If I "were" king instead of "was"

Status
Not open for further replies.

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
MrPedantic wrote:

I would take a different view. Since I know that I myself sometimes use the was-subjunctive, and sometimes the were-subjunctive, depending on the context and the intended meaning, I wouldn't have any grounds for assuming that other speakers had done the same only in error.
We would just have to ask them. Sadly, however, as they are unavailable for comment, let us pass on...

Strictly speaking, your second example is not a 2nd conditional;
Of course, it is a "hybrid" form combining structural features of both a second and a third conditional. However, as we tend to classify conditionals primarily according to their protasis rather than their apodosis, it would be reasonable to classify this as a 'variant second conditional', but, in any case, irrespective of the relative temporality of the consequences inferred, the condition specified being counterfactual, the basic point that it illustrates remains, in all essential respects, the same (see also below).

and probably both the 1st and 2nd conditionals are more flexible than you suggest. Thus

1a. If he's here, I'll eat my hat.

does not imply belief that he's here;


And I have nowhere suggested that it does! What it entails, as previously stated, is simply the speaker's belief that he may be here.

2a. If he were the man we're looking for, he would have a tattoo on his right buttock.

does not categorically imply the belief that he's not our man:


I'm very much afraid that it does!

Anyone who utters the sentence above is implicitly asserting the following beliefs:

1. He does NOT have a tattoo on his right buttock.
2. He is, therefore, NOT our man.

That is simply what the sentence means - whether the speaker likes it or not.

If, on the other hand - the matter not having been, as yet, properly investigated - the speaker were unsure as to whether there in fact was a tattoo on the man's right buttock, then (s)he would instead use a first conditional, and say

If he is the man we're looking for, he will have a tattoo on his right buttock.

since the existence of the tattoo, at the time of utterance, is considered a possibility.

to establish that, we would first need to debag him.
Indeed we would, but this incidental fact about the world would have no bearing on the appropriateness of the speaker's original sentence, which merely asserted his/her beliefs at the time in question.

But in any case, even if the point were valid, it would not preclude the use of "was" in counterfactual statements:
3. If he was any bigger, we'd have to use a taser.

And, albeit less felicitously expressed, precisely the same point would apply: he is - according to the speaker - NOT any bigger than this and we consequently do NOT need to use a taser!
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Philo, I believe that we do not disagree on much except whether there is any value in labelling the forms we are discussing ‘past subjunctive’, or whether there is a simpler way of looking at modern English.

But this is precisely what the dumbing down of English grammar* always achieves: an apparent short-term gain at the expense of a long-term loss of systemic coherency and internal consistency.

Let us just review a few basic facts and principles (boldfaced for ease of reference):

1. The underlined past subjunctive form of 'be' in a second conditional sentence such as

If I were king, I would live in a castle.

is not only correct by the lights of all educated speakers of contemporary English throughout the world; it is the only acceptable form for a great many of them, while the corresponding indicative mood-form 'was' in the same sentence position enjoys acceptability only among a limited subset of those users (not least because, unlike 'were', it is potentially ambiguous as a counterfactual: see post #50).

There can therefore be little doubt that, of the two, 'were' in this sentence position can legitimately be regarded overall - i.e. in terms both of level of acceptability and of innate semantic clarity - as the superior/more 'correct' form and 'was' as the inferior/less 'correct' form.

2. To assert that 'be' is the only verb in the English language possessing a past subjunctive mood would be tantamount to suggesting that all other verbs in the English language are referentially defective - a patently absurd position.

3. To base grammatical classifications of words on coincidences of sound/spelling rather than on clear referential/functional analogy in the context of a given construction is a fundamentally unsound procedure (see post #37)

4. When assessing the grammatical status of a word on the basis of referential/functional analogy, it is proper to relate it to standard, rather than to nonstandard, forms, or, as the case may be, to superior/more 'correct', rather than to inferior/less 'correct', forms.

Thus, when assessing the grammatical status of a verb form occupying the underlined sentence position in the example above, it is proper to classify it according to the classification of 'were' rather than according to that of 'was'.

CONCLUSION: Any single-word past-tense form occupying the underlined position in

If I were king, I would live in a castle.

is logically classifiable as a form of the subjunctive, and not of the indicative, mood.

