Проверьте пожалуйста небольшой перевод

[srgsts]

Извините за "флуд", долго терпела, но не могу не высказать искреннего восхищения - and I mean it  - участниками данного обсуждения. Мне легче удавиться , чем написать такое и в таком количестве. У меня только один вопрос -вы из головы:bv: пишете

Таня, а вашего восхищения собсно и не требуется. Если имеете, что сказать по-делу, то welcome, а так чего флудить по-пусту. И давайте уже по-английски общаться. Вы же уже знаток?

На пост отвечу, как вернусь из отпуска, а то по мобильному писать неудобно   

[adwise43]

PS:

It is easy enough. It is just be in the Subjunctive II form.

My question was rather about: why the Past-form WERE even for Present? What do you think?

Actually, there is not a present or past form to express (un)desirable action or state. It is the form of the predicate in the principal clause which refers the action to it. While an action expressed by the predicate of the object clause may precede, be simultaneous, or follow that of the principal clause.
I wished she were present.

Btw, how do you find the phrases:

“I`LL remember that IN CASE you SHOULD COMMAND a settlement” -   No strong probability here, the context is enough <--> clear and this action is not advisable or recommended for the person.  For me, this is Subjunctive Mood. [It may be a warning or even a threat: "... на тот случай, если ...". And also, it is official.]

“This man canaille THOUGH he BE, is not without attraction” – old-fashioned Subjunctive. [It describes the man: "Каким бы ... этот мужчина ни являлся, ...". And it is an assumption, not a supposition.]

“Some formal explanation was due to him, even THOUGH his acquaintance with the situation SHOULD RENDER it almost unnecessary” – Subjunctive Mood - “should be” – personal, coloring opinion, accented on the strong probability. ["Формальные объяснения предназначались ему, даже если бы его знакомство с ситуацией делало их излишними."]

 “And now he stood still THAT he MIGHT laugh.” – also Subjunctive -  “Он остановился, ЧТОБЫ дать себе посмеяться” . [Yeah, an adverbial clause of purpose.]

“That men SHOULD BE vindictive, he COULD well believe” - Conditional Mood “БЫ”  but “should be” – also underline the strong probability. [It feels like the modal SHOULD in the Indicative mood.]

[zidaniys]

Добрый день !
Поможем с переводом заходите к нам в гости и чай с собой прихватите
http://www.vskype.com.ua/

[srgsts]

I `m back. 
Would you mind to continue our little discussion? I am really keen on make clear the understanding of Subjunctive and Conditional Mood. 
(And practice a bit my poor English which I have terribly neglected  ).

So…

Should I believe they are two hypostases of this mood?

  And why not? What bothers you?

The predicate is used in the Perfect form because the action described by the verb precedes some major events in the course of narration.

   I would rather say because the condition (“it hadn`t been for Mac”) should preceed its consequence (the work never would have been completed”). In other words, the action in the main-clause depends on the action in the sub-clause. But we have Conditional Mood in the both parts of this sentence because we want to say “БЫ”.

The Present Conditional depicts an action simultaneous to the moment of speech or even pertinent to the Future

   I have nothing against this statement, by no means. There is no contradiction between the reality of action and its relevance in Future.

Btw, in some cases the use of mixed Conditional can be required:
“If yours parents hadn`t met, you wouldn`t be sitting here now.”
“He wouldn`t have lost his keys if he weren`t so absent-minded”.

With this huge array of words you wrote here

Sorry, I`ve just  try to explain my point of view as understandable as possible….

I just can't guess what form you reserved for expressing future unreal action.

You mean the phrases like: “If it snows, I will wear a coat”?  This is not Conditional Mood, but Indicative one. We don't highlight “БЫ” here. Rather: «Если (вдруг) пойдет снег, то я надену куртку». But on another side, we have “if” – the conditional conjunction, so we are not allowed to use the “absolute form” of Future (will snow) and we must replace it by “Present form” in oder to show that the condition (it snows) preceedes the consequence (I will wear the coat). The logic is the same as for Conditional Mood.

And to be frank, this is not COMPLETELY unreal action. Even in summer it can snow…

Btw, compare, please: “If it snows, I will wear a coat”
“If it snowed, I would wear a coat”.
The general meaning is the same. But the action expressed by in the second sentence seems to be less real than that in the first.

Actually, there is not a present or past form to express (un)desirable action or state. It is the form of the predicate in the principal clause which refers the action to it. While an action expressed by the predicate of the object clause may precede, be simultaneous, or follow that of the principal clause.I wished she were present.

