but If I had money tomorrow

[EngLearner]

1. I know that my employer will pay me only in a week, but If I had money tomorrow, I would buy such and such.
2. I know that you'll be here and that you'll help me, but if you were away tomorrow, I wouldn't manage on my own.

Do the stative verbs "had" and "were" work with the word "tomorrow" in the above two second conditionals?

 

[jutfrank]

Yes. Why would you think they don't?

 

[EngLearner]

Why would you think they don't?

If I were rich tomorrow, I would buy a new car.

I remember someone telling me that in the above sentence the stative "were" can only be used if the word "tomorrow" is omitted. They also said that if I don't want to omit it, I would have to say:

If I were to become rich tomorrow, I would buy a new car.

The sentences in post #1 also have stative verbs in their if-clauses, so I thought that perhaps they also had to be phrased in a different way if the word "tomorrow" was to be kept there.

 

[jutfrank]

I see. I partly agree with that, yes. Though I don't consider If I were rich tomorrow wrong, I do agree that If I were to become rich tomorrow is a better form of expression of what you mean to say.

Bear in mind though also that If I were rich and If I were to become rich do importantly differ in meaning, the former verb being stative and the latter being active. That is to say that being rich is quite different from becoming rich. If you really do want to talk about an imagined state, you have no choice but to use a stative verb.

In second conditionals the if-clause relates to a strange kind of hypothetical general time, not really to any particular point in the past, present or future. So if you're imagining something happening, or something being the case, at a specific point in the imagined future, it's a good idea to use 'were to-infinitive'.

 

[EngLearner]

I've apologized to Sarah, and she's forgiven me, so I'll call her tomorrow, and we'll talk. But if she was still angry with me tomorrow, she probably wouldn't even answer my call.

Does the the stative verb "was" work in the above second conditional?

 

[jutfrank]

If you're speaking hypothetically, you need the subjunctive were, not was.

 

[Piscean]

If you're speaking hypothetically, you need the subjunctive were, not was.

I agree, though many speakers of BrE use was these days.

 

[jutfrank]

I agree, though many speakers of BrE use was these days.

Yes. There are times when a prescriptive attitude is the best to take. In this case, I'd strongly advise a learner to use were, regardless of what some native speakers might say. This is especially the case in this example, since the verb is likely to be contrastively stressed to clarify that this is just hypothesis:

If she were (hypothetically) still angry with me ... = I'm making it clear that she's not

 

[Piscean]

Yes. There are times when a prescriptive attitude is the best to take. In this case, I'd strongly advise a learner to use were, regardless of what some native speakers might say.

This is a topic on which you and I continue to disagree. When Preterite was [...] is widely used instead of irrealis were in these constructions especially in informal style (Huddleston and Pullum (2002.86), I see no reason to recommend a form that many native speakers of BrE do not use.

I tell my students of the existence of subjunctive were, lest they encounter it and think it incorrect) (and also because I use it myself, a consequence of my rather formal education more than sixty years ago), but that is the limit of my support for the subjunctive.

 

[SoothingDave]

"If she is still angry, she won't answer..." is what I find most natural here.

 

[jutfrank]

This is a topic on which you and I continue to disagree. When Preterite was [...] is widely used instead of irrealis were in these constructions especially in informal style (Huddleston and Pullum (2002.86)

We don't disagree on this part, of course.

I see no reason to recommend a form that many native speakers of BrE do not use.

Yes, this is where we disagree.

I tell my students of the existence of subjunctive were, lest they encounter it and think it incorrect) (and also because I use it myself, a consequence of my rather formal education more than sixty years ago), but that is the limit of my support for the subjunctive.

But do you mean that you teach people to use preterite forms over subjunctive forms? You'd actually teach a learner to say, for example, If I was you?

As for my own language, I tend almost always to use subjunctive were despite having a very non-formal education, though I do occasionally slip into was when I'm speaking in my London dialect (which is rarely these days). I think we might disagree, albeit quite mildly, a) on how common exactly the subjunctive actually is in today's British English, and b) how formal it sounds when it is used.

 

[Piscean]

But do you mean that you teach people to use preterite forms over subjunctive forms? You'd actually teach a learner to say, for example, If I was you?

I did not say that. I tell them that both was and were are used. I also tell them that a minority of speakers claim that only were is correct, and that many of use believe that was is acceptable.

I think we might disagree, albeit quite mildly, a) on how common exactly the subjunctive actually is in today's British English, and b) how formal it sounds when it is used.

Quite possibly.
(a) I 'd say that, with the possible exception of the semi-fossilised if i were you, subjunctive were is used by a minority of native speakers of Bre,
(b0 I have the distinct impression that it comes across to many as quite formal.

 

[jutfrank]

I did not say that. I tell them that both was and were are used. I also tell them that a minority of speakers claim that only were is correct, and that many of use believe that was is acceptable.

So you don't teach them to say anything?

Quite possibly.
(a) I'd say that, with the possible exception of the semi-fossilised if i were you, subjunctive were is used by a minority of native speakers of Bre,
(b) I have the distinct impression that it comes across to many as quite formal.

I'm not particularly interested in this as it goes, but I guess there may be some data to support what you're saying in a). Can I ask—is this just an impression from your own experience or do you have any other evidence?

 

[Piscean]

So you don't teach them to say anything?

No. I teach them semaphore so that they can hand-signal their message.

I'm not particularly interested in this as it goes,

Fine. We can stop here.

 

[jutfrank]

I think we know what each other is saying, Piscean. It seems alas that our pedagogical positions may just be too remote to talk about this fruitfully and/or without hand signals. And this isn't the space to do it right here in this thread, anyway.

 

[EngLearner]

1. I know that my employer will pay me only in a week, but If I had money tomorrow, I would buy such and such.

I know this is off-topic, but I wonder if the quoted sentence needs the definite article "the" before the word "money":

... but if I had the money tomorrow...

 

[jutfrank]

It 'needs' it only if that's what you mean. It isn't grammatically necessary.

Remember that if you use a zero article (no 'the') you're generalising the noun and if you use a definite article, you're specifying.

If you really want to go into the usage of articles, you ought to start a new thread.

 

[EngLearner]

Remember that if you use a zero article (no 'the') you're generalising the noun and if you use a definite article, you're specifying.

1. I know that my employer will pay me only in a week, but If I had money tomorrow, I would buy such and such.

At the beginning of the sentence, I say that my employer will pay me (i.e. I mention my employer's money). Then, further in the sentence, I refer to the money that my employer will pay me. That's why I considered including the definite article.

 

[jutfrank]

Okay, then that seems right to use it.

 

[EngLearner]

Suppose someone is angry with you. You think that it's very unlikely that they will stop being angry with you tomorrow, and so you think that it's unlikely that they will call you. But you imagine a hypothetical situation in which they're no longer angry with you tomorrow, they call you, and the two of you have a nice conversation. You use the following second conditional:

A. If John weren't still angry with me tomorrow, he might call me, and then we would have a nice conversation.

I was told that sentence A wasn't okay, and that for it to work as a second conditional it should be reworded like this:

A1. Should John no longer be angry with me tomorrow, he might call me, and then we would have a nice conversation.

A2. Were John no longer to be angry with me tomorrow, he might call me, and then we would have a nice conversation.

But since nobody has said in this thread that sentences in post #1, post #3 and post #5 are wrong, I wonder if anyone finds sentence A acceptable.