RIDER: To accept the reality of a linguistic classification and yet, when teaching even the most advanced students, rely on terminology that serves or seeks to deny, disguise or obfuscate it could be a considered, at best, a form of intellectual patronization, at worst, unprofessional and misleading.


Now, if you consider any of the principles/axioms cited above to be false, dispute the truth of any of the facts of usage cited or consider the reasoning process employed to be in any way unsound, then I will be most happy to hear your objections. Perhaps, despite the many hours of thought that I have devoted to this topic, you will find something that I have carelessly overlooked.

If not, however, I would humbly submit that you are bound to accept my conclusion and my rider!




(*Frankly, I don't see what else any attempt to make language appear simpler than it really is could be called.)
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
1. The underlined past subjunctive form of 'be' in a second conditional sentence such as

If I were king, I would live in a castle.

is not only correct by the lights of all educated speakers of contemporary English throughout the world;it is the only acceptable form for a great many of them, )
This forum challenges that statement - unless you are claiming that those of us who disagree with you are not educated.

while the corresponding indicative mood-form 'was' in the same sentence position enjoys acceptability only among a limited subset of those users (not least because, unlike 'were', it is potentially ambiguous as a counterfactual.
You choose to consider it ambiguous. It is no more ambiguous than the use of 'can' for permission, which so many pedantic teachers used to refuse to understand - when everybody else did.

There can therefore be little doubt that, of the two, 'were' in this sentence position can legitimately be regarded overall - i.e. in terms both of level of acceptability and of innate semantic clarity - as the superior/more 'correct' form and 'was' as the inferior/less 'correct' form.

There is clearly little doubt in your mind. This forum, and the works of several leading writers on grammar show that there is doubt in the minds of others.

2. To assert that 'be' is the only verb in the English language possessing a past subjunctive mood would be tantamount to suggesting that all other verbs in the English language are referentially defective - a patently absurd position.
As far as I can see, nobody has asserted that. Once again, you are attempting to strengthen your case by showing the absurdity of arguments that were never made.

3. To base grammatical classifications of words on coincidences of sound/spelling rather than on clear referential/functional analogy in the context of a given construction is a fundamentally unsound procedure.
To base grammatical classification on a form recognisable in only one verb doesn't seem particularly sound to me.

4. When assessing the grammatical status of a word on the basis of referential/functional analogy, it is proper to relate it to standard, rather than to nonstandard, forms, or, as the case may be, to superior/more 'correct', rather than to inferior/less 'correct', forms.
I agree about standard/non-standard. The superior/inferior idea is just a little subjective.

Thus, when assessing the grammatical status of a verb form occupying the underlined sentence position in the example above, it is proper to classify it according to the classification of 'were' rather than according to that of 'was'.
That's your opinion. It isn't mine.

CONCLUSION: Any single-word past-tense form occupying the underlined position in If I were king, I would live in a castle
is logically classifiable as a form of the subjunctive, and not of the indicative, mood.
That's one way of looking at it.

Given that only one verb shows a different form in that position, and thousands do not, it would appear to be more logical to wonder whether there was any point in separate classification of moods.

To accept the reality of a linguistic classification and yet, when teaching even the most advanced students, rely on terminology that serves or seeks to deny, disguise or obfuscate it could be a considered, at best, a form of intellectual patronization, at worst, unprofessional and misleading.
Possibly. However, as I don't accept the reality of a past subjunctive, there is no problem

I would humbly submit that you are bound to accept my conclusion and my rider!
Hope springs eternal..

dumbing down of English grammar*
*Frankly, I don't see what else any attempt to make language appear simpler than it really is could be called.
Another red herring. Nobody is attempting to make language appear simpler than it really is. I, for one, am attempting to show that it is simpler than some maintain.

