Now I want a grammar thread

I do not think that a grammar thread is necessary because I feel that any discussion can be covered under other headings. Such a thread could descend into nit-picking and the demeaning of some posters by others.

If the subjective trigger referred to is the one I am thinking of then, in my opinion, it was a non-too-subtle dig at another poster which was perfectly easy to understand.

One could call this playing with semantics - I suppose that calling a spade a spade could risk a poster being banned.

If I were to say that some posts can verge on the spitefulness of the playground would anyone take offence?

Oh, I never see any really good spitefulness on here. It's all very tame.

If HM were a personal friend then I would be obliged to buy some ankle guards.

But she's not so I don't have to contend with those nippy corgis.

jingle that is where we disagree. I totally agree with rosequartz's last sentence.

As DGD sang yesterday:

'Let it go
Let it go'

I'm not sure I've got this right at all BUT the part about choosing to be offended or not reminds me of DH's favourite response in a domestic with me is 'I'm sorry if you think I've upset you'!! I normally batter him at this point.

I think I've got it.

Hypothetical situation:

I am walking along at night in an otherwise deserted street when an aggressive drunk lurches towards me and makes one or two unpleasant remarks.

I say, 'Luckily I don't get intimidated but if I did it wouldn't be by a drunken, smelly old idiot who can hardly walk'.

Am I right in thinking the drunk would not be insulted because of the subjunctive mood?

I didn't actually say I had noticed any spitefulness, it is really all rather lovely on here.

Petallus and hypothetically you could be fibbing about not feeling intimidated (hmmm .......... strokes chin in a deeply thoughtful way).

We could disappear into our own navels by lunchtime!

I read the post in question yesterday and must admit I did think it was very cleverly constructed so as to appear not be a personal attack, as such.

As to your hypothetical situation, petallus, of course the drunk would be insulted, even if he wasn't drunk!

I'm puzzled now Ana I obviously haven't 'got it'.

Oh, I thought we were on the same wavelength, petallus. Were you serious about the drunk not being offended...?

petallus you could say to him "If you were a smelly old drunk I would not be intimidated by you". That "were" would be the subjunctive on which the main clause depended. He would have no right to be offended,nless of course he were aware of being a smelly old drunk, but smelly old drunks seldom are.

I think if the subjunctive were used more often and people were aware of using it we would all be a lot less confused!

Rewriting yoyur sentence, *Petallus "I am not easily insulted, but if I "were" it would not be by a smelly old drunk" . He will then be insulted, but you will not be intimidated

Like a circle in a circle ----in the windmills of your mind.
One of my favourite songs.

when I see your point. In order for the drunk not to feel insulted I would have to be genuinely unintimidated.

At least I thought I saw your point but the last few posts have made me unsure.

However, I think I modelled my 'drunk' situation on the original sentence which started this all off. I'll see if I can find it to check.

Ana you are right, I wasn't being serious. Sorry I didn't 'get' your post.

Anyway, before I spoke so roughly to the drunk I would check on his level of education, hoping for uni and preferably Oxbridge.

It is a minefield. no wonder it has gone out of use. Ancient Greek had not only a subjunctive but also an optative, to be used in completely different ways to the subjunctive. See, it could be worse.

Erratum
A circle in a spiral

Yes - it's all very well being clever with words, but not everyone is!

Petallus if he was drunk! more likely Cambridge.

No, I was kidding, Petallus. As far as the drunk's concerned, he wouldn't know either way. As you were (or perhaps as you are now?)

Anyway, I got it wrong. Having looked at the original sentence, what I should have said to the drunk was:

(I'll have to change the scenario a bit so I know the drunk. It can be DH, just back from the pub.)

'I never feel intimidated by anything you say, even if I do think it stupid and aggressive.'

Incidentally, that would start DH off on a rant in which case I could tell him he was uneducated as well.

It wasn't a personal attack. It was the straightforward truth—my true colours, as someone remarked. Yes. I hope I show my true colours always. GNers who have seen my posts over a longish period of time really should know that I and my posts are straightforward. I don't mind if people prefer to call it forthrightness or even bluntness, tho I do try, believe or not, not to be too blunt. I don't shy away from being forthright. Well, I do, but not in posts on here. If I can't be as straightforward as I'd like to be about a particular thing, I don't post on it.

For the first time in my life (more truth tho I'm aware some might not believe what I'm going to say) I understood the expression "if the cap fits" when I saw the response to my subjunctive statement.

Now there's a riddle—can one make a statement in the subjunctive?

Probably not.