，见下*）
“虚拟语气”是指说话者想表达的意思，而表达一个意思可能有许多不同的方式，比如你截图里书上说的用不定式、助动词之类也能表达。
现代英语虚拟式已经衰退了，不常用而且跟其他形态混同，所以很多人不是很能理解，如果了解一下其他语言的虚拟式会更容易理解。
比如这是英语 eat 的屈折变化表，其中 subjunctive 就是虚拟式，但是看这个表并不能看出虚拟式跟其他形态有什么不同：
这是古英语的“吃”（eten），这里就明显多了，虚拟式和陈述式一样也分为单复数、现在过去，每个都有自己的单独形态：
这是西班牙语的“吃”（comer），比古英语更复杂，虚拟式分为现在、两种未完成、将来，不同人称也有不同的变化：
- 实际跟虚拟式同级的应该是陈述式、祈使式（命令式）等，每个式下面还可以根据人称和时间分为不同的变位，看西班牙语这张表就明白了。但是因为英语祈使式也跟陈述式混同了，只有“过去式”“过去分词”“现在分词”还保留不同的形态，所以为了帮助理解先这么说了。
学这些语言就要先把变位表背下来，然后书上会告诉你想表达什么意思需要用哪个式的哪种形态，比如“表达愿望通常使用虚拟式现在时、但表达不可能实现的愿望要用虚拟式过去未完成时”之类的。并且很多语言中虚拟式的使用范围比英语广得多，比如表示转述、表示目的、表示判断等等。比起来英语已经算是非常简单了。
简单总结一下：某某式（形态）可以认为是动词本身的一种属性，一张表背下来就好。而某某语气是说话者想表达的意思，因为语言的丰富性，一个意思可以用多种方式表达，一个式（形态）也可能在多种语气中使用。
1 Like
应该看英文的语法书或网站或教程，比如牛津语法词典的说法是：
subjunctive (n. & adj.) Traditionally: (a *verb form or *mood) expres-
sing hypothesis or non-factuality. Contrasted particularly with the *indic-
ative. Also called conjunctive, especially in grammars describing ancient
languages.
The present subjunctive form of a verb is *finite, and identical with the
*base (1) form of the verb. Formally, it is exactly the same as the present
tense indicative form, except for the *third person singular, which lacks -s,
and for the verb be, whose present subjunctive form is be. Functionally, it
can refer both to the present and to the past. The present subjunctive can
be used in three different ways, described below.
First, the mandative subjunctive (or subjunctive mandative) is used in
*subordinate clauses following an expression of command, necessity,
suggestion, or possibility, e.g.
I recommended that he write and apologize
She requested that she not be disturbed
Notice that the negative element not is positioned before the verb in the
second example.
It is possible to have should in the subordinate clause:
I insisted that he should attend the meeting
This is called the should-mandative in CaGEL, and *putative should in
CGEL.
Secondly, the present subjunctive can be used, rather formally, in
subordinate clauses of *condition and *concession, but not with past
reference, e.g.
If that be the case, our position is indefensible
Thirdly, the formulaic or optative subjunctive is used in independent
clauses, mainly in set expressions, e.g.
God save the Queen
Some such clauses have an unusual *word order, e.g.
Perish the thought!
Come hell or high water
The so-called past subjunctive (also called the were-subjunctive or
*irrealis were) is used in clauses of hypothetical condition. It differs from
the past indicative form of be only in the first and third person singular,
where were is used, though was is increasingly found here too. The
reference is to present (or future) time, e.g.
If I were you, I’d own up (compare: If I was you . . . )
If only my grandfather were alive today (compare: If only my grandfather was . … )
If she were to come tomorrow . . . (compare: If she was to . . . )
The uses of ordinary indicative forms to express non-factuality, such as
the use of a *past tense to refer to a present or future situation (e.g. If
you came tomorrow . . . ; see past (2)), have been described as subjunctive
uses—perhaps because in translation such a usage might need a
subjunctive form in another language. Modern grammar considers this to
be quite unjustified, and restricts the use of the term subjunctive as
described above.
However, since Modern English (unlike, say, French or Spanish) has
few distinct verb forms that differentiate subjunctive verb forms from
indicative verb forms, the status of the subjunctive as a verbal *inflection
has been challenged. Indeed, many modern frameworks prefer to speak of
subjunctive constructions or subjunctive clauses. These labels then
apply to the entire clause in which the ‘subjunctive verb’ appears.
The disappearance of the subjunctive has long been forecast:
1860 G. P. MARSH The subjunctive is evidently passing out of use, and there is
good reason to suppose that it will soon become obsolete altogether.
But it survives, and indeed has been seen to be on the increase, especially
the mandative subjunctive in British English in recent years, possibly
under American influence.
● ● covert subjunctive: a term used in CaGel to describe a construction in
which an indicative verb form is used where a ‘subjunctive’ verb form
might be expected, given the meaning of the *governing verb, e.g. They
insist that he eats his dinner (cf. They insist that he eat his dinner).
See also putative should.