And 'dumbing down'? Perhaps that is what you do when you dismiss arguments that have never been made. And what about blandly claiming that all 'careful speakers' agree with you? When MrPedantic produces one who doesn't, you can blithely dismiss it with the words "Well, they may possibly write it in, let us be charitable and say, an unguarded moment, but would they rigorously defend their choice and stand by it if the matter were brought to their attention by a punctilious editor or perceptive reader? Somehow, I suspect not..". In another thread, I mentioned a leading writer on grammar, and you casually dismissed his work. In a way I envy your blind confidence that you are right and those who disagree must be wrong. Some might consider this ' intellectual patronization, at worst, unprofessional and misleading'.
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
It's very simple: if, of two constructions A and B, B (as demonstrated) requires context to disambiguate it while A does not, then A is logically the clearer/more precise of the two. Ergo, B is, relatively speaking, ambiguous.
QED

It may be true that some examples of the "If I were/was" construction would require context to disambiguate them, but that does not mean that the "If I were" variant of the construction is

a) clearer in an absolute sense;
b) more logical in an absolute sense;
c) more precise in an absolute sense.

(By what reasoning would you judge that one variant was more "logical" than the other, for instance?)

Then too, ambiguity in the absence of context is not of any great importance, since we would never encounter this construction without context, except in grammatical exercises or threads on ESL forums.

Consider also:

1. If I were you, I'd reconsider that decision.
2. If I were you, I'd reconsider that decision.
3. If I were you, I'd reconsider that decision.

Which is the threat, which is the piece of friendly advice, and which is the attempt to defraud? To deprecate a construction because it requires context is a little like deprecating a fish because it requires water.

(I should also add that greater logic, clarity or precision in one variant does not necessarily imply "ambiguity" in the other. We can be less logical, less clear, or less precise without being more ambiguous.)

MrP
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5jj

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
1. The underlined past subjunctive form of 'be' in a second conditional sentence such as

If I were king, I would live in a castle.

is not only correct by the lights of all educated speakers of contemporary English throughout the world; it is the only acceptable form for a great many of them, while the corresponding indicative mood-form 'was' in the same sentence position enjoys acceptability only among a limited subset of those users (not least because, unlike 'were', it is potentially ambiguous as a counterfactual: see post #50).

The usage of BrE men and women in professions connected with law, government, teaching, medicine, etc. (which generally require some higher education of some kind) is not what you suggest.

In the utterances of such speakers, it is very common to encounter phrases with patterns such as:

1. If it wasn't for the fact that X, Y.
2. If he was going to do X, he would have done Y.
3. If he was here now, he would do X.

No one misunderstands these utterances through the absence of the were-subjunctive; and in other contexts, the same speakers may well employ "If he were", etc. Certainly the tendency is not restricted to a "limited subset"; probably the reverse is true.

By the way, the fact that "was" is employed in place of "were" in such cases does not mean the mood is therefore indicative: the mood remains subjunctive even where the form is indicative.

Best wishes,

MrP
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5jj

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
2a. If he were the man we're looking for, he would have a tattoo on his right buttock.

does not categorically imply the belief that he's not our man:

I'm very much afraid that it does!

Anyone who utters the sentence above is implicitly asserting the following beliefs:

1. He does NOT have a tattoo on his right buttock.
2. He is, therefore, NOT our man.

It depends on the context and tone of voice:

"Well, he certainly has brown hair and brown eyes. But so do several hundred thousand other males in Rio de Janeiro. Is there anything else to go on?"
"He has something of a grammar habit. So if he were to turn left at the next crossroads, and head down to Marnie's place for another dose of phrasal verbs, it would be significant."
"That's true. But I'm not sure we can wait that long. Anything else?"
"I thought I saw something drop out of his back pocket. It looked like a past subjunctive to me. If you drew up by the hot chestnut vendor, I could take a look."
"No time. We have to move fast. I need ideas, and I need them now."
"Wait a minute. I did hear he once won a spelling bee in Wisconsin. So if he were indeed the man we're looking for -- "
"He would have a Lazy T tattoo on his right buttock. Brilliant, MrQ. MrP, put your foot down. We're going in."

Three second conditionals. In none of them does the protasis present a condition which the speaker believes to be unlikely or untrue.

