Subjunctive use?

JTT, the subjunctive form in grammar is the unusual strutcture of such sentences as: I wish I WERE there. or If I WERE only there. What you have illustrated is a subject verb agreement error. Fault is singular, ergo, the verb should be "was".

You cannot be questioning the subjunctive mood, JTT.

What is your point?

I can't comment on why someone else might feel comfortable saying were in those instances but I have a question about an ancillary issue- and I think you might know the answer.

My understanding is that one uses 'were' as the subjunctive- something that might happen- as in 'If I WERE to go to the party, I would wear blah, blah, blah...or 'If I WERE going to the party....etc.

So this is what I've always said (and written). But I've noticed in more and more publications (mostly newspapers and magazines) that people are using 'was' instead of 'were'.
I've read sentences such as, 'If I was going to the party...'
That just sounds wrong to me, but I figure these editors must know what they're doing.

Can you use 'were' and 'was' interchangeably? Are they equally grammatically correct or is one more favorably looked upon than the other?
And if they are interchangeable- is this a fairly recent grammatical development or change?

JTT thinks you can do anything you want...and you'd be correct.

JTT thinks there is no such thing as good or bad English grammar.

JTT thinks there is not a single language scholar anywhere on this planet who thinks there is such a thing as good or bad English grammar.

Anything goes.

I don't understand what you mean, "questioning the subjunctive mood", Frank?

No, you can't use them interchangeably, Aidan, ie. in all situations, because they sometimes hold different meanings, again depending on the situation/context.

But yes, 'was' can be used in place of 'were' for counterfactual/doubtful conditionals and yes, both are fully grammatical.

"If I were you" and "If I was you" both entail that I am not you.

The change is not at all recent. It's been going on for hundreds of years.

The difference is simply one of register with 'were' being more formal.

Well, if you don't understand what I meant, don't even bother with it!

Do you think that those examples in the first posting were examples of the subjunctive, Frank?

Did you notice that someone put a tag on, calling you a "Grammar Nazi"?

No...and no.

JTT


That makes sense because whenever I've read 'was' used in one of these instances it was in a piece utilizing a fairly jokey or ironic tone-sort of a noticeably enforced casualness that didn't ring true- as if the writer were (was) trying very obviously to sound down to earth or down with it or something.

So then, as you noted, someone could legitimately say, 'If I was you' instead of 'If I were you'-that still just sounds so wrong to me.
I think we should go back to the more formal 'were'.

There are some situations in language, Aidan, where one form sounds better than another. That's largely a matter of frequency and in this case, for you, register. It might even be that you are "remembering" some grammar "advice" from your school days.

We can't go back because the subjunctive is moribund, and it exists, in modern English, in only a few forms. The rule now, the one that native speakers have in their internal grammars is, "use the past tense form with 'if' to denote a doubtful to a counterfactual situation".

No, I don't think that "anything goes", Frank. I've never said that.

'anything goes' comes from the prescriptive folk who believe that 'rules' for language can be made up according to their opinions/wishes.

It's happened again, and this certainnly isn't only the second time. I'm puzzled as to why.

I'm puzzled as to why this holds interest for you.

Do you think it would have been better if he had used "was?"

I'd rather the person responsible for producing said language describe why they chose this form, Frank. I haven't mentioned that anything would be better.

C'mon, JTT...you are showing lots of interest in this.

I know you will never acknowledge that "was" has any superiority to "were" in that sentence...but I really would like to know how you would have written the sentence...and why you would prefer that way.

It's true, I have a great deal of interest in things language. But as I mentioned, Frank, "I'd rather the person responsible for producing said language describe why they chose this form".



You don't know one way or the other, Frank. You can, of course, make as many guesses as you'd like.

Sorry to interrupt - but I find language interesting too.
I think was would be acceptable, but I wouldn't have used was or were - I'd have used 'is' as in: That is to ask why an extinction is necessarily evil.

JTT...it is obvious you think this was inferior to something else you have in mind. Why are you so reluctant to share with me what you would have done...and why you think the difference is important enough for you to discuss this?