Yes, obviosly, there is not a present or past form now. All hundboooks state it. But could you suggest why “I wish/I wished” should be followed by some PAST form? Do you have any idea about it?

"Формальные объяснения предназначались ему, даже если бы его знакомство с ситуацией делало их излишними"

No “БЫ” in this case, the context shows clearly that the men was perfectly acquainted with the situation.
 

It feels like the modal SHOULD in the Indicative mood

And what is the meaning of this “modal should” in this case?

And it is an assumption, not a supposition

Just intresting, what is the deference between? 

[AntonSK]

Добрый вечер, если не трудно проверьте пожалуйста.)))))

I want to look at you.
All day and all night.
I don`t present life without you.
I don`t want to cry.
And I don`t want to lose you.
If you love i.


I go to you.
I find you.
I got you.
I never will release you.
I will hold your hand.
She is one the perfect girl on the land.


I return to my hometown.
I remember as we were young.
When  I ran down.... the river and meet you.
When we walked together very long.
When i lost you by many years.
And  saw many womans tears.
But i returned to you.
Because i love you.

[adwise43]

Добрый вечер, если не трудно проверьте пожалуйста.)))))

Т.е., надо проверить текст на ошибки? Или, всё-таки, люди будут заходить в тему и сравнивать перевод с оригиналом?

[adwise43]

Would you mind to continue our little discussion? (we never find an infinitive in combination with this mind. Please refer to M. Swan's "Practical English Usage", §351). I am really keen on (there is a gerund after a preposition, though I recommend using an infinitive with the particle to here) make clear the understanding of Subjunctive and Conditional Mood.

What bothers you?

I am in no way interested in mixing those two forms up.

There is no contradiction between the reality of action (??? It is wholly unreal) and its relevance in to the Future.

Btw, in some cases the use of mixed Conditional can be required:

They are just two types (of four) of the sentences of unreal condition and consequence.

Sorry, I`ve just  tryied to explain my point of view as understandable as possible…. (Here you've lost a thread of your thought).

But on another side (on the other hand/part), we have “if” – the conditional conjunction, so we are not allowed to use the “absolute form” of Future (will snow) and we must replace it by “Present form” in oder to show that the condition (it snows) preceedes the consequence (I will wear the coat). The logic is the same as for Conditional Mood.

“If it begin to snow, I shall wear a coat”
“If it began to snow, I should wear a coat”.
The logic of this statement (if this is (im)possible) is based only on a speaker's point of view.

But could you suggest why “I wish/I wished” should be followed by some PAST form?

Are there any other forms existed for Subjunctive II, except the Past and the Past Perfect ones?

the context shows clearly that the man was perfectly acquainted with the situation.

We (as readers) can't see the whole situation (as it concerns the context), but here we have an assumption (допущение) that the man could already be (or have been) acquainted with it.

And what is the meaning of this “modal should” in this case?

“He COULD well believe that men SHOULD BE vindictive”.
Please try to translate it in your own way.

And it is an assumption, not a supposition

Just intresting, what is the deference between?

IMHO, supposition rather rests on probability, while assumption relies on some facts.

[AntonSK]

Да на ошибки)

[srgsts]

Are there any other forms existed for Subjunctive II, except the Past and the Past Perfect ones?

Not obviously.  But in the 19 Century (even in the beginning of the 20th) the PRESENT Subjunctive was also possible after “wish”.
For ex.: “I wish she may be happy”.

According to your opinion, what is the difference between: “I wish she may be happy” and “I wish she were happy” (nowadays construction). The general meaning is the same but what about the difference?

(Here you've lost a thread of your thought).

 Yeah, speaking by skype in russian is not very compatible with writing in english …

IMHO, supposition rather rests on probability, while assumption relies on some facts.

 Very slight difference… as for me…  Supposition can be also related to the facts and events… Not true?

It is wholly unreal

What is WHOLLY unreal?  “I would do anything for you, if I could.”? – “Я БЫ сделал (a) что-угодно для вас (тебя), если БЫ мог(ла)” - VERY unreal, but not WHOLLY because the conditions may be changed and his (her) willingness may remain…
Imho: “”I would HAVE done anything for you (yesterday), if I could.” – this is WHOLLY, for 100% unreal. (In general, the sentence with “COULD” seems not be very demonstrative, because “COULD” is defective).

The logic of this statement (if this is (im)possible) is based only on a speaker's point of view.

