The Italy in Toulouse

I vadi

Among the most common errors in our language there is always more about the misuse of the subjunctive.

Here are some simple rule not to make mistakes

http://espresso.repubblica.it/opinioni/la-bustina-di-minerva/2015/03/04/news/che-io-vadi-1.202142

I'm browsing with a few months delay, "However, Leopards said bad words" by Giuseppe Antonelli (Mondadori € 12), where there is responsible for incorrect Italian, of the correct one, How blunders that make us type Boggle "which I vadi" existed in classical authors, how it is permissible to use sometimes English words but foolish talk about "Jobs act", how professors too purists correct the guys who write "pass many machines" to "circulate many machines" and "I did not do my homework" in "I was following not the tasks" (by wasting time and sense of spoken language to their children). And many other things.

Could not miss a chapter on the decline of the subjunctive, and even in the songs, If Ligabue sings "may not be quite as we crave you", Castro sings "but I wouldn't want you… are you already thinking about another man ". For a writing seminar held years ago in Bologna, I proposed a rule to know when you should use the indicative or subjunctive.

To simplify things and not make use of technical terms as possible worlds or doxastici attitudes, Let's say that you should always ask if we're talking about something that we believe (and others believe) that really exist in the world around us, or let's talk about something that exists in our thoughts, opinions, beliefs (that might also be wrong or we're not sure they're righteous). In such cases, saying "know" something means that we know something real and that the indicative verb. If instead we use verbs such as "thinking, believe, hope, fear " (all mental attitudes) then you must use the subjunctive. Therefore it should say "I know that Washington is the capital of the Usa" and "I hope that my beloved returns", and "I believe Sydney is the capital of Australia".

You will notice that the last belief is wrong because the capital of Australia is Canberra. When I both realized, I can then legitimately say "I thought Sydney was the capital of Australia", giving to implied that what I had in mind was fake. My, as you can see, the lawfulness of the subjunctive depends not only on linguistic rules but also by the knowledge that the community has about the way things are in the real world. Of course already saying that I believe that the capital of Australia is Sydney I leave open the possibility that I was wrong, But if I say "I know that the capital of Australia is Sydney" are an ignorant and conceited.

In any case, If I make sure if I'm talking about what is known or what I pass through my head, real or fake it, I have a good rule of thumb to know when to use the subjunctive or the indicative. Said so a little more technical, using "know" and the area code when referring (rightly or wrongly) to the real world, and we use the subjunctive when referring to a possible world. And are indeed possible worlds of our beliefs, hopes, desires, weather.

Yet there is a case where, referring to a world clearly unreal, You must use the area code. This is the case of narrative situations references. Do not say "I think Watson was the friend of Sherlock Holmes" (except that one cannot remember more stories of Conan Doyle and wants to prove his uncertainty). They say instead "I know that Watson was the friend of Sherlock Holmes". And that's because the plunge in narrative worlds you suspend disbelief and accept them as if they were real worlds. And why, at the bottom of, in saying that it is known that Watson was Holmes's friend, It refers in fact to an aspect of the real world and that is what has really written Conan Doyle, where it considers it indisputable that Watson is Holmes's friend.

But because I wrote "you feel undeniable ... that is"? If it is indisputable and accepted by all, because I used the subjunctive? Why is "indisputable" is still a mental attitude and it is assumed that the point should be (subjunctive) yet discussed.