Was or Were

No, "were" is, because it is conditional. For instance, you would say,

"If I were king".

"He was the king in the 17th century".



http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html

I find that "was" or were", for me, is one of the most difficult grammar constructions with which I am faced. I would like a dollar for every time I have edited a "was" to a "were" on A2K.

Thank you Phoenix! I weren't sure so I thought I'd ask. :wink:

:wink:

Ha, I always wondered about that too.
Only if it's conditional than you use "were" - that's good
to remember.

Now what's the formula for "these" and "those"?

"These" are the ones close by. "Those" are the ones over there.

Conditional is not the criteria, conditional + hypothetical is the criteria.

Consider:

"If I was rude to you I apologize." = real possibility

"If I were a woman I would have breastacles." = hypothetical

Oh, now I get it. Thank you Craven and Noddy!

Craven's explanation is correct and describes the reason for many errors. An example I like to use:
"If John were there he would have passed the information to James"
(John wasn't there so James didn't get the information.)

"If John was there he passed the information to James."
(We don't know whether or not John was there, so we don't know whether or not James received the information.)

It's not a conditional, it's subjunctive.

Conditional: "I would collect fines"
Subjunctive: "If I were to collect fines" or "Were I to collect fines"

The conditional is almost always found in tandem with the subjunctive:
Example: "If I were the king of the forest (subjunctive) I would be brave (conditional)."

It get's confusing, doesn't it

either was-were for counterfactuals


It is confusing, CalamityJane, because everyone has been mistaught using the same faulty logic that Professor Bailey refers to in his article,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HOW GRAMMARS OF ENGLISH HAVE MISSED THE BOAT
THERE'S BEEN MORE FLUMMOXING THAN MEETS THE EYE

Charles-James N. Bailey

Consider the possibility that English grammar has been misanalysed for centuries because of grammarians' accepting fundamentally flawed assumptions about grammar and, not least, because of a flawed view of the history of English; and that these failings have resulted in a huge disconnect between English grammars and the genius of the English that really exists among educated native-speakers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

JTT:

Now, let's get one thing straight.

"If I were you, ..." & "If I was you, ..." mean EXACTLY the same thing, ie. "I'm not you".

It matters not one iota that one is subjunctive in form and the other isn't. Both are conditionals AND both state counterfactuals. Counterfactuals are hypotheticals that occupy the UNREAL end of the hypothetical spectrum.

"If I go to Africa" is also a hypothetical; it just happens to occupy the part of the hypothetical spectrum that points to things that are more likely, in [this is important], the mind of the speaker.

We ENLs choose <if + present tense FORM verbs> to show greater possibility/higher likelihood and <if + past tense FORM verbs> to show a reduced likelihood to an impossible state.

It's not an "one or the other"; these things don't exist in isolation. It's more of a scalar thing, ranging from good chance to impossible.

People get all hung up on the word "subjunctive" when they don't even know what the meaning is. It describes some older English structures, some of which remain in modern English. Most subjunctive forms have been dropped from English, replaced by other structures.

Read this from Bartleby. To see the whole article go to the site listed below. Phoenix didn't go far enough in the article. He/She didn't read or post the appropriate sections.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html

English has had a subjunctive mood since Old English times, but most of the functions of the old subjunctive have been taken over by auxiliary verbs like may and should, and the subjunctive survives only in very limited situations.

if clauses?-the reality.

In practice, of course, many people ignore the rules. In fact, over the last 200 years even well-respected writers have tended to use the indicative was where the traditional rule would require the subjunctive were. A usage such as "If I was the only boy in the world" may break the rules, but it sounds perfectly natural.

Subjunctive after Wish

Yet another traditional rule requires you to use were rather than was in a contrary-to-fact statement that follows the verb wish: I wish I were (not was) lighter on my feet. Many writers continue to insist on this rule, but the indicative was in such clauses can be found in the works of many well-known writers.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

All that is required in modern English to state a counterfactual is a past tense FORM combined with <if>. I capitalize <form> because it's only the form that is being used. It actually has a future meaning, doesn't it?

"If I lived in Mexico, I'd choose Baja." is a counterfactual, BUT it is NOT a subjunctive FORM.

"If I was CalamityJane, ..." is also a counterfactual, but it too, is not a subjunctive form. No matter, it means the same thing as,

"If I were CalamityJane, ... "

What is the difference between 'was & were' in counterfactuals? 'were' is simply used in more formal situations.

As Craven correctly notes, sometimes using <was> with <if> creates a meaning that points to a real possibility. But it may well still be hypothetical.

"If I was rude to you" CAN = in the speaker's mind,

I was rude to you OR
I expect I was rude to you OR
I probably was rude to you OR
I may have been rude to you OR
I might have been rude to you

All it's saying, [even where the speaker believes he/she was rude] is, "under the condition that I was rude, something follows"; in this case it's "I apologise".

HOWEVER, the vast majority of uses are counterfactual ones because most often, <if S was ...> refers to the identical counterfactual situation that would be meant by <if S were ...>.