-4

Here are some examples with the putative should. What is the factor which indicates the time reference expressed by the putative should in the examples? Being a foreigner to English I find it hard to clearly see the time reference.

1 I'm surprised that he should say it to you. (Has he already said it or is it going to happen in the future?)
2 It's a pity that they should be so obstinate. (Have they already been obstinate or are they obstinate now?)
3 I don't know why he should go there tomorrow. (Correct in terms of grammar?)
4 I don't know why he should go there yesterday. (Correct in terms of grammar?)

One more thing, do the following unequivocally express the future reference?

5 I'm surprised that he should be going to say it tomorrow. (or I'm surprised that he should be saying it tomorrow.)

To tell you the truth, it's quite easy for me to interpret the first one either as an even which is going to happen in the future or as an even taking place in the past.

3 and 4 are also interesting, as the only difference they have is the words tommorrow and yesterday, by that I want to see whether SHOULD follows them in the time respect or it doesn't. Please comment on each example.

Improve this question
13
  • Where did you get these sentences? Did you see them, or did you construct them? Some of them make no sense at all. The examples here all make sense: Putative Should.
    – anongoodnurse
    Nov 23, 2014 at 6:06
  • I have found them in different English forums (fora). I had read the article before I posted the question. Thank you.
    – user1425
    Nov 23, 2014 at 6:08
  • 1
    The English plural forums is preferred to the Latin plural fora in normal English usage. Forums are not always the best place to get your information.
    – anongoodnurse
    Nov 23, 2014 at 6:13
  • The simple answer is that the question is wrong - the putative should doesn't express time. It expresses emotion and it's use is often triggered by the use of suasive verbs, nouns, or adjectives.
    – Roaring Fish
    Nov 23, 2014 at 7:25
  • 2
    I think the fundamental question here arises from a conflation of two different aspects of English verbs: tense and mood. The putative should speaks to mood, a person's stance with respect to the action, not to tense, the verb's location in time. In every single example given, the tense (time location) is supplied by other words than should, and the should supplies only the speaker's attitude toward the action, as described in the link Medica provided.
    – Dan Bron
    Nov 23, 2014 at 12:27

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

Setting aside how to label these kinds of sentences, here is what these British-sounding sentences mean to me, a native speaker of American English. I could be wrong.

1 I'm surprised that he should say it to you. (Has he already said it or is it going to happen in the future?)

He has already said it. The speaker is surprised to learn that he has said it.

2 It's a pity that they should be so obstinate. (Have they already been obstinate or are they obstinate now?)

They are already obstinate and may continue to be obstinate.

3 I don't know why he should go there tomorrow. (Correct in terms of grammar?)

Grammatical, yes. The speaker does not know of any reason why he would want or would be obliged to go there tomorrow.

4 I don't know why he should go there yesterday. (Correct in terms of grammar?)

Not grammatical to my US ears. I would expect "should have gone".

One more thing, do the following unequivocally express the future reference? 5 I'm surprised that he should be going to say it tomorrow. (or I'm surprised that he should be saying it tomorrow.)

The speaker expresses surprise upon learning of "his" intention to say something tomorrow. Because of "tomorrow" the future is unequivocally the time in question. But even without "tomorrow", "going to say" points to the future. And so of course the something has not yet been said. The speaker been informed in some manner or has learned through some means that he intends to say something tomorrow. He may never say it. The belief that he intends to say something tomorrow may be wrong.

"Saying" or "going to say" both work.

But if you remove "tomorrow" and choose "saying it" instead of "going to say", then he is already (alleged to be) saying it.

Improve this answer
0

Is "putative should" a good grammar term or is it one of those wishy-washy terms? In my view grammar explanations about this special use of should in that clauses after expressions of personal judgements of a certain fact are rather vague.

No grammar hints at how unnatural this use of should really is. The normal thing would be:

  • It'a shame that you think so. (This formulation is possible.)

But instead you often find the formulation:

  • It's a shame that you should think so.

This should somehow has the value of a subjunctive which is totally inappropriate as it is a personal judgement of something that is a fact. The speaker talks about the way of thinking of the person spoken to. No grammar talks about this curiosity and no grammar talks about how this curious use of should came into being.

You may also be interested in my post: Should: It's funny you should say that.

Improve this answer
5
  • Thank you but I don't like your answer. It doesn't tackle my examples at all.
    – user1425
    Nov 23, 2014 at 10:12
  • By the way, whether "putative should" is a good term is beyond of my position to answer. But you can read about it here grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/Putative-Should.htm
    – user1425
    Nov 23, 2014 at 11:16
  • 1
    Apparently "putative should" (aka "emotional should" or "attitudinal should") does have some currency. Personally I see it as very much indicative of surprise/disbelief, and it doesn't work very well for me with other emotions such as regret. To me, "I'm surprised you should think that" seems "normal", but "I'm sorry you should think that" just seems a bit "weird" (though as you say, "should" is totally redundant in both cases anyway). I quite agree it has strong echoes of the standard French usage.
    – FumbleFingers
    Nov 23, 2014 at 14:13
  • Putative should is real enough, and has been discussed by Neels and in more depth by Quirk. The 'wishy-washy term' notion stems from the mistaken belief that the putative should is just a subjunctive by another name, but Quirk showed that the real-life usage is distinct, specifically that the subjunctive is used "especially when immediate action seems desirable" and the putative should is used to convey "the notion of a 'putative' situation, which is recognized as possibly existing or coming into existence"
    – Roaring Fish
    Nov 23, 2014 at 15:41
  • 1
    So how many named special cases of each modal verb are there, in toto? There's subjunctive should, and mandative should, and putative should, at least; and I spose Should we? is suggestive should, and Shouldn't we? is tag should, and I can think of a lot more. Does this naming game help anybody understand or learn or write English? Only if one reads Victorian novels, I suspect, or Victorian grammars.
    – John Lawler
    Nov 23, 2014 at 16:37

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.