  And how do you translate in russian  the first phrase and the second?  

Btw, if I mean some “concret/specific  coat” can I use “the” instead of “a”??

We (as readers) can't see the whole situation (as it concerns the context).

The situation is clearly depicted. Very clearly even … Any assumption or supposition seems to be superfluous…
“Some formal explanation was due to him, even THOUGH his acquaintance with the situation SHOULD RENDER it almost unnecessary”=Формальные объяснения предназначались ему (были в принципе необходимы), ХОТЯ  его знакомство с ситуацией и  ДЕЛАЛО  их совершенно излишними.  NO “БЫ”, imho.

We can also say: “Some formal explanation was due to him, EVEN IF his acquaintance with the situation SHOULD RENDER it almost unnecessary”, but in this case “EVEN IF” = “EVEN IN CASE” =”ДАЖЕ В СЛУЧАЕ ЕСЛИ”... also no “БЫ”…

If  “БЫ” is wanted -), so:
“Some formal explanation WOULD BE due to him, EVEN  IF his acquaintance with the situation RENDERED it almost unnecessary” = Формальные объяснения БЫЛИ БЫ в принципе НЕОБХОДИМЫ ,  ДАЖЕ ЕСЛИ БЫ  его знакомство с ситуацией и  ДЕЛАЛО  БЫ их совершенно излишними.

Or  “Some formal explanation WOULD BE due to him (today), EVEN  IF his acquaintance with the situation HAD RENDERED it  unnecessary (yesterday)” (mixed conditional)

“He COULD well believe that men SHOULD BE vindictive”. Please try to translate it in your own way.

"He COULD well believe that men SHOULD BE vindictive" = He COULD well believe that men MIGHT BE vindictive=Он мог БЫ охотно поверить, что человеку случается быть мстительным (человек таким бывает при определенных условиях– may be or may not);  

But: “He CAN well believe that men MAY BE vindictive"=Он может охотно верить, что человек бывает мстительным (т.к. это присуще человеческой натуре при определенных условиях, это возможно при определенных условиях – may be or may not);

“He CAN well believe that men ARE vindictive” = Он может охотно верить/он охотно верит, что человек мстителен (вообще, по своей природе)

“He COULD well believe that men WERE vindictive” = Он мог охотно поверить, что человек мстителен (вообще, по своей природе).

PS: When I say “человек” I mean here “люди вообще” Correct?

Если состояние здоровья Флёр улучшится (в чём говорящий совсем не уверен), её муж смог бы повидаться с ней.

"Should Blanche be better”–  why only Future? and why Shall (Should)?  

I think it can be context-dependent future or present in the both sentences... - "сейчас более здорова или в будущем", but the first "should" underlines that he may see her only if she is already better.

I think that  "Should Blanche be better”=   “IF=IN CASE (В случае) Будь Бланш более здорова” (may be, may not)and “If Blanche were better...”= “ЕСЛИ БЫ Бланш была более здорова, он cмог бы повидаться с ней”  (may be, may not)...

[adwise43]

According to your opinion, what is the difference between:

“I wish she may be happy” - "Хочу, чтобы она могла быть счастлива"
“I wish she were happy” - "Жаль, что она не счастлива"
 

“I would do anything for you, if I could.”? – “Я БЫ сделал (a) что-угодно (everything) для вас (тебя), если БЫ мог(ла)” - VERY unreal, but not WHOLLY because the conditions may be changed and his (her) willing may remain… unchanged?

“I would do anything for you, if I could.” = “I would do anything for you, but I can't.”

And how do you translate in russian  the first phrase and the second?

“If it begin to snow, I shall wear a coat” - "Если пойдет снег, я надену / стану носить куртку"
“If it began to snow, I should wear a coat” - "Если бы пошёл снег, я надел бы / стал бы носить куртку".

Btw, if I mean some “concrete/specific  coat” can I use “the” instead of “a”??

Yes, if you talk with a person who knows the coat you mean. If not, you ought to mention whom this coat belongs to, or where it comes from.

