[Grammar] were to

[SUJANLONDON]

Is the use of "were to" in the following sentences right?
Also explain the meaning of the same.

The Prime Minister said: "I have indicated in opening remarks that I do not intend to be Prime Ministerial candidate if the UPA were to come to power after the general elections.
BJP leader Narendra Modi will prove to be "disastrous" for India if he were to become the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said.

If she were to come tomorrow, I would want you to tell her to get the book.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I found the usage of 'were to' on http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/be_1 Definition#6

Not a teacher.

 

[Tdol]

will prove to be "disastrous" - I would use would prove here.

 

[Matthew Wai]

If she were to come tomorrow, I would want you to tell her to get the book.

Is it the second conditional where the speaker thinks she will probably not come?

 

[Raymott]

If she were to come tomorrow, I would want you to tell her to get the book.

I can't think of a common context where you'd say that, but rather, "If she comes tomorrow, please tell her to get the book".
However, as an academic exercise the sentence is correct. Often sentences sound quite weird if you choose the wrong pronouns. For example, "If she were to come tomorrow, I would want him to tell her to get the book". This would sound more natural if you were telling someone else about your expectations of 'him', or just thinking it.

Note to all: Quite often learners make example sentences with 'you' where the sentence would never be natural in speech. By using 'him, them' etc. they could be considered as thoughts. When you use 'you', you are making it an explicit dialogue or statement.

 

[Matthew Wai]

'"Were to" ... to emphasize that the conditional form is extremely unlikely or unthinkably horrible.'── quoted from http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/wereto.html

Does it apply to the OP's sentences?

 

[Barb_D]

'"Were to" ... to emphasize that the conditional form is extremely unlikely or unthinkably horrible.'── quoted from http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/wereto.html

Does it apply to the OP's sentences?

I agree with neither "extremely" nor with "horrible" -- let alone "unthinkably horrible."

I don't know how much you should trust that site for the future.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I agree with neither "extremely" nor with "horrible" -- let alone "unthinkably horrible."

Do you agree that 'were to' refers to 'unlikely situations'? For example, 'If I were to become the next president, I would ...'.

I don't know how much you should trust that site for the future.

I don't know how to discern whether a site is trustworthy.

 

[Barb_D]

No. As an American, I use the subjunctive for any unreal or hypothetical situation.

 

[Raymott]

I agree that that page is wrong. Why is "If I were to lose my job, I would probably not find a new one quickly" correct, whereas "If I were to lose my job, I'd easily find a new one" wrong? No reason at all that I can see.

I might register there and ask on the forum about it.

 

[Tdol]

'"Were to" ... to emphasize that the conditional form is extremely unlikely or unthinkably horrible.'

If you were to do it may be less likely than if If you did it, but that page sounds as if it's overstating things.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I might register there and ask on the forum about it.

It seems that only one person is answering questions there.

Not a teacher.

 

[Raymott]

It seems that only one person is answering questions there.

So I noticed. I'm not sure what to make of that.

 

[Matthew Wai]

'If we were to offer you more money, would you stay?'── my Oxford Dictionary's example.
'If we offer you more money, will you stay?'── my example.
What are the differences between them?

... Why is "If I were to lose my job, I would probably not find a new one quickly" correct, whereas "If I were to lose my job, I'd easily find a new one" wrong? ... I might register there and ask on the forum about it.

I just asked about it there on http://www.englishpage.net/showthread.php?18597-The-usage-of-were-to

 

[emsr2d2]

Please don't post the same question on multiple forums.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Is seeking multiple opinions misbehaviour?

 

[emsr2d2]

It's not always helpful. Learners generally think that it means they'll get a helpful range of opinions. However, what we find is that responses here might say one thing and we then get bombarded with "Oh, but over at XXXXX.com they said ...".

We recommend posting a question on one forum only initially. If you do not get a satisfactory answer from that forum and you feel that you have exhausted its possibilities, then of course trying a different forum might help. It is only courteous however, to tell the second forum that you have already asked the question on another forum and then give a precis of the answers you received there, or provide a link to it, along with an explanation of why you are now looking elsewhere.

 

[Raymott]

Please don't post the same question on multiple forums.

You might be missing the point, emsr2d2. Matthew found an error on the grammar pages of that site. I suggested the possibility (in this very thread) of writing to the associated forum challenging the errant page. He isn't asking the question on two sites. He is asking the question on the site where the error occurs. And he's not asking about English; he has the answer already from here. He's asking about why that site is giving wrong information. (At least that was my intention in suggesting it). And that can't be answered here.

Even so, he's not making much of a fist of the challenge. He needs to lay out a case. The page is wrong, but he has not made that claim, so it seems that the moderator is trying to explain something other than why he is displaying incorrect information. I wish I could post there, but it seems almost impossible to register and post. The problem is that the moderator there thinks Matthew is asking about the structure (as you apparently do). What he should be doing is asking why that site has described "were to" as being related to something horrible, when it's so easy to think up examples where 'were to' is related to something positive.

 

[Matthew Wai]

... he's not making much of a fist of the challenge ... The page is wrong, but he has not made that claim ...

I am just a learner who is ineligible to flatly challenge anything, claiming it wrong.

... What he should be doing is asking why that site has described "were to" as being related to something horrible ...

I have just asked a follow-up question there. If I am still not asking the right thing, please tell me what I should do.

 

[Raymott]

I know it's hard for you as a non-native speaker. I would say, "In your page on "Were to" you place a great emphasis on this phrase being used 'to emphasize that the conditional form is extremely unlikely or unthinkably horrible. Notice that this special form is only used in the if-clause.' What I have been trying to suggest is that it is just as easy to write a pleasurable sentence with "Were to", as in "If I were to lose my job, I'd easily find a new one" or "If I were to win the Lotto, I would be a very happy man". I don't understand why your site gives this strange advice, which is to all appearances flat-out wrong." Or something to that effect.
If you like you may direct Mr Rusty to this thread, and he can read it here. He can then respond either here, or preferably, by amending the page by taking away the doom-and-gloom scenarios that must be confusing to students.
I've read some other pages on that site which seem to have correct information, and Rusty might have nothing to do with writing the grammar pages, but he seems to be the only person there who answers posts.