MrP
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5jj

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
fivejedjon wrote:

This forum challenges that statement - unless you are claiming that those of us who disagree with you are not educated.
Sorry, you've lost me! Which of the two statements does this forum dispute? Let me rephrase them for clarity:
1. There is no educated native speaker of English who would reject 'were' in this sentence position as grammatically incorrect.
I have found no one who disputes that.
2. There are, on the other hand, some educated native speakers do not accept 'was' in this sentence position (at least as appropriate for formal/careful usage).
Also true, I think you will find (and even as a BrE speaker, I happen to be one of them!).


You choose to consider it ambiguous. It is no more ambiguous than the use of 'can' for permission, which so many pedantic teachers used to refuse to understand - when everybody else did.
The potential ambiguity, however unlikely you may consider its realization, has been clearly illustrated. As stated previously, if one construction requires context to make it referentially clear, while another supposedly equivalent construction does not, then the latter is the inherently clearer of the two, and the former can accordingly be described as (relatively/potentially) ambiguous. Ambiguity is one of a number of factors constituting reasonable grounds for preferring, and thus effectively asserting in some sense the superiority of, one construction to another.


As far as I can see, nobody has asserted that. Once again, you are attempting to strengthen your case by showing the absurdity of arguments that were never made.
Oh, but some hold precisely that position!
Take, for instance, this entry under the heading 'subjunctive' from the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar:

Modern grammar ... restricts the use of the term subjunctive to two distinct tenses:
present subjunctive: a finite verb form identical with the base of the verb...
past subjunctive: the word were, used as the 'past' tense of the verb be for all persons.

(1998, p.381-382)


(my underlining)
As you can see, this asserts unequivocally that no verb other than be can be considered as possessing a past subjunctive.
I do agree with you, though, that it is an utterly absurd position! :)


To base grammatical classification on a form recognisable in only one verb doesn't seem particularly sound to me.
Not at all: the classification is based primarily on commonality of manner of predication (see also below). The formal contrast/comparison is effected in relation to the only verb that overtly and unequivocally bears a distinctive corresponding form. Using the verb 'be' as the analogical basis is therefore the only sensible procedure under those circumstances.

In precisely the same way, we employ a small group of pronouns that inflect for objectivity such as 'I' or 'he' (a similarly infinitesimally small proportion of the total class of substantives) when determining the status of a word as a subject or object, since those are the only forms in relation to which any change can be verified in external, formal terms. And yet, I presume that you have no objection to that...


I agree about standard/non-standard. The superior/inferior idea is just a little subjective.
It is ultimately merely a matter of degree...


That's your opinion. It isn't mine.
Rather than an opinion, it is the only logical inference to be drawn from the set of arguments posted, resting primarily on the validity of the assertion that 'were', in terms of level of acceptability/support and clarity of expression, can objectively be termed the 'superior' form, a point already covered, so I will move on...


That's one way of looking at it.
Ditto previous comment.


Given that only one verb shows a different form in that position, and thousands do not, it would appear to be more logical to wonder whether there was any point in separate classification of moods.
Let us imagine for a moment a parallel universe in which past subjunctives, just like indicatives, simply denoted actual past states and events: then I might possibly agree. We could probably write off 'were' after 'I' and 'he' as some kind of suppletive past tense that occasionally crops up, although for no discernible reason.

In reality, however, there is a massive, unmissable difference in terms of
manner of predicationbetween a past subjunctive and a past indicative, just as there is between indicative mood you go and imperative mood (you) go! That, and not chance morphological conflation, is the basis of distinguishing different moods of the English (not to mention French, German, Latin, Lithuanian,...) verb!


Possibly. However, as I don't accept the reality of a past subjunctive, there is no problem.
You don't? Really? Then, it seems that you are in disagreement not only with me but also with the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, which does accept its reality (see citation above).
You really can't have it both ways: either a past subjunctive exists as a real linguistic category (irrespective of its apparent number of manifestations), or it does not. My position on the matter has been clear from the start and reiterated in almost every post. Yours, on the other hand, has been, with all due respect, vague and evasive...



Another red herring. Nobody is attempting to make language appear simpler than it really is. I, for one, am attempting to show that it is simpler than some maintain.
I suppose that grammarians have for centuries been deliberately misleading people by invoking concepts of verbal mood just for the fun of it...


