Language desk
< March 3	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 4

British subjunctive

Since the status of what some people call the "subjunctive" (though I wouldn't choose to use that term) in UK English has been discussed many times here, I found the following recent headline interesting: "Family of Harry Dunn demand the UK refuses to extradite Julian Assange...". In the U.S. it would be "Family of Harry Dunn demands (that) the UK refuse to extradite Julian Assange..." -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is indeed the difference between English and American. Is there a question here though? Fgf10 (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's mainly a data point for several past discussions about how different American and British English actually are. It's been claimed that the use of verbs without an inflectional ending in such contexts (the so-called subjunctive) is making a comeback in the UK, but it hasn't re-established itself sufficiently to exclude the headline with a verb with an inflectional ending (which would generally not be acceptable in the U.S.) AnonMoos (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a "British subjunctive". It's the U.S. form that uses the subjunctive "refuse". (I also find the headline peculiar for the use of the plural form "demand", but that is another question.) Jmar67 (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas I find the plural "demand" natural, and it is the singular "demands" that trips me up. --ColinFine (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the same question as referring to sports teams using their city as a plural ("Liverpool win"), which is very difficult for Americans (at least me) to accept. Jmar67 (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can think of it as a short way of saying "The Liverpools win". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear "demands" is not a plural itself, it is a conjugation of "to demand" because the "Family of Harry Dunn" is singular. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense. If it were another singular subject, such as Yoda, then are you saying that "Yoda demand..." is correct? British English likes to treat Family as a group of people (the same way it does a football team, or an employer's staff), taking the third person plural verb form demand. Bazza (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both have a sensible reasoning. Either you say its one team/group/family thus singular or it's a group of multiple people, thus plural. Just depends on what you're used to. Fgf10 (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British common usage is actually often more nuanced, with singular and plural both used for most words (with a few exceptions like ‘police’, which is always plural) depending on the context. It depends on whether the emphasis is on the individuals or the collective unit. For example ‘the committee are arguing about....’ is correct because the phrase implies differences between members. Whereas ‘the committee is unanimous’ would be British usage, as the American, because the committee is being considered as a unit. Similarly ‘the team are all over the place tonight’ but ‘the team is being promoted to the next league’. On this basis the OPs cited headline does look unusual even for British English (a quick google of UK newspapers finds headlines like ‘Harry Dunn’s family...accuses..insists..condemns’ as well as a ‘demands’ in The Times MapReader (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The verb that AnonMoos found strange was not demand but rather refuses. In American English this would have to be refuse, because it's a potentiality rather than an actuality (not sure that's the best way of putting it but it'll have to do for now).

Yes, I see now; the subsequent discussion led me to focus on the ‘demand/s’. The headline reads fine to me as it is, although there is a link in that if UK is replaced by a plural, it becomes ‘refuse’. British English isn’t changing the secondary phrase - i.e. he says he is staying => I insist that he says he is saying; they say they are going => I ask that they say they are going MapReader (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that about reading the UK as plural; thanks for pointing that out. "Insist" is an interesting verb in this context. To me I insist that he stay and I insist that he stays are both grammatical, but they mean different things. The second means I strongly assert as a fact that he is staying (whether I want him to or not is irrelevant). The first one ("...that he stay...") means rather than I am invoking my authority to require him to stay, or to require others to let him stay. --Trovatore (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that refuses is substandard in upper-register British usage as well, but that the more common phrase in that lect is ...demand that the UK should refuse.... --Trovatore (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remember coming across this issue in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where two academics, Vroomfondel and Magikthise, break in on the mice who are threatening to find out the answer to life, the universe, and everything, thereby putting the academics out of a job. The younger one says "I demand that I am Vroomfondel", which is almost ungrammatical in American English. The other one points out that he doesn't have to demand that, as it's just a fact, and at the time I thought this was Douglas Adams's way with words, putting an actuality (expressed by the indicative) after "demand", which ordinarily can be used only with potentialities (expressed by the subjunctive).

