Padraic Brown wrote:

>--- Andreas Johansson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>* Why is it "the powers that be", and not the
>>>>"powers that are"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>subjunctive. i imagine it could be paraphrased
>>>
>>>
>>'such
>>
>>
>>>powers as exist', using the subjunctive to mark
>>>generality. not sure if this is a native germanic
>>>useage or a nicking of the latin one
>>>
>>>
>>Nice to see you unenlightened anglophones keeping
>>the subjunctive at least a
>>little bit alive! :-)
>>
>>
>
>The subjunctive is alive and well in English. You
>Forners just can't tell, cos it's a Trade Secret. ;)
>No, really, the once distinct subjunctive and
>indicative endings simply ended up the same, i.e., "-"
>except the 3s indic which remains steadfastly "-s".
>That is, they are morphologically identical.
>
Well... the subjunctive isn't completely dead or anything, is it? From
my reading, I understand the Americans use it a lot more than the Brits
do (for whom it's essentially dead). Whether it's because of American
influence, or the fact that it didn't die before Australia was settled,
or because I perceived it as more formal and picked it up for certain
circumstances, I tend to use it myself.

(OTOH, in the song 'Fourty Years On', which we have to sing at Speech
Night (a school thingy at the end of each year, a bit like a final
assembly but different), there's a line: 'till the field ring again and
again', which everyone seems to sing 'till fields ring again and again'
but I seem to be the only person who understands why, and that's only
because Mr Macrae (since retired, though no-one can ever retire from
Melbourne High... he keeps popping up again. And he went to MHS as a
student, too...) mentioned it once in year nine and I'm the only one
with a memory for these things...). Pardon my ramblings.

I have no idea why we sing 'Forty years on'. None of the students were
at the school fourty years ago. Some of the teachers, yes, but none of
the students. I don't even thing anyone's twenty!)

>The phrase given is probably not subjunctive at all -
>it doesn't read like one to me at least. A good use of
>the present subjunctive is Henry's "If this be
>liberty..."; it shows doubt, concession, et.c. (while
>the past subjunctive shows contrary to fact).
>
Yeah. I can see what you're saying and on those grounds would be forced
to agree with you.

>Wright notes that "be" (<beth), an indicative verb,
>was current up into the 16th century or thereafter
>(and indeed survives in forms of American), and
>survived a quhile longer in formal language.
>
Quhile?

>The KJV _certainly_ counts as a use of formal language; and as
>John pointed out, "are are" looks bad together.
>It looks to me like the bible translator was simply
>
>avoiding the "are are" conjunction.
>
And it was just luck that made it 'the powers that be are' rather than
'the powers that are be'?

John says:

>Because the original context (Romans 13:1) says "the powers that be
>are ordained of God", and "the powers that are are ordained of God"
>would sound really stoopit.
>
On the word 'stoopit', I guess that's an American way of making 'stupid'
stupid, because they can't just do 'stoopid' because that's the normal
pronunciation? The word seems to have essentially become 'stoopid'
/stu;p@d/ here all the time, even though 'student' is still /stSu;[log in to unmask]

Tristan.