Purely in terms of the terminology, then a distinction sometimes made is that:
- inflectional subjunctive is the type found in Old English, German, modern Romance languages etc, in which verbal inflection distinguishes subjunctive from indicative;
- periphrastic subjunctive is the type found (if you adopt this analysis) in modern English, in which subjunctive is distinguished from indicative by way of modal auxiliaries/other verbal constructions.
There's really no consensually agreed upon "wrong" or "right" answer to the question of whether English actually "has a subjunctive". If you adopt the analysis that "subjunctive" is the grammaticalisation of non-assertive force with a verbal paradigm-- which seems to be a close approximation to what the phenomenon is in Romance languages-- then it's fairly clear that English doesn't have such a phenomenon. (Saying that English has a past subjunctive on the basis of the form "if it were" is a bit like saying that English is a verb-final language on the basis of a phrase such as "Language does not a society make": it's proposing a paradigm on the basis of a rare exception.)
If you extend the definition to cover cases such as English "It is sad that he should leave", "David commanded that she leave" etc, then there are various issues to be considered which are typically glossed over in language learning textbooks:
- care must be taken to recognise where the similarities and differences actually lie between these phenomena and the inflectional subjunctives of French etc;
- it is worth thinking about what the motivation is for proposing "subjunctive" as a 'special case' of modal verb usage.
I will address the substitution of seen for saw. I see no problem with the uses of away.
This is a feature of a non-standard American English spoken by many native speakers of a low socioeconomic group and by Southerners. I know this from personal experience, but found the following sources to support my assertion.
One socially marked feature is the use of nonstandard past tense and
past participial verb forms, especially on irregular verbs. For
example, the verb to see in standard English has the past tense saw
and the past participle seen: I saw him yesterday; I’ve seen him three
times this week.
Nonstandard dialects may regularize these forms by
using one of several strategies. One is to form the past tense by
using the regular inflection, spelled -ed, yielding a sentence like I
seed him yesterday. Another is to use one form for both the past and
past participle forms, yielding sentences like I seen him yesterday
or I’ve saw him three times this week.
Excepted from Linguistics for Non-Linguists, by Frank Parker Kathryn Riley
Wikipedia says this is also said to be a feature of Southern American English.
Use of done (instead of did) as the past simple form of do, and
similar uses of the past participle in place of the past simple, such
as seen replacing saw as past simple form of see. I only done what you
done told me. I seen her first.
Another Wikipedia article identifies this as a feature of Appalachian English, a subset of the low socioeconomic class.
Finally, John G. Fought's thoughts on this phenomenon.
The great American linguist Leonard Bloomfield observed many years ago
that the child who learns to say I seen it has learned just as much as
the one who says I saw it. Both of these forms are irregular. The
least common American past-tense form of see is the regularized form I
seed it. These so-called mistakes shed more light on language than
“standard” forms, because what’s going on is clearly not ignorance,
laziness or poor schooling. The pattern of present, past and perfect
of see, seen and seen in place of see, saw and seen reveals that
speakers don’t put irregular verbs together just by combining a stem
and a suffix, the way they form many thousands of English regular
verbs. Among the roughly 180 ‘approved’ irregular verbs now listed in
grammars of American English, there is no verb with an -en suffix in
the past as well as the perfect form.
So where does I seen it come from? It follows a more general pattern
implicit in all the regular verbs and in many irregular ones as well.
All of the regular verbs, such as need, needed,, and about 75 of the
irregular ones, such as lead, led, led, have the same form in the past
and present perfect, but a different form in the present. The see,
seen, seen formation fits this more inclusive pattern, which can be
stated as present differs from past and perfect; the past is like the
perfect minus 'have.'
Best Answer
Referring to a location at A St. at B St. indicates that A St. is the primary axis of travel, with B St. being a point of reference along that axis. This is particularly the case if the address is not exactly at the intersection of or the corner of A and B, but a little bit beyond.
I thought it might be useful to illustrate some expressions with an example map from a town near me. The primary routes are east-west (Cameron Street and King Street as shown here).