“Some formal explanation was due to him, even THOUGH [даже если] his acquaintance with the situation SHOULD [бы] RENDER it almost unnecessary”=Формальные объяснения предназначались ему (были в принципе необходимы), ХОТЯ  его знакомство с ситуацией и  ДЕЛАЛО  их совершенно излишними.  NO “БЫ”, imho.
...
If  “БЫ” is wanted -), so:
“Some formal explanation WOULD BE due to him, EVEN  IF his acquaintance with the situation RENDERED it almost unnecessary” = Формальные объяснения БЫЛИ БЫ в принципе НЕОБХОДИМЫ ,  ДАЖЕ ЕСЛИ БЫ  его знакомство с ситуацией и  ДЕЛАЛО  БЫ их совершенно излишними. (- and it isn't referred to the past)

"He COULD well believe that men SHOULD BE vindictive" = He COULD well believe that men MIGHT BE vindictive=Он мог БЫ охотно поверить, что человеку случается быть мстительным (человек таким бывает при определенных условиях– may be or may not);

The meaning of SHOULD is quite different from MIGHT.
"Он мог (бы) действительно (по)верить, что мужчины должны быть мстительны". There is no indication of time in the sentence. When you translate into Russian, do you have an idea that your translation should meet the requirements of the language?

I think it can be context-dependent future or present in the both (the) sentences...  (clauses?)

I can see the time context of the situation throughout grammatical structures of the sentence. No additional comments needed.

I think that  "Should Blanche be better”=   “IF=IN CASE (В случае) Будь Бланш более здорова” (may be, may not)and “If Blanche were better...”= “ЕСЛИ БЫ Бланш была более здорова, он cмог бы повидаться с ней”  (may be, may not)...

Both your translations are for were, not for should. And as it for were, there is no choice between may be and may not be, cause it means that "She is not".

[adwise43]

Да на ошибки)

В отсутствие оригинала, не представляется возможным исправление всех ошибок в тексте и нестыковок в сюжете.

[srgsts]

“I wish she may be happy” -"Хочу, чтобы она могла быть счастлива"

- I think that translation "Желаю (хочу), чтобы она БЫЛА счастлива" would be more accurate. Because “MAY” this is not only a modal verb but also a SIGN OF SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD in this case. The word-for-word translation of this kind of phrases may render (may make) them a bit strange. In my opinion, we should translate “MAY+BE” like “the verb “to be” in the Subjunctive mood” - "Je souhaite qu`elle SOIT heureuse = Желаю, чтобы она БЫЛА счастлива" (now and in the future).

The role of may/might as a sign of Subjunctive mood may be more clearly seen in the phrases like: “MAY heaven grant that!” “May heaven grant you fortune!” “May God bless you!” …  It is not necessary to translate literary.

For ex.: I wish he may come=Хочу, чтобы он пришел.  
Хочу, чтобы он МОГ придти – this is a bit odd as a wish.

Btw, could we say: “he managed to come = он сумел (ему удалось) придти”?  “he managed to come back from=ему удалось оправиться от...” , “the phrases of this kind”???

“I wish she were happy” - "Жаль, что она не счастлива"

Why  have you dropped “to BE”? What do you mean exactly:  "Жаль, что она не БЫЛА or не ЕСТЬ счастлива" or both of them?   “Жаль” –this is just a conventional impersonal translation into Russian, which wants to say: “Мне (ему/ей, вам/нам/им) есть (суть) жаль, что”… So, я сожалею что,… what exactly?

And the phrases: “I wish it were enough” –“I wishED she were happy” - how do you translate it in your way?

“If it begin to snow, I shall wear a coat” - "Если пойдет снег, я надену / стану носить куртку"
“If it began to snow, I should wear a coat” - "Если бы пошёл снег, я надел бы / стал бы носить куртку".

Fully agree. And there are (is??) “бы” in the both parts of the seconde sentence. So, the mood in the clause and in the sub-clause is the same. And this is CONDITIONAL mood. But in oder of logic, we are not allowed to use the “absolute form – if it WOULD begin” and we need to take the preterit indicative. But this is not really Indicative mood, just the FORM of Indicative. The same logic requires using of present indicative instead of Future Indicative in the first sentence. In this case, the mood is Indicative.

When you translate into Russian, do you have an idea that your translation should meet the requirements of the language?

What do you mean by requirements? Which standarts of Russian have been violated?

Он мог (бы) действительно (по)верить, что мужчины должны быть мстительны

This! This is why I have engaged in discussions. There is not much sense in the phrases like these with the pure modal meaning of SHOULD. It is contrary to the context. I find that in some similar cases, the “SHOULD+inf/perf inf” is a kind of Subjunctive Mood (Periphrastic Subjunctive Present and Past), so the literally translation is not alredy necessary.

Lately, I will give some other examples and we could discuss them if you don`t mind.

And as it for were, there is no choice between, cause it means that "She is not".