And 'dumbing down'? Perhaps that is what you do when you dismiss arguments that have never been made.
I think you're confusing 'dumbing down' with 'strawman arguments'. Going to the trouble of inventing nonexistent objections (which, in any case, as demonstrated above, I have not done) would hardly make an issue appear simpler, would it?


In another thread, I mentioned a leading writer on grammar, and you casually dismissed his work. In a way I envy your blind confidence that you are right and those who disagree must be wrong.
A linguistic category cannot simply be annihilated by the divine fiat of any number of celebrity linguisticians. It matters not in the least which big names in the world of grammar have or haven't come out in support of the 'deny-the-subjunctive movement', but whether the arguments that support their position are inherently valid.

I, for my part, have posted a set of connected principles and facts of usage that combine to lead to only one conclusion. In response I have heard nothing but claims based on the spectacularly weak basis that some forms look the same.

Sorry, but not impressed!!
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic

I, for my part, have posted a set of connected principles and facts of usage that combine to lead to only one conclusion. In response I have heard nothing but claims based on the spectacularly weak basis that some forms look the same.
You clearly seem to believe that fanciful misrepresentation of so much in this thread, so there is no point in my saying anything else.
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
You clearly seem to believe that fanciful misrepresentation of so much in this thread, so there is no point in my saying anything else.

So, I take it from this that that you do not intend to defend your position any further.
So be it!
 

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
It depends on the context and tone of voice:

"Well, he certainly has brown hair and brown eyes. But so do several hundred thousand other males in Rio de Janeiro. Is there anything else to go on?"
"He has something of a grammar habit. So if he were to turn left at the next crossroads, and head down to Marnie's place for another dose of phrasal verbs, it would be significant."
"That's true. But I'm not sure we can wait that long. Anything else?"
"I thought I saw something drop out of his back pocket. It looked like a past subjunctive to me. If you drew up by the hot chestnut vendor, I could take a look."
"No time. We have to move fast. I need ideas, and I need them now."
"Wait a minute. I did hear he once won a spelling bee in Wisconsin. So if he were indeed the man we're looking for -- "
"He would have a Lazy T tattoo on his right buttock. Brilliant, MrQ. MrP, put your foot down. We're going in."

Three second conditionals. In none of them does the protasis present a condition which the speaker believes to be unlikely or untrue.

MrP

Although I would actually dispute your final assertion*, these examples prove nothing directly relevant to this debate, since, from the point of view of grammar, there is no substantive difference between an act or state conceived of as unreal in the present and one conceived of simply as improbable in the future, as is clear from the fact that the same structural pattern (a second conditional sentence) can be used to express either.

*I would contend that the speaker here, on the contrary, employs constructions necessarily indicating the belief that each of the various protases is either false or (highly) improbable. Whether hindsight or later developments happen to show those beliefs to have been justified is, needless to say, of no consequence as far as grammar is concerned.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
So, I take it from this that that you do not intend to defend your position any further.
Not so, neither. (Shakespeare).

I am happy to ‘defend my position’ in any honest discussion.


I am not, however prepared to waste my time on somebody who:

constantly misrepresents what is written by others;

considers that all ‘educated’ and ‘careful’ speakers agree with him, presumably dismissing those of us who disagree as ‘uneducated ‘ and/or’ careless’ speakers;

arbitrarily dismisses ideas of two respected linguists as ‘frankly ludicrous’;

arbitrarily dismisses the views of an Oxford Dictionary as ‘utterly absurd’.

feels, without producing any evidence for the feeling, that if The Wykeham Professor of Logic at the University of Oxford (an educated man, one would assume) writes something that philo disapproves of, then that Professor: “may possibly write it in, let us be charitable and say, an unguarded moment”.
 
Last edited:

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Not so, neither. (Shakespeare).

I am happy to ‘defend my position’ in any honest discussion.


I am not, however prepared to waste my time on somebody who:

constantly misrepresents what is written by others;

Allow me to assure you that, if any misrepresentation of views has occurred, it has been entirely unintentional.

