[Grammar] The reason of "I were" in first person singular past subjunctive

Status
Not open for further replies.

KEN JPN

Junior Member
Joined
May 27, 2012
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Philippines
In the past subjunctive, the predicative verb takes a past form.
Among such verbs, only WERE looks exceptional in that WERE was used even with "I". In modern English, "I wish I was" is also heard in colloquial English but lately there is a tendency that more people regard WERE to be strictly correct and WAS to be vulgar.

What is the reason that WERE, not WAS, was/is used for past subjunctive regardless of the subject?

Thank you in advance, as always
 

abaka

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
Exactly the same reason we say "I am" rather than "I is" in the present, and "he is" rather than "he are": historical usage. Why does the Japanese dictionary form of verbs end in -u? Why not -ta?
 

KEN JPN

Junior Member
Joined
May 27, 2012
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Philippines
The reasons why English speakers say "I am" rather than "I is" can be historically explained, which I am not asking.
However, even reflecting such history the usage of WERE still remains exceptional, out of patterns.

If only one Japanese verb does not end in -u, there must be some reason there, which can be explained.

"It is so because it is so" cannot be the answer.
"It is so though why it is so is unknown" could still be accepted, though.

I hope people understand what I am asking here.
 

abaka

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
I'm sorry, but my point, although perhaps put too strongly before, remains.

There is no particular reason why a form called the past subjunctive exists, but the fact is that it does and is used in certain identifiable cases.

There is no particular reason the form of it for the third person singular of "to be" should look like a plural, but the fact is it does, although in the remote past this was not the case. [ I suppose a full investigation of historical English phonology may identify certain patterns of evolution that will explain why "if he were" came to be. Is that really the explanation you are looking for?]

The language has evolved to make it so. It trends continue then in a couple hundred years our descendants probably won't have to worry about it, just as we no longer worry about distinguishing the dual number from the plural.

But for now, just remember that "if he were" is the set phrase that considers the possibility of him being something he actually is not.
 
Last edited:

Barb_D

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Any discussion about "why" something happens rather than "what is the [currently accepted] way to say something" belongs in the general language discussion forum, not ask a teacher, so I'm moving it there.
 

KEN JPN

Junior Member
Joined
May 27, 2012
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Philippines
Thank you for your additional comment.

I checked the Online Etymology dictionary:

were

Online Etymology Dictionary

O.E. wæron (past plural indicative of wesan) and wære (second person singular past indicative); see was. The forms illustrate Verner's Law (named for Danish linguist Karl Verner, 1875), which predicts the "s" to "z" sound shift, and rhotacism, which changed "z" to "r." Wast (second person sing.) was formed 1500s on analogy of be/beest, displacing were. An intermediate form, wert, was used in literature 17c.-18c., before were reclaimed the job.

I understand how WERE took its form from WAS.
I still wonder, if "he was" is the past form of "he is", why "he WERE" is used only in the Subjunctive.
Regarding other verbs like 'go, have, etc', there is only one past form 'went, had', so there is no wonder English speakers say, "If I went" or "If I had". Then why not "if I was" but "if I were". There must be a historical, or psychological or whatever, reason behind it, which I want to know.
 
Last edited:

KEN JPN

Junior Member
Joined
May 27, 2012
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Philippines
Thanks for your advice. I will check out that forum too and open a thread if it seems appropriate.
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
I understand how WERE took its form from WAS.
I still wonder, if "he was" is the past form of "he is", why "he WERE" is used only in the Subjunctive.
Regarding other verbs like 'go, have, etc', there is only one past form 'went, had', so there is no wonder English speakers say, "If I went" or "If I had". Then why not "if I was" but "if I were". There must be a historical, or psychological or whatever, reason behind it, which I want to know.
I would say it's because the forms of "to be" are notoriously irregular in most languages. So the normal past tense of "to be" is "I was, you were, he was, we were ..." whereas for most verbs, the past tense is the same for all persons, "I went, you went, he went ..."
My hypothesis is this: the subjunctive form is always the same and is based on the simple past of the 2nd person (or any of the plural forms) - thus giving "were" for "to be". What you point out as an apparent irregularity is actually a regularity.
 

KEN JPN

Junior Member
Joined
May 27, 2012
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Philippines
I would say it's because the forms of "to be" are notoriously irregular in most languages. So the normal past tense of "to be" is "I was, you were, he was, we were ..." whereas for most verbs, the past tense is the same for all persons, "I went, you went, he went ..."
My hypothesis is this: the subjunctive form is always the same and is based on the simple past of the 2nd person (or any of the plural forms) - thus giving "were" for "to be". What you point out as an apparent irregularity is actually a regularity.

Thank you very much for you very interesting comment.
If your hypothesis that "the subjunctive form is always the same and is based on the simple past of the 2nd person (or any of the plural forms) " applies, it can be regarded as a regularity, yes.

However, I have to hold another question here:
Why was "2nd person (or any of the plural ) form" used for Subjunctive, not 1st or 3rd person, not singular?
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
In modern English, "I wish I was" is also heard in colloquial English but lately there is a tendency that more people regard WERE to be strictly correct and WAS to be vulgar.

I'd say, at least in BrE, that the tendency is moving in the opposite direction- towards a wider acceptance of was. Exam boards like Cambridge dropped testing it years ago, for instance.
 

KEN JPN

Junior Member
Joined
May 27, 2012
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
Japanese
Home Country
Japan
Current Location
Philippines
I'd say, at least in BrE, that the tendency is moving in the opposite direction- towards a wider acceptance of was. Exam boards like Cambridge dropped testing it years ago, for instance.

Thank you for the information.
Very interesting.
It is often believed that things are more conservative in UK than in US, however, when it comes to the English language, UK sometimes looks more radical: When Americans still use "I suggest that he do it", Br English speakers say "I suggest that he should do it", and here the difference of WAS-WERE usage tendency.

At least, I have to keep in mind that, if a student writes "I wish I was", I should never tell him that's wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top