What is the rule on usuage..."If I were to go" etc.... or "If I was to go"...etc. Does it have something to do with if the proposed action is actually possible? I hear "was" so much and it doesn't sound right to me sometimes, but can't pin down why?????? Thanks
Courtesy of the Gregg Reference Manual:
When an if clause states a condition that is highly improbable, doubtful, or contrary to fact, the verb in the if clause requires special treatment: to express present time, use the past tense; to express past time, use the past perfect tense.
EG: If I were you, I would take the job.
If I had been in your shoes, I would have taken the job.
When an if clause states a condition that is possible or likely, the verb requires no special treatment.
SO: If I go to San Francisco (and I probably will), I will want you to go with me.
If I were going to San Francisco (but I probably won't), I would want you to go with me.
The same treatment of verbs applies to with clauses as does to improbable contingencies.
To classical scholars, the condition contrary to fact requires the verb to be in the subjunctive mood. In English, the subjunctive (if it can be said to exist at all in modern English) is close to (but not identical to) the preterite tense.
If I was dead-- and speaking from the grave I would use was
If I were to speak of the the past, or if i were wishing for something (to be svelte!) i would use were
Some time, I speak as if i had lived more than once (in a past life time-- i was less sure of my self)
I have only lived once (at least i only know about this lifetime-- if i had a previous life, I must have been a very good and noble slime mold-- but i have no memory of it!) but my live has change so much-- i some times speak as if the person i was as a child is dead. When i do so, i use was since that past is, in some ways dead to me.
So i do occationaly use was, an incorrect form for effect.
The difference is easier to see if we switch to the third person.
If Candi's late mother were here, she could tell us the answer. This construction is used for untrue or hypothetical situations, or ones I consider unlikely to be occur.
If Angela was at the library this morning, we'll be hearing from her very soon. In this case I don't know whether Angela was at the library this morning or not.
People who start tossing round terms like first, second, and third conditional tend to forget that it is possible to make conditional sentences about the past, the present, or the future, and use any aspect (simple, continuous, or perfect) and not know whether the event happened or not. They then come up with inaccurate rules like always use were not was after if.
In casual conversation this distinction is starting to fade, and "was" is often used in both the above situations.
Bingley
In casual conversation this distinction is starting to fade, and "was" is often used in both the above situations.
_________________________________________________
Unfortunately, the distinction is getting blurred still further and people are even failing to differentiate between singular and plural. eg 'so what if we was there?'.
Anyone wishing to hear Estuary of this type used to great effect (heavy sarcasm implied) need only tune in to any episode of EastEnders to witness any number of examples.
In casual conversation this distinction is starting to fade, and "was" is often used in both the above situations.
This reminds me of my dislike of modern usage/blurring of 'may' and 'might'. 'If I were to read the board more often, I may have posted an answer earlier.' and similar abominations.
Bingley's 3rd person examples make it much easier to follow - a tip I'll remember for the future!
I learned the usage of the subjunctive from my fifth-form English teacher. He was one of the few inspirational teachers I ever had, and was possessed of amazing powers of persuasion and explanation. Of course, he was one of Father Steve's confreres as well as being a teacher, except that I think he had been trained by the Jesuits before jumping the fence.
He was also absolutely scathing about "children" who didn't take the opportunity the school offered to learn Latin because he considered that unless they learned it they had effectively dismissed any chance of understanding about 40% of the English language.
He was also absolutely scathing about "children" who didn't take the opportunity the school offered to learn Latin because he considered that unless they learned it they had effectively dismissed any chance of understanding about 40% of the English language.
This is true from the point of view of vocabulary (as I think the remark was intended), but also very true in terms of learning grammatical structure. In my experience, learning Latin, and the terms applied to the grammatical constructions, helped tremendously in cementing my understanding of such things in English (as well as the Romance languages). Having to understand notions like contrary to fact conditionals, and the hortatory subjunctive, in order to really get where the Latin text was going, kept those concepts in my head more clearly than English class ever did - since I could speak English without learning all that gobbledygook.
The simple rule in English is that you can always use the indicative: if Hamlet was still alive...
Stylistically, some people also have the option of using the subjunctive (were) in the way previous posters have described. But this is not "correct English" as opposed to not using it. It is a register that some speakers were brought up to have and others weren't. To repeat: 'was' is _always_ correct.
I make the distinction in more conservative style, and tend not to in less formal style.
'May' vs 'might' is a bit different, because 'may' is becoming less used generally, so 'may' in the sense of 'might' sounds like a conservatism, and in that case, if you're going to be choosy in words, you should choose the more logical 'might'. When I catch myself writing 'may' I almost always amend it to 'might'.
The difference is easier to see if we switch to the third person...If Angela was at the library this morning, we'll be hearing from her very soonYes, because, in the first person: "
If I was at the library this morning,.. now lets see... this must be a sign of beginning Altzheimer's disease"
The simple rule in English is that you can always use the indicative
Thank you, Nicholas. I am SO GLAD you're back! I have missed you and your informative, erudite posts.
In reply to:
the simple rule in English is that you can always use the indicative
Well yes, that may be true. The indicative will give you English that is understandable (which is the first desideratum), but not English that is elegant (which some people don't give a damn about). It's like I said in a previous post -- it's not that difficult to learn a rudimentary English by which you can communcate, but learning it well (well enough to produce elegant prose) is extremely difficult. If students (and others) don't want to take the time and trouble to learn all those goopy rules about indicative vs. subjunctive and others ad nauseam , elegant English is going to keep getting rarer and rarer. There are some of us who bemoan the fact that no one writes like Jane Austen any more.