I do not, however, think it unreasonable to point out, perhaps by way of mitigation, that, while I have consistently and unequivocally stated my views (whether or not you choose to accept the premises or the reasoning process that underlies them) regarding the nature and status of the past subjunctive, I have, in the main, found your responses to be - with all due respect - vague and evasive to the point of exasperation, the overall impression created being one of either uncertainty or vacillation, with guarded statements of denial scattered here and there (of the type "oh, but I didn't say it wasn't X...but then I didn't say it was either...") and yet little if anything offered by way of a positive, systematic alternative position that would efficiently account for all aspects of good usage concerning hypothetical-counterfactual sentences.

I feel that I have therefore been, to some degree, 'forced', through lack of clear indications one way or the other, into making assumptions about your views that may, in certain cases, have amounted to a distortion of them. Thus, while I may well be guilty of faulty surmise, let me reiterate that there has at no time been any intention to misrepresent.

You will by now, I think, be amply aware that my position on this issue, revolving essentially around a fundamental point of procedural principle, can be summarized as follows:

1. When classifying grammatical forms, we do so by analogy with standard forms sharing privilege of occurrence, i.e. those that enjoy complete/the widest acceptance among the educated native populace.

2. As protasis-predicator in a second conditional, a distinctly past subjunctive form, 'were', enjoys universal acceptability, while a distinctly past indicative form, 'was', enjoys only limited acceptability in the same sentence position.

3. Accordingly, any past-tense form that can be inserted into said sentence position should, according to normal analytical procedure, be reckoned a form of the subjunctive rather than of the indicative mood.

As you can see, it is basically a straightforward syllogism, the conclusion following logically from the premises. If therefore, you wish to dispute the conclusion, you must disprove at least some part of at least one of the premises.

You would, for example, need to argue convincingly that grammatical classifications are sometimes based on nonstandard or substandard locutions (e.g. that, because some speakers choose to say things like *between you and I, we could formulate a rule that prepositions govern substantives in the subjective, and not the objective, case), or that there exists any substantial sector of the native English-speaking population liable to reject a sentence such as

I wish I were a millionaire.

as ungrammatical, claiming that only 'was' would be correct here.

Sadly, however, I have seen nothing in the way of any such systematic rebuttal, and, even after reading any number of your posts, am frankly none the wiser as to whether you consider a subjunctive mood to exist in English at all...

Please note, incidentally, that I have no personal "axe to grind" concerning the acceptability of hypothetical 'was' per se. It may shock you to know that I even find myself saying it on occasion! However, I do not consider that any sounder a basis for a formal grammatical classification than I would consider the fact that people sometimes run red lights on quiet country roads to constitute grounds for an official revision of the highway code.

I do not feel that any further exchanges between us on this topic are likely to prove fruitful, so, having once again presented the key points of my argument (one which, I contend, stands entirely on its own merits and therefore does not require the approval or validation of any famous grammarian or celebrity linguist), I leave those inclined to do so to weigh up the evidence for themselves and arrive at their own conclusions.
 
Last edited:

philo2009

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
MrPedantic wrote:

It may be true that some examples of the "If I were/was" construction would require context to disambiguate them, but that does not mean that the "If I were" variant of the construction is

a) clearer in an absolute sense;
b) more logical in an absolute sense;
c) more precise in an absolute sense.

(By what reasoning would you judge that one variant was more "logical" than the other, for instance?)

Ultimately it matters little, since, of the two forms under consideration, only 'were' enjoys complete acceptability among speakers of all varieties of English throughout the world (the central point that you seem persistently unable, or else unwilling, to grasp).

The point about relative ambiguity as defined in terms of degrees of context-dependency - as demonstrably true as it is - is of only secondary importance, and is probably of greater interest as a possible, or at least partial, explanation of the rejection by some speakers of hypothetical 'was' than it is as an objection to its use in and of itself.


1. If I were you, I'd reconsider that decision.
2. If I were you, I'd reconsider that decision.
3. If I were you, I'd reconsider that decision.

Which is the threat, which is the piece of friendly advice, and which is the attempt to defraud?

I think you'll find you're confusing semantics with pragmatics...

By the way, the fact that "was" is employed in place of "were" in such cases does not mean the mood is therefore indicative: the mood remains subjunctive even where the form is indicative.

In MrP's patented homespun grammar system, perhaps! :lol:
In the real world of English grammar, however, 'subjunctive was' is a simple contradiction in terms...

