Subjunctive: Difference between revisions

Subjunctive (view source)

Revision as of 11:05, 30 August 2022

381 bytes added , 30 August 2022

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{a|plainenglish|{{image|Subjunctive|png|“''The kind of life I would lead were I not the man I am, and have led the life I have in fact led, but were a man I am not, and led a life I did not''” {{vsr|1847}}}}}}If I were to have been writing an article about [[subjunctive]]s, what would you say?
-The definition of [[passive progressive]]: someone who says, “If that construction were to have had been being used as a [[passive subjunctive perfect progressive]], would you hold it against me? That is to say, would it have had been being held against me by you?”
+The definition of [[passive progressive]]: someone who says:
+{{quote|“If that construction were to have had been being used as a [[passive subjunctive perfect progressive]], would you hold it against me? That is to say, would it have had been being held against me by you?”}}
 ===In everyday usage===
-[[Brexit]], and our learned friends’ nervous proclivities give us the opportunity to use this word — with its sibiliants, nasal plosives and fricatives it is quite fun to say, so it’s a shame we don’t get it out more often — in the wild, unshackled from its technical grammatical way. How so? Well — at least until some scenery munching tory rips up the European rulebook in earnest — we now have European MiFID, EMIR, and so on, and UK MiFID, EMIR and so on. In point of fact they are the same, but they are different. UK EMIR applies if you are in the UK, and EU EMIR applies if you are in the EU. But a UK counterparty treating with an EU one, we have a guaranteed conundrum: how to neatly describe [[applicable]] regulation that, in practice, applies to both but, in law, applies to only one at a time?
+[[Brexit]], and our [[Magic circle law firm|learned friends]]’ nervous proclivities give us the opportunity to use this word — with its sibilants, nasal plosives and fricatives it is quite fun to say, so it’s a shame we don’t get it out more often — in the wild, unshackled from its technical grammatical way.
+How so? Well — at least until some scenery-munching tory rips up the European rulebook in earnest — we now have ''European'' [[MiFID]], [[EMIR]], and so on, and ''UK'' MiFID, EMIR and so on. In point of fact they are — at the time of writing — the same, but in the curious way of non-fungible tokens, at the same time, somehow ''different'': UK EMIR applies if you are in the UK, and EU EMIR applies if you are in the EU.
+But what of a UK counterparty treating with an EU one, we have a guaranteed conundrum: where does one become the other? When the golden threads of commerce stretch betwixt them, what gust of wind, spiriting starlings high above the chalky cliffs, impels them between their petulantly immovable regimes? How does one neatly describe a regulation that, in practice, applies to both but, in law, applies to only one at a time, ''seriatim''?
 This issue has, presently, defeated the very finest professional wordsmiths in the English language. They resort to such toe-curling conditionals as this: