Use of the subjunctive versus conditional mood

Question

From my English classes I remember the rule that when you are expressing a condition with words like if, you must use the subjunctive mood in the subordinate clause, and the conditional in the main clause.

For example:

If I had more free time, I would go to the gym more often.

If I were you, I wouldn't pay too much attention to them.

The only exception to this rule (as far as I know) are polite requests like:

It would be nice if you would help me in the kitchen.

On the other hand, I recently found the following sentence in a book written by an American author:

If I would make a point of going to sit down with a historian, or a mathematician in order to broaden my mind, I'd be neglecting my job in a way.

In this case, both clauses are in the conditional but, according to the rules I have learnt in school, I would rather have written:

If I made a point of going to sit down with a historian ...

So I am a bit confused as to when one should use the subjunctive versus the conditional. Why does the author of the book write "If I would make a point of..."? Is there a difference in meaning or are "made" and "would make" interchangeable here?

(What confuses me even more is that I live in Germany where I often hear people using the conditional instead of the subjunctive when speaking in English, possibly because German has only the subjunctive / Konjunktiv mood: so it is difficult for me to tell if what I hear is a mistake or a proper use of the English conditional.)

Answer 1

English does not have a subjunctive mood, nor a conditional mood.
Despite what you may have been told in school; if you've been misled, I'm sorry about that.

English does have a lot of modal auxiliaries, some of which have meanings (but not grammar)
that reminds scholars of some of the uses of subjunctive and conditional moods in
languages that have them, like Latin or Sanskrit.

But there is no subjunctive, no conditional, and no future tense in English. The constructions that are sometimes given these names are all uses of modal auxiliary verbs, with syntax to match.

This has been explained over and over again, but it's always surprising the first time.

Here are some answers to questions about the so-called "subjunctive" in English.
As you can see, it doesn't work quite the way you have been taught.

Answer 2

Note that your example:

If I were you, I wouldn't pay too much attention to them.

openly fails to actually exemplify your hypothesis. The if clause reveals itself to be subjunctive, because the indicative first person past of "to be" is "I was". "I were" is subjunctive!

The would clause can also be considered a grammatical subjunctive.

The subjunctive expresses irrealis situations; both clauses are irrealis (about something which didn't happen).

"If I were you" is irrealis because "I am not you".

"I wouldn't pay too much attention to them" is also irrealis because it is conditional on something irrealis. (Whether or not I myself pay a lot of attention to them myself is irrelevant, because this clause is about imagining me to be you.)

Answer 3

This sentence

If I would make a point of going to sit down with a historian, or a mathematician in order to broaden my mind, I'd be neglecting my job in a way.

is, strictly speaking, grammatically incorrect. It "should" be

If I made a point of going to sit down with a historian, or a mathematician in order to broaden my mind, I'd be neglecting my job in a way.

However, this "rule" is disappearing in casual spoken English, and the distinction seems to be moving into written language as well.

So if you want to speak correctly, then stick with the way you know how to do it. If you want to speak idiomatically, then both ways are acceptable (though what you saw in the author's sentence is definitely for casual speech).

Answer 4

As I was taught it, subjunctive is used when the information is contrary to fact:

If I were you, I would go to the picnic tomorrow.

Simple conditional is used when certain conditions apply

If it rains, I would not go to the picnic tomorrow.

Since the second example is not contrary to fact, you do not say:

If it were to rain...

Answer 5

When it's a hypothesis which contradicts the actual fact, you can't say that it's indicative.
Then what is it?

Wikipedia says:

In Modern English, the subjunctive form of a verb often looks identical to the indicative form, and thus subjunctives are not a very visible grammatical feature of English. (Wikipedia | English subjunctive)

However, they look like the indicative, nonetheless they are subjunctive. In fact they have the special verb form of back-shifted tense.

Michael Swan says in his Practical English Usage:

§567.1
Older English had subjunctives, but in modern English they have mostly been replaced by uses of should, would and other modal verbs, by special uses of past tenses, and by ordinary verb forms. English only has a few subjunctive forms left: (......)

Swan's might not be very clear, but he does NOT say English subjunctive mood has disappeared. He only says the forms have been replaced with others.

I find for the occasions we want to especially talk about the 'form,' it's needed to be called the subjunctive form.

What about the examples of plural sheep or the verbs like cut, put, let, etc?

Now I look up the word 'subjunctive' on The Free Dictionary.com, and it opens up a page with a special banner which tells us:

The subjunctive mood refers to verbs that are used to describe hypothetical or non-real actions, events, or situations. This is in comparison to the indicative mood, which is used to express factual, non-hypothetical information. (TheFreeDictionary.com | subjunctive)

What we learners need to know is of course not only the appearance but more importantly the meaning of it, and the term 'subjunctive mood' includes both the form and the meaning.