Why 'were'?

Not 'has to be', since it's consider colloquial now.
Also, I don't really care what words you choose.
I chose 'were' since there is a possibility inherent in that sentence that there could be enough cash to please OmSig, but we don't know, it's a conjecture made by him. That's subjunctive, and the subjunctive for 'was' is 'were', no matter whether cash is a singular thing or a bunch of bills (See Monterey Jack's post).

I'm not answering on this again, my interest has waned, as it were. ; )

You don't have to get all worked up, Osso, I'm not trying to trick you or tell you what you learned or try to decide what you should say. I only want to understand the reasons for the choice of 'were' in that particular case.



Conjecturing [speculation] doesn't always have to mean a subjunctive.

If he goes to the party, that will be grand.

There's conjecture/speculation in the above, but there's no subjunctive.

I suspect/believe/think that he's going to the party.

There's conjecture/speculation here, but again, no subjunctive.

Here's another example. It is different from the original and I'm attempting to make a comparison between them.

That young man will be fortunate, indeed, if Leavenworth were to be made his permanent home, I think.

That's conjecture/speculation and the subjunctive form 'were' has been used.

That young man will be fortunate, indeed, if Leavenworth is to be made his permanent home, I think.

I've changed 'were', the subjunctive form, to 'is', a non-subjunctive form. Yet we still have speculation/conjecture and it's the same speculation/conjecture that we had in the first sentence.

Yet, there IS a difference.

If I were a grammarian, I might have a worthwhile answer.

JTT, I'm not all worked up - I'm bored.

See what Monterey Jack said again, specifically this:


"Structure of the Subjunctive
The structure of the subjunctive is extremely simple. For all verbs except the past tense of be, the subjunctive is the same as the bare infinitive (infinitive without "to"):

be (past) be (present) all other verbs (past & present)
I were
you were
he, she, it were
we were
you were
they were I be
you be
he, she, it be
we be
you be
they be I work
you work
he, she, it work
we work
you work
they work "

Okay, Osso, I can see 'bored'.

This is the fallacy of grammar teaching. Some think that by teaching grammar, which largely means memorizing inflections [or more often failing to memorize] or other useless bits of information, you teach people about how to use language in a better fashion; you teach them how to speak and write better.

MJ's information is useless, no slight on him intended, for trying to determine why 'were' was chosen in the original example.

Let me now say that I don't think the situation described in that example, ... better bring it forward,

When I was his age, I 'd have liked the cash (if there were enough OF it),

is an example that needs the subjunctive. Joe Nation also feels there is something "wrong", ... maybe "strange" is a better word [it's less loaded].

Here's why I don't think it's a situation that calls for the subjunctive;

*When I was his age, I 'd have liked the cash (when there were enough OF it)*,

[*....* denotes ungrammatical, or in this case, denotes what I believe to be an ungrammatical sentence.

Let's make one more change;

When I was his age, I 'd have liked the cash (when there was enough OF it),

Now, I believe we have a grammatical sentence.

I think that what the speaker was saying, [note, I'm saying "think"], can be summed up with this paraphrase,

When I was his age, I 'd have liked the cash (if/when there was enough OF it given to me),

I won't argue with your choices, those work.
I'm also fine with using the subjunctive 'were' as previously argued infinitum.

I think that people think the subjunctive usage of 'were' is part of a language example moving on from old ways, and I agree. I'm old, I get to use those ways. I'm quirky, I also get to play. Sometimes I'm taken as drunk when I word play, when I might be under the influence, but sometimes I'm just playing, and that may be when I am most outrageous.

Words are sparky.

They work because they describe the situation accurately.



Hardly ad infinitum, Osso. Whether the subjunctive could be used in the example was not argued at all.

But I'm fine with it too.

It's simply Nonstandard English, possibly an example of an overcorrection/hypercorrection, possibly because of students being misled/poorly taught on what the subjunctive is and how it's used in English.



That's not accurate, Osso. You're not near old enough to have been around when this change actually occurred - hundreds of years ago. In the example under discussion, there was no subjunctive mood, no subjunctive idea, so there was no need for this still exceedingly common form of the subjunctive to be used.

In English, the subjunctive is moribund but the few forms that still exist are far from dead. It's kind of like 'thee/thou'. These are actually still used by some speakers, so they are not yet extinct but their "gene pool", if you will, is so small that the chance of them, and their brethren, ever coming back is damn close to zero, maybe less than zero.