I was kind of disappointed when I realized that it might just be a British speaker's way of saying "I demand that I be Vroomfondel", still an unusual sentence but not so obviously paradoxical. --Trovatore (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language talks of three "mandative" constructions:

"They demand that the UK refuse to extradite Assange": subjunctive mandative
"They demand that the UK should refuse to extradite Assange": should mandative
"They demand that the UK refuses to extradite Assange": covert mandative

The acceptability, perhaps even the grammaticality, of each of these depends on which variety of English you're talking about: US versus British (among others), now versus half a century ago, etc. If you want to get an idea of the degree to which each are used, then try English Corpora. If you'd prefer a convenient summary of relevant change in 20th-century British English [I think; it's some time since I read it], see a chapter within Rohdenburg and Schlüter, eds, One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English and of course later papers that cite this chapter. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the above comment about "I insist that he stay/s" is a really interesting one. There are a lot of ways to interpret the two differently. My first-glance is "I insist that he stay (at our house for the night)" and "I insist that he stays (where he is.)" But there are a lot of different ways to go with the distinction, many of which are contradictory. Temerarius (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that distinction doesn't fit into any theoretical framework I can think of, and I can't say it's intuitive to me either. Did stays as an assertion of fact versus stay as an invocation of authority resonate with you at all intuitively? --Trovatore (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does. But I think there's more going on there. I can't pick it all apart, but someone should post that as a separate question here or on a linguistics forum. Temerarius (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas?

