Teacher Discussion Forums

The introduction by Bertrand Russell of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, written in May 1922 begins:

Mr Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, whether or not it prove to give the ultimate truth on the matters with which it deals, certainly deserves, by its breadth and scope and profundity, to be considered an important event in the philosophical world.

I note that Russell writes,
"...whether or not it prove to give the ultimate truth..."
not
"...whether or not it proves to give the ultimate truth..."

"If" often precedes the past subjunctive, and "whether" is related to "if" (although this is whether or not.) This looks like a present subjunctive, however. Is this the present subjunctive, and is this use still current?

Hey Andrew, couldn't it be only a typo?

Is it something do to with things like 'It's important he prove it wrong.' For example?

José

Give that Bertrand Russell was a highly esteemed Cambridge academic, it doesn't surprise me to see that he wrote whether or not it prove.

The use of the present subjunctive here does strike me as kind of archaic but certainly not wrong. If SJ were here he'd no doubt make the point that the present subjunctive is more widely used in American than British Ebglish.

Thanks guys. I think it is the subjunctive.

I've read on, though, and I'm finding things which just appear to be plain wrong. Further on, he writes:

There are various problems as regards language. First, there is the problem what(1) actually occurs in our minds when we use language with the intention of meaning something by it; this problem belongs to psychology. Secondly, there is the problem as to what is the relation subsisting between thoughts, words, or sentences (2), and that which they refer to or mean; this problem belongs to epistemology. Thirdly, there is the problem of using sentences so as to convey truth rather that(3) falsehood; this belongs to the special sciences dealing with the subject-matter of the sentences in question. Fourthly, there is the question: (4)what relation must one fact (such as a sentence) have to another in order to be capable of being a symbol for that other?

The numbers are mine.

This is how I would correct it:
(1) :what/of what/as to what
(2) what the relation subsisting between thoughts, words, or sentences is
(3) "that" --> "than"
(4):D:[ This colon indicates that he might have intended a colon in (1)]

Hey Andrew, in case of (2) look what I found (Richard MacAndrew--English Observed quoting Qurik et al-- A Comprehensive Grammar of English)

"Although the subordinate clause does not have subject-operator inversion, such inversion can occur, particularly when the clause functions as complement and the superordinate verb is be or when it functions as apposite..."

and...

"In literary style subject-verb inversion occasionally occurs when the wh-element is the subject complement or an obligatory adverbial, particularly if the subject is lengthy."

What do you think?

José

What I think is that it grates on my ears. Nevertheless, grammar should be descriptive not prescriptive. I wonder about the comment that this is a literary style, in my books, it makes the speaker or writer sound illiterate.

Is it much different to:
*Could you tell me what time is the bus?

If you are going to ask a direct question ask a direct question; if you're not, ask an indirect one. A mixture just sounds horrible.

That said, I hear it a lot on CNN particularly from Hali Gorani. Her First language is not English, however, but CNN is becoming the de facto US standard and I expect it will eventually become the norm. It is often common among business people.

As for the long subject, putting the verb after the subject is actually more useful because it deliniates where the subject ends.

Although we don't need to concern ourselves with the English of 1922, I suspect that readers at the time wouldn't have been quite so charitable and would have regarded it as a mistake pure and simple.

At least (3) is very likely to be a typo, unless one comes up with another decriptive rule we don;t know.

José

Past subjunctive? Aren't English subjunctives all stuck in a timeless netherworld of the imagination?

Woodcutter wrote:

Past subjunctive? Aren't English subjunctives all stuck in a timeless netherworld of the imagination?

Are you suggesting we refer to proximal and remote subjunctive instead, or to something else?

I'm probably being very dense Andrew, but I only recall hearing "past subjunctive" being used in English for "if I were you", and if it doesn't exist for any better reason than that then Metal and Larry will have every reason to be filled with fury.