On the other hand, if you are seriously suggesting that any past tense in this sentence position in fact is to be reckoned a subjunctive (by the lights, that is, of your interesting redefinition of the term), then you are - albeit for entirely the wrong reasons - confirming my most basic contention, for which I offer you my heartiest thanks!!

Since I find it unlikely that any further responses on my part are likely to amount to more than repetitions of points already made many times over, I think shall now take my leave of this delightful thread and move on to pastures new.

Au revoir!


EOC





 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
from the point of view of grammar, there is no substantive difference between an act or state conceived of as unreal in the present and one conceived of simply as improbable in the future, as is clear from the fact that the same structural pattern (a second conditional sentence) can be used to express either.

Suppose we take this sentence:

1. If you took the second on the left, you'd avoid the worst of the traffic.

Would that also present an act that is "unreal in the present" and "improbable in the future", in your view?

Best wishes,

MrP
 

MrPedantic

Key Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
It would be as well to deal with the earlier misleading implication that the 2nd conditional always expresses conditions that the speaker regards as improbable.

Here, for example, the structure is used to present not an improbable action, but a suggestion:

1. If you took the second turning on the left, you'd avoid most of the traffic.

Cf.

2. If you take the second turning on the left, you'll avoid most of the traffic.

The speaker in #1 does not necessarily regard the acceptance of his advice as somehow less probable than the speaker in #2; rather, he uses the 2nd conditional to present his advice is a more "remote" (and thus more polite) manner.

Here, on the other hand, the 2nd conditional is used to present a proposal:

3. If we ordered 5000 instead of 3000, we could lower the price to £150.

Cf.

4. If we order 5000 instead of 3000, we can lower the price to £150.

Again, the speaker in #3 does not necessarily regard acceptance of his proposal as somehow more improbable than the speaker in #4; the proposal is simply presented in a less "immediate" and more detached (or possibly ruminative) way.

Then too, the second conditional may be used to entertain hypotheses (irrespective of probability) in science or philosophy:

5. Thus if we were to define 'true' as 'useful' (as suggested by some pragmatists), or else as 'successful' or 'confirmed' or 'corroborated', we should only have to introduce a new 'absolute' and 'timeless' concept to play the role of 'truth'.

MrP
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
The last post on this thread appeared some five days ago, and I have no particular desire to reactivate the discussion.

I merely wish to post here some words written over the last twenty-six years. They may be useful to refer to if a discussion on the subjunctive starts up again in another thread.



1. We often use were instead of was after if. This is common in both formal and informal styles. In a formal style, were is more common than was, and many people consider it more correct, especially in American English.

Swan, Michael (2005) Practical English Usage, 3rd edn, Oxford: OUP. page 235.

2. (i) If it was/were to rain, the ropes would snap. […]

As (i) illustrates, both the past subjunctive and the past indicative forms are possible for hypothetical conditions, the subjunctive being preferred by many, especially in formal written English:

If John was/were here, we would soon learn the truth.

The idiom if I … you by convention usually contains the subjunctive were, though as also occurs frequently.

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartik, Jan (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman, Pages 1093-4.


3. In popular and non-formal speech and writing, the were-subjunctive is often replaced by the indicative was, which brings this verb into line with other verbs, where the past tense is similarly used for hypothesis about the present and future […]. Were is, however, widely preferred in If I were you.

Sylvia Chalker in McArthur, Tom (1992) The Oxford Companion to the English Language, Oxford: OUP, Pages 997-8.


4. In most informal contexts, indicative forms of be are preferred, except for the semi-fixed expression if I were you.

Carter, Ronald & McCarthy, Michael (2006) Cambridge Grammar of English, Cambridge: CUP, Page 756.


5. Although sentences of the type [If I were you, I’d leave him] continue to be used, there is increasing use of was instead of were in these types of sentences in contemporary spoken English.

Yule, George (1998) Explaining English Grammar, Oxford: OUP. Page 131.


6. In BrE the subjunctive mood is most likely to be found in formal writing or speech […] But it is seldom obligatory, and indeed is commonly (?usually) invisible because the notionally subjunctive and the indicative forms are the same.

Burchfield, R W (1996) The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage, Oxford, OUP, page 748.