I just noticed the following text in The Sound of Music (film) - "A few months after its United States release, "The Sound of Music" opened in 261 theaters overseas..." As an Australian, I'm quite used to seeing and hearing the word "overseas" to mean "in other countries" in discussions about my country, and it kind of makes sense, since Australia is an island country. But it seems to make less sense to talk about countries outside the United States that way. Does it include Canada? Mexico? Peru? I wonder how common that usage is in other articles? Is it good language to be using in our articles? HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the common saying in US English, but probably isn't appropriate here. I've changed that article. As an aside, Canadian releases are often done at the same time as US releases and are basically part of the "domestic" market. --Khajidha (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the common saying in US English, what does it actually mean? Apart from film releases, does it include or exclude Canada, Mexico, Brazil? HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much includes everything except Canada and maybe Mexico. To get to any other country than those two from the US you have to actually go over some ocean or sea (by ship or plane). Unless you feel like driving ALL THE WAY through Mexico to get to points further south. From large parts of the US, it's easier to get to Mexico by sea than by land.--Khajidha (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Internationally" would seem to be a better term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that. But "overseas" is a pretty common phrasing in the US. Particularly when referring to the military. Just do a quick search for "our men and women overseas". --Khajidha (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How many of them are stationed in Canada? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, “internationally” would not be a better term, in that, in this context it implies a “nationally” which is presumed to refer to America. The key point here is that WP is an international encyclopaedia, written from a global perspective. It isn’t written from an American perspective. The correct word in the context of the OP’s sentence would be “worldwide’, “globally” or “in other countries”, following on from the reference to the US earlier in the sentence. MapReader (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MapReader: "Internationally" is fine: In, between, or among many different nations[1]. "Worldwide" implies all nations,[2] which may not be the case here; same for "globally".[3] "In other countries" implies a national perspective, presumed to refer to America in this case, which goes against what you are arguing; although here it would be fine as the article states the release was originally in the US, followed later by other countries. Bazza (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in those contexts, for sure. But not as shorthand for “not America”! MapReader (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? "Overseas"? Or "internationally"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Canada, for purposes of air travel from major airports (in the image, note the table at right) -- and also postal rates (check the pulldown) -- a three-way distinction is made between "Canada", "US", and "International" (meaning everywhere else). I personally prefer to use "overseas" rather than "international" as a short term for "everywhere but Canada and the US", and I don't think I'm the only one, although it's technically wrong for mainland countries from Mexico to Panama. --69.159.8.46 (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure I have seen IRS publications where they use "overseas" in a way that appears to mean "outside the US" (including Canada). For example, this one, where it says If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien residing overseas, or are in the military on duty outside the U.S., on the regular due date of your return, you are allowed an automatic 2-month extension to file your return without requesting an extension. Now, I think that includes Canada and Mexico, which of course are not really "overseas", but obviously if you're in that situation don't take my word for it. --Trovatore (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is we're all getting hung up on the etymology of the word, rather than its actual usage. See etymological fallacy. While the word "overseas" literally means "across some body of water", in actual usage in the wild, it's meaning can often be used to be a mere synonym for "foreign", or "anywhere not the U.S." Yes yes, we all know that you don't need to cross a sea to get to, say, Costa Rica or Canada or something like that, but in actual usage the term overseas is still used even if we can get there by land. Please note that this usage has been true in many other contexts, and even in cognates in other languages; for example the term Outremer was used historically by the French to describe the Levant, which (again, strictly speaking) can be reached by land from France. As recently as the middle 20th century, French Algeria was classified as a département d’outre-mer (overseas department), even though it is part of the same landmass as France. Ultimately, it isn't what words should mean that matters. It is how the words are actually used that matters. In many contexts in American English, Canada counts as "overseas", even if it isn't over any sea. --Jayron 32 15:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point but I'm not convinced it's really true. I think most Americans would be confused to hear Canada described as "overseas". I have trouble thinking of "overseas" as anywhere closer than Europe. In partial agreement with you, I would probably not use it for Hawaii, which is quite literally over seas from me. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does US English not use "abroad" in this context, as it might well be in British English? This eliminates any confusion over intervening (or not) marine tracts. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.3.11 (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find fault in the use of the description "overseas" any way. For example, some friends travelled overland from Australia to England. I didn't go on the trip, but they could have travelled by Jeep from Kuala Lumpur (a place I have visited) all the way to Calais (a place I haven't) (this was before the Channel Tunnel). However, very, very few people have done that. 2A02:C7F:BE83:8700:C507:D9FA:15F:1694 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot travel overland all the way from Australia to England. You have to cross at least some sea. See Wallace Line. It has been impossible for over 50 million years. This sea crossing through Indonesia explains the dramatically different fauna on either side of the line, with marsupials on the Australian side of the line and placental mammals elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's a sufficiently odd statement that I'm thinking 2A02 must not really have meant "Australia". Could be a substitution for "Austria" or "Asia" or "Algeria", maybe?~~ Speaking of Algeria, while it's true that you can get there from France without going over water — it's a little, shall we say, out of the way. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Hmm, no, with the reference to Kuala Lumpur, probably "Australia" was intended. You do have to go over water, but you might be able to stay over the continental shelf? --Trovatore (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Well, the Australian tectonic plate IS moving towards Asia fairly quickly in geological terms, at around the rate our fingernails grow, so give it a little time and it might become possible. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if 2A02:C7F may have meant that his friends traveled using a land vehicle, and car ferries as needed. It was certainly possible to take a car from England to Europe before the Channel Tunnel opened, but I don't know if there are/were car ferries in regular service between Asia and Australia, or whether it is or has been possible to drive all the way across Asia. --69.159.8.46 (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Abroad" isn't very common in US English, in my experience. It would probably be understood, but it would seem a little odd. Old-fashioned, maybe?--Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's commonly used in the phrase "study abroad". --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And still very common in spoken British English, although whether among younger people I will have to listen out. “Go abroad” means foreign holiday, as in “I’m [going] abroad next week”. Whereas, although British English is surely the origin for American usage of the term “overseas”, for ‘other countries’, given the respective geographies, maybe I might see the term used in a written statistical article - but rarely in conversation; “I’m going overseas” sounds like a throwback to the days of Empire. MapReader (talk) 06:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas alive and well at the Beeb: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. It's worth reminding readers from other countries that in Great Britain "overseas" is a literal term for any other country. Bazza (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such as Director of Overseas Bases, a top civil servant in the Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom). We wouldn't call Northern Ireland "overseas" though, being part of the UK, even though you have to go over a sea to get to it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, Hawaii is not "overseas" to an American, despite the even greater expanse of ocean that must be crossed to get to it.--Khajidha (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to avoid mentioning Ireland or anything Irish. I was originally going to put United Kingdom, but the complexities around Ireland suggested sticking simply to Great Britain for illustration of my point. Bazza (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the rhetoric of film, "overseas" is only meant to contrast with "domestic", which unhelpfully but by convention also includes Canada. See, for example, List of box office records in United States and Canada, including the references supporting this usage of "domestic". Why that would be, I'm sure is a much murkier question, but the usage within the industry is clear: Canada is not considered "overseas" (or "international" even, which is now also frequently used). Matt Deres (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think, the US probably adopted "overseas" from British usage. And Hollywood adopted overseas because the only overseas market that really mattered in its early years was Europe. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]