- I meant “may be and may not be” for the future.

“I would do anything for you, if I could” =“I would do anything for you, but I can't.”-  but in the future,  it may be yet possible. This construction leaves slightly open the possibility of action for the future. The perfect forms don`t leave it. The time went away.

“Some formal explanation  … (- and it isn't referred to the past)

- my thoughts exactly.  Not refered to the past.

[adwise43]

- I think that translation "Желаю (хочу), чтобы она БЫЛА счастлива" would be more accurate. Because “MAY” this is not only a modal verb but also a SIGN OF SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD in this case. The word-for-word translation of this kind of phrases may render (may make) them a bit strange. In my opinion, we should translate “MAY+BE” like “the verb “to be” in the Subjunctive mood”

Nevertheless may is a modal verb, and you can't omit its meaning like that. Modals always preserve their meaning, as it is primery for them.

Хочу, чтобы он МОГ придти – this is a bit <--> odd as a wish.

May be you'll be pleased with "смог придти".
“I wish she may be happy” - I know she feels unhappy now, and I want it to be possible for her to become happy.

“he managed to come back from=ему удалось оправиться от...”

"придти в себя" (to come to oneself)? I don't think this is usually a merit of an one who came to one's senses.

Why  have you dropped “to BE” [were]? What do you mean exactly:  "Жаль, что она не БЫЛА [had been] or не ЕСТЬ [were] счастлива" or both of them?   “Жаль” –this is just a conventional impersonal translation into Russian, which wants to say: “Мне (ему/ей, вам/нам/им) есть (суть) жаль, что”… So, я сожалею что,… what exactly? [first person only]

And the phrases: “I wish it were enough” - "Жаль, что этого не достаточно"
 –“I wishED she were happy” - "Я хотел, чтобы она была (бы) счастлива"
 - how do you translate it in your way?

“If it began to snow, I should wear a coat” - "Если бы пошёл снег, я надел бы / стал бы носить куртку".

Fully agree. And there are (is??) “бы” in the both parts of the seconde sentence. So, the mood in the clause and in the sub-clause is the same [it certainly is in Russian]. And this is CONDITIONAL mood. But in oder of logic to be/remain logical/consequent, we can't/shouldn't/mustn't use ..., we are not allowed to use the “absolute form – if it WOULD begin” [neither is the Indicative] and we need to take the preterit indicative. But this is not really Indicative mood, just the FORM of Indicative [homonimous form].

When you translate into Russian, do you have an idea that your translation should meet the requirements of the language?

What do you mean by requirements?

I meant it must always make sense in Russian, to say nothing of the accuracy of a translation.
“He COULD well believe that men SHOULD BE vindictive”.

Он мог БЫ охотно поверить, что человеку случается быть мстительным

I don't like this "человеку случается быть мстительным" and your translation itself has nothing to do with the reality. Do you think there exists a grown-up who shouldn't know that vengeance is appropriate to any living being?
Well, this SHOULD may be an emotional one, but there is not enough of the  context to judge it, just as whether it is the Indicative or the Conditional in the principal clause.

IF=IN CASE (В случае)

in case and provided mainly introduce subordinate clauses of real condition.

“I would do anything for you, if I could” =“I would do anything for you, but I can't.”-  but in the future,  it may be yet possible. This construction leaves slightly opened <--> the possibility of action for the future.

I.P. Krylova, E.M. Gordon. A Grammar of Present-day English: Practical Course. §§146, 149

[srgsts]

I meant it must always make sense in Russian, to say nothing of the accuracy of a translation. “He COULD well believe that men SHOULD BE vindictive”.

Do you think there exists a grown-up who shouldn't know that vengeance is appropriate to any living being? Well, this SHOULD may be an emotional one, you can't omit its meaning like that.

And where is the law which prohibited from doing it if the sense is not only perturbed but even sharpened?

It was just a philosophical judgment…, I think.  
Then, on the one hand, the main meaning of “should” as a modal verb is obligation which is weakened to the sens of advice. So, smth advisable. Do you think that this meaning is very suitable for this sentence??
On the other hand, I don`t think that this is an “emotional should”… As for me, the "emotional should" is present in the phrases like:  “Why should I do it?”, “Who should come in but his wife!”,  “There is no reason why they shouldn`t get on well together”… and to say roughly, this is “shall” in the Conditional mood – “кто БЫ вы думали вошел?” “…почему БЫ им не ладить друг с другом” … etc.

