Take the 2-minute tour ×
Linguistics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional linguists and others with an interest in linguistic research and theory. It's 100% free, no registration required.

People use Figure-Ground Theory to explain inversions. By putting ground before figure, emphasis focus changes.

But how to explain inversion in condition clauses for subjunctive mood?

In English, if clauses containing past subjunctive 'were', as well as some other constructions that are used similarly to subjunctives, can be recast using inversion of subject and verb, with the conjunction 'if' being dropped.

Can Figure-Ground Theory explain this?

If not, what theories can be used to explain this kind of inversions for subjunctive mood?

share|improve this question
    
AFAIK many Germanic languages support conditional subclauses without 'if' and with inversion, and some not only in the subjunctive. But I'm suspecting it's not an etymological answer you're looking for? –  dainichi Oct 26 '12 at 0:38
    
Can you explain this theory a bit more? –  Cerberus Oct 26 '12 at 3:29
    
@Cerberus One sentence for Figure-Ground Theory: When we see a cup on the table, we notice the figure (cup) out of the ground (table). Inversions in languages is similar to putting ground before figure. –  weakish Oct 26 '12 at 4:39
    
@weakish: Yeah I read part of the Wiki article, but I still don't understand how or why inversion could correspond to putting ground "before" figure. Inversion serves to convey meaning/information by being in contrast with normal word order, if that's what you mean? –  Cerberus Oct 26 '12 at 4:43
    
@dainichi Very helpful for me. Can you point me to some materials/articles to read more about inversions in conditional subclauses in Germanic languages? –  weakish Oct 26 '12 at 4:45

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.