I've got a question concerning a grammatical construction and I'd appreciate your help. Here's what has me thinking for days:
"But I would it were come thereto (if it pleased God) that neither of us need care for that."
This is from a letter from Henry VIII rendered into modern spelling. But something seems really odd here. The first part of the sentence looks like a subjunctive, which would make the whole thing a past counterfactual. But the tense in the protasis (the if-clause in the parentheses) just doesn't fit. I don't think, though, that the 'had' was just forgotten. Now I wonder whether I'm missing something crucial. And if the construction really is a counterfactual, why isn't it had come since counterfactuals have always been dominated by 'have'.
Looking forward to some input.
Top answer
My opinion is.... " ---->>> "But I would THAT it were come thereto (if it pleased ***) that neither of us need care for that. Long time ago, "it is come" was used instead of "it has come".
— Pructus
Free · every Monday
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
"But I would it were come thereto (if it pleased ***) that neither of us need care for that." ---->>> "But I would THAT it were come thereto (if it pleased ***) that neither of us need care for that.
Long time ago, "it is come" was used instead of "it has come".