It could be “should” which denote supposition implaying strong probability, but in this case it is synonimous with “MUST” or “WILL”… and I can`t imagine these two verbs as synoniomous in our sentence.
For ex.: “He SHOULD/WILL/MUST be driving home now”. “He WILL/SHOULD/MUST be at home now”.
Or: “He SHOULD BE here at 6 if he started now” (but the use is not very common and this "should"  comes also from “shall”, like the “emotional should”, imho).

The "WOULD" is possible, but it shift the sense to the ambiguous Conditional meaning (btw,we don't also need to translate this "would").

So, I have not found other explanation than this is just a Subjunctive mood itself.  

Modals always preserve their meaning, as it is primery for them.

 Yes, of course. And we can use it in our purpose by forming the Subjunctive Mood not only with MAY/MIGHT, but also using CAN/COULD, SHOULD and even WOULD (very marginal cases with Conditional Mood). I didn`t say that we alredy have to omit the translation of its modality.
For ex. : “It is necessary that you SHOULD BE/BE present”.  We can translate this “should” to highlight our personal opinion. This “should be ” makes the phrase less formal and more vivid than simple “BE”.

Btw, how do you think what is this “BE”? I mean, how do you see the origin of this homonymous form of Subjunctive? (I have an idea, but I can`t verfy it. I didn`t find the information).  

(I will give latly more phrases with “shoud” to discuss. Unforrtunatly I don`t have many time for free now and I need some time to “unearth” them).

So, я сожалею что …[first person only]

For what is the first person only? For “If I were” or for “Жаль”??

And the phrases: “I wish it were enough” - "Жаль, что этого не достаточно" .

My problem is that I can`t understand clearly the phrase in Russian: “ Жаль, что этого не достаточно”. What does it mean or what may it mean?

–“I wishED she were happy” -"Я хотел, чтобы она была (бы) счастлива"

– when? Simultaneously or in the future?

So, the mood in the clause and in the sub-clause is the same [it certainly is in Russian].

Not agree. We are hypothesizing upon the situation in both languages. Not only in Russian.

we are not allowed to use the “absolute form – if it WOULD begin” [neither is the Indicative]

I meant here  the absolute form of Conditional.  
(But the same rule is into effect for the Indicative Future - the present indicative instead of future indicative).

“I wish she may be happy” - I know she feels unhappy now, and I want it to be possible for her to become happy.

I am not sure that the knowledge about her emortional state could be so clearly got(ten) from this sentence. Maybe she is engaged… and I wish that she may be happy in her conjugal life… Why not? Just - “Je souhaite qu`elle soit heureuse”, nor less, no more.

[adwise43]

the main meaning of “should” as a modal verb is obligation which is weakened to the sense of advice.

"следует быть"? Not for the case.

“There is no reason why they shouldn`t get on well together”… and to say roughly speaking, this is “shall” in the Conditional mood

"Нет причины, которая мешала бы им поладить".
It's just a pattern, whereas in the sentence under consideration the verb forms are used according to the task of a statement. The modal SHOULD, just as the emotional one, is free from any moods, I should say. It only forms the compound modal predicate.

It could be “should” which denotes supposition implaying strong probability, but in this case it is synonymous with “MUST” or “WILL”…

Not for the subordinate clause here, otherwise it would be something like "... that the/these/those men SHOULD BE vindictive", or HE was not a male himself. I've told you it should have sense.
And this meaning of WILL is not common. The same is true for SHALL too (and it doesn't change its form). So, you'd better leave it for the fiction or forget all about it.

So, I have not found another explanation than except/but that this is just a Subjunctive mood itself.

"... мужчины бывают мстительны"?

Btw, how do you think what is this “BE”? I mean, how do you see the origin of this homonymous form of Subjunctive?

In Old English the Subjunctive mood had a special set of inflections, different from those of the Indicative. In course of time most of them were lost and the difference between the forms of the Subjunctive and those of the Indicative has almost disappeared. In Modern English there are a few synthetic forms of the Subjunctive mood which have survived: The Present Subjunctive of all the verbs and the Past Subjunctive only of the verb to be (were).

For what is the first person only? For “If I were” or for “Жаль”??

"(Мне/нам) жаль ..."

My problem is that I can`t understand clearly the phrase in Russian: “ Жаль, что этого не достаточно”. What does it mean or what may it mean?

Well, вы пришли в магазин за покупками, но вам не хватило денег, или вы чего-то добиваетесь, вложили много средств и сил, но все ваши усилия оказались тщетными.

