[Grammar] if I were in America and there was/were....

[nelson13]

In the sentence If I were in America and there was/were a man doing sth,then..., which verb should be used?

For a present impossible situation, we will say If I were..., but half of my English and American friends will use If I was..., which is not standard, but acceptable nowadays meaning the same thing; I know all the conditonal sentence rules, but they just don't help.
"If I were in America and there was a man..."

 

[Tdol]

In the sentence If I were in America and there was/were a man doing sth,then..., which verb should be used?

I'd say either. The second situation could be seen as less hypothetical- a fact dependent on the first part.

 

[SoothingDave]

I'd say "were" for the first and "was" for the second. It is your being in America that is "impossible."

And yes, many natives use "was" for this. They don't know what the "subjunctive" is.

 

[nelson13]

Thank you. It seems better to use was.

 

[philo2009]

I'd say "were" for the first and "was" for the second. It is your being in America that is "impossible."

And yes, many natives use "was" for this. They don't know what the "subjunctive" is.

With all due respect, can't agree with Dave's reasoning here. Both events here are equally hypothetical (I'm not sure that the term 'impossible' is ever really appropriate in discussions of conditionals...), and there is therefore no more, or less, reason to use the subjunctive for the second than there is for the first.

That said, however, since the past indicative (was) is widely accepted by many native users of English even for counterfactual hypotheticals of this kind, there is clearly no grammatical problem posed by mixing the two forms. Some speakers might, however, object on stylistic grounds.

 

[nelson13]

Does it mean that in that sentence there were a man.... is also OK?

 

[5jj]

Does it mean that in that sentence there were a man.... is also OK?

Yes