The Past Subjunctive […] survives as a form distinct from the ordinary Indicative Past Tense only in the use of were, the Past Tense form of the verb to be with a singular subject […]. Like the Present Subjunctive, this is nowadays fairly infrequent, and is often replaced by Past Indicative was

The Subjunctive singular were, however, still prevails in more formal style, and in the familiar phrase If I were you ….

Leech, Geoffrey, (2004) Meaning and the English Verb. 3rd edn, Harlow, Pearson Longman, page 115.

7.
[…] especially in informal English. When we are talking about an unlikely situation, you use the simple past tense in the conditional clause, and ‘would’, ‘should’ or ‘might’ in the main clause. […]

I should be surprised if it was less than five pounds.
[…]

In the conditional clause, ‘were’ is sometimes used instead of ‘was’, especially after ‘I’.

If I were as big as you, I would kill you.

Sinclair, John (Editor-in-Chief), (1990) Collins Cobuild English Grammar, London: HarperCollins, Page351.

8.
Traditionally, the uses of ordinary indicative tenses to express hypothesis etc […] have been described as examples of subjunctive mood or tense […] Modern grammar considers this to be quite unjustified, and restricts the use of the term subjunctive to two distinct tenses. […]

The so-called past subjunctive (also called the were-subjunctive) is used in clauses of hypothetical condition. It differs from the past indicative of be only in the first and third person singular, which popularly replace it. […]

If I were you, I’d own up. (If I was you …)

Chalker, Sylvia and Weiner, Edmund (1993) The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, 2nd edn, Oxford: OUP, Pages 381-2.

9.
The main use of irrealis were is in subordinate construction where the preterite of other verbs has the modal remoteness meaning – remote conditionals […] and the complement of wish, would rather, etc. Preterite was, however, is very widely used instead of irrealis were in these constructions, especially in informal style […].

Was
has been in competition with were for 300-400 years, and in general the usage manuals regard it as acceptable, though less formal than were. […] if I were you bears some resemblance to a fixed phrase, and was is less usual here than in conditionals generally.

Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge: CUP, Page 86.

10. […] the true subjunctive form iis dead in English. It survives in a few main sentences of wish or desire like “God save the King” […] .
Were as the past singular subjunctive form has held out a little more tenaciously, partly because in the stereotyped phrase “If I were you” the complement you has by attraction tended to establish it […] In the following sentence, for example, our modern tendency would be to turn the subjunctive were into a blunt indicative:

It is high time the wide field of Tudor music, both secular and sacred, were explored by many more schools.

Vallins, G H, (1951) Good English, London: Pan

11. The subjunctive mood is in its death throes, and the best thing to do is put it out of its misery as soon as possible.

Maugham, WS (1949) A Writer’s Notebook, Garden City, NY: Doubleday.


As these words were written by W Somerset Maugham, by leading teachers and writers in the fields of English and Linguistics in universities all over the English-speaking world, and by contributors to various Oxford dictionaries, some would feel that they are (if I may borrow some of Philo's words scattered throughout this thread) articulate, careful, educated, literate and perceptive speakers of English.
16
 
Last edited:

hznaeem

Junior Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Occitan
Home Country
Spain
Current Location
UK
konungursvia wrote:

The assertion that the past perfects and past imperfects do not relate to the past (which was perhaps made by another contributor) is quite naive.

I'm not sure who has made the assertion to which you refer here (one which is, in any case, meaninglessly incomplete unless one specifies .........................................

:-?
Hi, it's a bit complicated for me, as a non-native speaker, to understand the complex/controversial use of subjunctives.
But I got a result from the long discussion in the thread that there are some exceptions in English language known as 'subjunctives', well grammatically they haven't been proved, but this is the fact that their use is common in English. Am I right?
Thanks
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Hi, it's a bit complicated for me, as a non-native speaker, to understand the complex/controversial use of subjunctives.....
You posted this question in another thread five minutes after this. Please do not post one question in two different threads. Different answers posted by people who are not aware that another thread is in existence may lead to confusing answers.

As this thread had virtually closed six weeks ago, I suggest that your question be answered in
subscribed.gif
Use of 'were' with 'he'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top