–“I wishED she were happy” -"Я хотел, чтобы она была (бы) счастлива"

– when? Simultaneously or in the future?

It makes no difference. The idea is that she was not happy, and this state correlates with the moment of speech as simultaneous to it.

we are not allowed to use the “absolute form – if it WOULD begin” [neither is the Indicative - "и изъявительное наклонение тоже"]

I meant here  the absolute form of Conditional.   
(But the same rule is comes into effect for the Future (form of the) Indicative Future (mood) - the present indicative instead of future indicative) the rules of sequence of tenses are observed there.

I am not sure that the knowledge about her emotional state could be so clearly got(ten) understood from this sentence. Maybe she is engaged… and I wish that she may be happy in her conjugal life marriage…

And that is what they learn English grammar for.

In your text there are too many mistakes to be corrected.

[srgsts]

In your text there are too many mistakes to be corrected. .

I would be very grateful if you could correct them when your personal timetable permits it . Because of my work, I can't study english regularly and I write often my comments when I have a free minute... So, your corrections would be not only welcomed  but even precieous for me.  Especially tenses, syntax and prepositions. (Actually the spelling and the punctuation are not very important…).

следует быть"? Not for the case..
The modal SHOULD, just as the emotional one, is free from any moods, I should say. It only forms the compound modal predicate.

Yes. “Советуемое долженствование”. I agree, not for this case.  
But this meaning is principal for the  modal “should” . As for me, the other “should`s” (emotional etc) are more “Shall”, than “should”.  
I can hardly imagine “the verb-contained predicat” free from any moods. How is it possible???  

So, you'd better leave it for the fiction or forget all about it. .

OK, I let this phrase fall volonteer, but when I am ready, I will give you others.  I will absolutely turn back to this “should”, it seems me very intresting.

Btw, how do you translate “should” in your own phrase? Why did you use it? “Do you think there exists a grown-up who shouldn't know that vengeance is appropriate to any living being?”

the rules of sequence of tenses are observed there.

 Yes, because the consequence  follows after the condition which is introduced by if.

"(Мне/нам) жаль ..." .

And what about : “She wishes that she had been born beautiful”, “She wishes she had remained childless”,  “He wishes he had gone to University when he was 18”,  “She wishes she could open the dialogue “- I have found  these sentences  on the internet. Is it correct as phrases? And how to translate?

The idea is that she was not happy, and this state correlates with the moment of speech as simultaneous to it.

“I wish I had told him about it” –“Жаль, что я не рассказал ему об этом”. As for me, this is really “жаль”, because the time went away forever.
But., when we say: “I wish I could go round the world” or “I wish I knew the answer“ -  why should we be so pessimistic? The grammatical forms don`t close the door for some realisation in the future… The fact is impossible for now, but we know nothing about the future. I think that translation: “Как БЫ я хотел, (чтобы).. ” is quite possible too. Why not?

But here.: “I wish he hadn`t come to the party” – there is a difference  between “Жаль, что он пришел на вечеринку (Я сожалею, что он пришел)” and “Как бы хотел, чтобы он не пришел, (а он пришел) ” …
Maybe in this case,  “Жаль” will be more suitable  in Russian if  “I wish” is really “neutral” and don`t change "the coloring”  depending on the context.

Compare again, please:
“I wish I had more many” – “Как бы я хотел иметь больше денег”=“Je regrеtte de ne pas avoir plus d`argent” . The general meaning is the same. In French “Жаль (я сожалею), что у меня не больше денег” sounds well. But in Russian??  

Btw1, the French “English grammar” accept the translation of two ways: “J`aimerais (voudrais) d`avoir plus d`argent“ (“Я хотел БЫ  иметь больше денег”) and “Je regrеtte de ne pas avoir plus d`argent” = “Я сожалею (мне жаль), что не имею больше денег”.

(Btw2, if  “I wish” has “БЫ” which go besides, the use of PAST form of Subjunctive (after ‘I wish”)  is very understandable.)  

And that is what they learn English grammar for. .

I hav`not known that grammar is necessary for.  
And  what is wrong with the word “conjugal”? Is it only “physical meaning”  in English???  And how to say correctly “супружеская жизнь in general”? “Marital life” or “married life”??

In Old English the Subjunctive mood had a special set of inflections, different from those of the Indicative. In course of time most of them were lost and the difference between the forms of the Subjunctive and those of the Indicative has almost disappeared. In Modern English there are a few synthetic forms of the Subjunctive mood which have survived: The Present Subjunctive of all the verbs and the Past Subjunctive only of the verb to be (were).

