Whither the subjunctive?

Yes, language changes. But this old-fashioned verb mood is still useful when the voice of authority speaks.

Ted S. Warren/AP
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos introduces the new Amazon Fire Phone.

It was a rare event a few weeks ago, like the once-in-a-lifetime appearance of a comet swinging by Earth: A music video on language usage has crashed into the copy-editing blogosphere. Links to “Word Crimes,” the latest big hit from parodiste extraordinaire “Weird Al” Yankovic, have been flying around the Internet, including into the inbox of yours truly.

But the issue on my mind this week is “whither the subjunctive?”

A recent article about Big Data made the point that companies should look to use data to make a lot of small gains in operations and profitability that, ultimately, should add up. It’s about going beyond the old Pareto principle, the 80/20 rule, to get the last 20 percent of gain out of the 80 percent of “stuff” that one otherwise tends to disregard.

It was an interesting discussion, but here’s the sentence that caught my eye: “Amazon’s boss, Jeff Bezos, insists that all decisions in his company are based on statistical analyses.”

Everything I’ve read about Mr. Bezos and his running of Amazon, the online emporium that has transformed e-commerce, tells me that he is in a position to insist that all decisions in his company be based on statistical analyses.

The subjunctive may be in more trouble than I thought.

Yes, language changes, and certain forms and distinctions tend to disappear over time, as new ones develop.

The distinction between “where” and “whither,” for instance, has largely fallen out of contemporary English. Whither lives on with a specialized meaning, as Macmillan defines it: “a word used for asking what will happen to something in the future.” 

But in the old days, people asked, “Where are you?” and “Whither are you going?” (Actually, in the heyday of “whither,” people asked, “Whither goest thou?”) Where applied to stationary situations, and whither to people and things in motion. But there’s no confusion if the distinction is dropped. The verb establishes whether motion is involved. 

In the Bezos reference, though, the indicative “is” rather than the subjunctive “be” conveys a different meaning. There’s room for honest confusion, in other words.

There’s a kind of third-party indicative-mood “insisting,” as in, “Tom insisted that Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player of all time.” Tom may be right, as an outside, years-after-the-fact observer. But he had nothing to do with Ruth’s greatness.

The Bezos sentence, though, suggests he was an outside commentator, whereas we know he literally had a seat at the table. He has a lot to do with Amazon’s success.

The voice of authority often speaks in the subjunctive: “I insist that he come here at once.” That may be too much for the ostensibly egalitarian ethos of our time – but let’s not kid ourselves about the various authorities to which we are all subject. That’s why the subjunctive is still useful.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.