Using "Would"

May 9, 2005 9:57 AM

I am wondering if any of you brilliant grammarians and linguists can tell me about using "Would" at the beginning of the sentence in a particular construction. Sometimes I will hear a particular construction that sounds weird if not incorrect: e.g. "Would that I had done it differently."

Does that particular kind of sentence have a grammatical name? It always sounds weird to me when I hear or read it. It seems that it is a fragment or that "would" takes the place of an assumed "I wish." Or am I reading the usage wrong?

I am wondering if anyone can give me pointers on the usage of "would" at the beginning of sentences like that and any indication of its origins, etc and why it sound so weird.

posted by dios to Writing & Language (18 answers total)

I've seen the usage; I think that it is archaic and/or poetic. Aside from that, I'm not much help. Would that I were.
posted by Doohickie at 10:00 AM on May 9, 2005

Best answer: It's archaic and generally means "if only." I think it's an artifact from latin: e.g., "utinam ne natus essem" or "would that I had not been born."
posted by idest at 10:11 AM on May 9, 2005

Best answer: The usage you mention is defined in my dictionary as poetic/literary: expressing a wish or regret as in "would that he had lived to finish it." I've always read it more as "if only" than as "I wish," but I think that's a pretty fine distinction.

On preview: I'm not sure if it's archaic. I used to say it a lot as a kid for dramatic flare. Of course, I read a lot of L.M. Montgomery, so perhaps my perception is skewed :)
posted by carmen at 10:16 AM on May 9, 2005

Best answer: John Kerry used it, so it must be archaic.
posted by xmutex at 10:20 AM on May 9, 2005

Best answer: carmen, I suspect that Doohickie was using "archaic" in the same sense that I was... that is "having the characteristics of the language of the past and surviving chiefly in specialized uses" such as the poetic or literary. :-)
posted by idest at 10:25 AM on May 9, 2005

Best answer: It's old english. And I think the more usual form was "would it were" -- meaning 'if only it was' -- and there's a ton of refererences through Shakespeare.
I think everyone's right about the useage - poetic - it's like adding a dramatic sigh of irreconcilability to the thing that's wanted.
posted by peacay at 10:29 AM on May 9, 2005

Best answer: That construction also occurs in many other romance languages, but not archaically. It's an example of the subjunctive tense in english that we either don't use as often or that looks similar enough to our other tenses that we have a hard time learning it in spanish and french.

Also, not to be a bitch about it, but you'll find many true linguists will take offense (not like, kill-your-mother offense but you'll get a frustrated sigh, at least) at being lumped in with grammarians. The former are scientists who analyze how language works in the real world, and the latter are whiners who complain about how things should be said, often with underlying racist and classist overtones.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 10:52 AM on May 9, 2005

No. I wouldn't start off a sentence like that, unless it was poetry, as someone said above.
posted by Radio7 at 10:54 AM on May 9, 2005

Best answer: I would say poetic rather than poetry in terms of useage although it will occur in poetry. Perhaps it's an anglicism these days and not used much in the States? I use it (speaking and writing) from time to time and I hear it about infrequently - in Oz. It's virtually a rhetorical poeticism. (apologies to grammarians)
posted by peacay at 11:16 AM on May 9, 2005

Best answer: Your interpretation is correct, dios. That is just a contraction of the phrase "I would that..." and the meaning of "would" in this case is the same as the modern "wish."

I'd say the phrase is old-fashioned, but certainly not archaic.

I would that we were, my beloved, white birds on the foam of the sea...
posted by naomi at 11:20 AM on May 9, 2005

I don't know about this one in particular, but it's quite common for words to shift in meaning or gradually fall out of usage. "Would that I..." is probably just on its last legs, and probably would have fallen out of usage entirely by now if English weren't written down.
posted by heatherann at 12:41 PM on May 9, 2005

Best answer: In grammatical terms this is known as the optative mood. The latin construction that idest used (utinam or ut with the subjunctive) is usually referred to as the optative subjunctive, because it is a subjunctive form that is used to express what the optative mood expresses in Greek. The indo-european (whatever that means) language family seems to have originally had four moods that not every language in the family retained: indicative, imperative, subjunctive, and optative. The only languages that I know of that have a true optative (one in which there is a morphological change to the verb) are Sanskrit and Greek. I think that other languages and language families have moods not found in indo-european languages.

Also, to buddhainabucket, I am not a linguist or a grammarian, but I hope that most "real linguists" understand that the subjunctive is not a "tense" in English (or for that matter any other language I am aware of). It is a mood.

Would that I could keep my big mouth shut.
posted by mokujin at 12:49 PM on May 9, 2005

Best answer: The former are scientists who analyze how language works in the real world, and the latter are whiners who complain about how things should be said, often with underlying racist and classist overtones.

*applauds enthusiastically*

And yeah, the "would that..." construction is an outcropping left over from earlier days; the OED says "(arch.) with ellipsis of 1st pers. pron. as an expression of longing = ‘I wish’, ‘O that’."
posted by languagehat at 1:42 PM on May 9, 2005

you'll find many true linguists will take offense ... at being lumped in with grammarians.

Well, that's why they're linguists.... cuz distinctions like that bother them.
posted by Doohickie at 2:13 PM on May 9, 2005

The former are scientists who analyze how language works in the real world, and the latter are whiners who complain about how things should be said, often with underlying racist and classist overtones

Bit of a broad brush there, and a nasty little swipe at the end. Certainly language evolves, but gently, gently. Rules have thier uses, good uses, and not all language does work in the real world. Scientist may say, "how interesting" when faced with gibberish, but grammarians, if asked, can, will, actually help one fix where it doesn't.

Let's be blunt- you do a new immigrant or a slum child no favors by telling him that grammar doesn't matter. If he can get grammar, if he can learn how to talk good and write betterer, he's one hand up on the cards life dealt him.

Racist, indeed.

And again, subjunctive is not a tense. Any grammarian could have saved you from that wowser.

(Sorry to sound intemperate. I take this subject to heart. Would that everybody did.)
posted by IndigoJones at 3:27 PM on May 9, 2005

mokujin and indigo jones- I'm not a linguist. I'm a linguistics student and not above learning. Thanks for correcting me.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 12:19 AM on May 10, 2005

I also really can't believe I wrote tense because in retrospect I knew it was mood. anyway, the post doesn't lie. you live you learn.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 12:20 AM on May 10, 2005

Perhaps it's an anglicism these days and not used much in the States?

Not really - it's pretty strange here in Britain as well - though it would be recognised by most reasonably well-read people.
posted by altolinguistic at 3:05 AM on May 10, 2005