. .

Have you ever seen these “special inflections” for the present Subjunctive? I didn`t find it in the handbooks. But I want to know the evolution.

[adwise43]

Actually the spelling and the punctuation are not very important…

This forum has the good working AmE spelling checking system.

As for me, the other “should`s” (emotional etc) are more “Shall”, than “should”.

To me, they are those which in use for the first person singular and plural (while "would" for the others).

I can hardly imagine “the verb-contained predicate” free from any moods. How is it possible???

I meant it has the one and only form, and so we can't just take a glance at, and decide which mood it is in.

Btw, how do you translate “should” in your own phrase? Why did you use it? “Do you think there exists a grown-up who shouldn't know that vengeance is appropriate to any living being?”

Of course, you can use the Conditional mood here, whereas I used the Suppositional one, for I am convinced that each and every person knows that.

I have found  these sentences  on the internet. Is it correct as phrases? And how to translate?

They are certainly correct. Don't you think its structure is similar to the sentences containing the indirect speech ("он(а) сожалеет ...")?

“I wish I knew the answer“ -  why should we be so pessimistic? The grammatical forms don`t close the door for some realisation in the future…

This "I knew" is not for the future. There are many other (lexical/grammatical) means to express the thought.

“Жаль” will be more suitable  in Russian if  “I wish” is really “neutral” and don`t change "the coloring”  depending on the context.

You may translate in one way or the other, according to the context.

Btw1,  the French “English grammar” accept the translation of in two ways:
...
(Btw2, if  “I wish” has “БЫ” which go besides ???

And  what is wrong with the word “conjugal”?

The point is that common people use common words and phrases in their speech. If you don't, you are a foreigner for them. How can they trust you then?

Have you ever seen these “special inflections” for the present Subjunctive? I didn`t find it in the handbooks.

You are inattentive, ain't you?

set of inflections, different from those of the Indicative.

[Daronomanka]

Work on picture "Morning in a Pine Forest"
 In front of me a wonderful picture, which was drawing famous artist Ivan Shishkin. This is a painting of nature titled "Morning in a pine forest". It shows us the most edge of the forest and three bears, which is on it. Behind them is a wonderful scopes of untouched forest. foreground of that picture is a fell trees, which, possible, were broke down of cruel people terrible relating for all our nature. On the fallen tree is sitting two little bears. I think, they walked with mother for the forest, and she is anywhere here too. Near with them is standing the same little bear. He sees somewhere far away. Looking on that picture, I smell wonderful flavour of the morning air. I like this picture, and I want to look on it again and again

[tourist]

Daronomanka

а можно посмотреть русский текст, а то есть места непонятные

 In front of me a wonderful picture, - There is a wonderful picture in front of mee
I can see a wonderful picture in front of me
which was drawing famous artist Ivan Shishkin. - which was painted by the famous artist Ivan Shishkin.
a wonderful scopes - здесь единственное число или множественное и что значит scopes по-вашему?
a fell trees - единственное или множественное? a fallen tree?

which, possible, were broke down of cruel people terrible relating for all our nature - здесь смысл еле улавливается
On the fallen tree is sitting two little bears - это что? инверсия? А разве так можно?
Может two little bears are sitting On the fallen tree ?

Near with them is standing the same little bear. - One more little bear is standing nearby.
He sees somewhere far away. - It looks somewhere into the distance
I smell wonderful flavour of the morning air - I can feel a smell of morning air.
 to look on it  - to look at it

[limarodessa]

Ув. переводчики

Правильно ли я перевел следующее предложение ? :

Among genetic factors, the ones controlling for availability of the drug at the target site are interesting candidates.

Среди генетических факторов интересными кандидатами являются те, которые контролируют доступность лекарственного средства в предназначаемом участке. (Я бы добавил - физиологически значимом для воздействия молекулы лекарственного вещества участке на молекулярно биологическом уровне)

Если нужно больше контекста то - здесь:

Effect of 5-HT1A gene polymorphisms on antidepressant response in major depressive disorder

И второе предложение:

Suicidal thoughts during antidepressant treatment have been the focus of several candidate gene association studies.

Суицидальные мысли во время терапии антидепрессантами были в фокусе внимания при исследовании нескольких, вероятно связанных с депрессией (и лечением), генов       

Контекст: Genome-wide association study of increasing suicidal ideation during antidepressant treatment in the GENDEP project