GalacticCactus Forum
Forums => English & Linguistics => Topic started by: kojabu on August 03, 2005, 08:22:32 AM
-
If I was versus If I were
Is "If I was" ever right or is it always wrong? My friend has this thing about the subjunctive because it was hammered into her head in high school, but I don't recall ever being taught it.
-
Most people were never taught about the subjunctive. I never learned what it was until I was a sophomore in college, even though I used it correctly.
"If I was" is almost always wrong, I think. The subjunctive should be used whenever you're talking about something contrary to fact. Thus, "If I were a rich man" is in the subjunctive because I'm not a rich man. However, if I said something like, "If I was there, I don't remember it," it would stay in the indicative mood because it's not necessarily contrary to fact—it's just unknown.
Does that make sense?
-
Is it really supposed to be contrary to fact? My understanding (which probably only applies to Romance languages) is that it's expressing something subjective - something that is true from a certain point of view without being universally, empirically true, or something that is conditionally or hypothetically true. Thus, if I were a rich man isn't so much contrary as much as hypothetical or possible.
One of my French lit professors did her doctorate in Old French and said that the subjunctive was used a lot more in the middle ages because so much of life was seen as being conditional or possible rather than existing concretely.
-
The "contrary to fact" thing is just one aspect, and I think it only applies to the past tense use of the subjunctive. The present tense subjunctive is used to express desire or a command. I don't know French well enough to compare and contrast its subjunctive rules with English's.
However, I highly doubt your professor's assertion about the subjunctive mood in Old French. I just don't think it's possible to measure how conditional or possible ancient speakers thought something was. It also ignores the fact that use of the subjunctive mood has been diminishing in all Indo-European languages (as far as I know, anyway) for thousands of years. This is simply part of the cycle of moving away from an inflectional language to an analytic one.
-
I'm sure she made the point a lot better than me, and I'm sure it was more of a historical conjecture than anything.
-
Is there a past tense subjunctive?
-
Yes. Examples of the past subjunctive:
"If I were a rich man . . ."
"If he had been there . . ."
Examples of the present subjunctive:
"It is important that he go."
"Be that as it may . . ."
-
With my chosen surname here, I should really know a lot more about this than I do.
-
Haha yea I was wondering if you were going to add to this thread.
-
"If I was" is sometimes used as a past subjunctive. C. S. Lewis uses it that way.
-
I would say that it's often used in place of the past subjunctive, but I wouldn't say that it's actually a form of the past subjunctive. We're simply extending the indicative mood to cover the subjunctive's territory. It simplifies our verb rules, and there's no loss in meaning. I'd guess that at some point in the future, the subjunctive will be effectively dead and gone, though it may live on in forms of the be verb for a while.
-
. . . there's no loss in meaning.
I disagree, although I admit the distinction is subtle.
-
. . . there's no loss in meaning.
I disagree, although I admit the distinction is subtle.
If everyone used the subjunctive properly, there would be a loss in meaning.
But since it's encountered incorrect more often than correct, we are all forced to glean the meaning from context.
Everybody could stop using subjunctive right now with no loss of functionality or utility in the language.
-
I use it correctly! And so do some other people I know. If we were to stop using it, there would be a loss of meaning.
There would! :P
-
Here are some "fossil phrases" that use the subjunctive:
- as it were. . .
- be that as it may. . .
- (God) bless you!
- come what may. . .
- (God) damn it!
- Far be it from me. . .
- God save our gracious Queen; long live our noble Queen. . .
- Heaven forfend/forbid. . .
- so be it
- suffice it to say. . .
- woe betide. . .
- Let there be light.
Here are some examples of subjunctive in subordiante clauses:
- I move that the bill be put to a vote.
- I demand that Napoleon surrender!
- It is necessary that classes be cancelled.
And some hypothetical subjunctives:- Were I the President ...
- If I were the King of the world...
- Be he alive or be he dead ...
- If I were the President ...
- Had we but world enough, and time ...
- Come tomorrow, I will be on that plane.
- I wish I were an Oscar Mayer wiener.
There is more cool stuff about the subjunctive in other languages at the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive) whence I stole all this stuff.
-
I use it correctly! And so do some other people I know. If we were to stop using it, there would be a loss of meaning.
There would! :P
No there wouldn't, because not enough people do it. When I hear you use it correctly, I can't just assume that I know what you mean by your proper usage, so I still need to decipher what it means from the context.
I would have to do the exact same thing if you used it incorrectly.
BTW, I use it correctly too. My father drilled it into all of us as kids. My father would yell out "subjunctive case*, statement contrary to fact!"
*I know that it's not a case. But that's still what he said.
-
. . . there's no loss in meaning.
I disagree, although I admit the distinction is subtle.
So what's the difference in meaning between "If I was a rich man" and "If I were a rich man"?
-
Besides the first one sounding like fingernails on a chalkboard?
-
I'm talking strictly semantics. It's my belief think the perception of a difference in meaning is based solely on the idea that one is right and one is wrong. And if one is wrong, it can't possibly mean the same thing, right? But there's nothing intrinsic to the word were that conveys the idea of being contrary to fact.
We only have precisely one verb out of thousands and thousands that actually has a different past subjunctive form, so either we've already lost 99.99 percent of the meaning, or the regular indicative form can carry the meaning just fine.
-
Wow. I completely agree with what you just said, Jon Boy.
-
So what's the difference in meaning between "If I was a rich man" and "If I were a rich man"?
I think it has something to do with the difference between Topol and Gwen Stefani, which is about 150 pounds.
-
I must really be on a role, Porter. You've said something to that effect three or four times in the last few days.
-
Well, you were on a roll until you misspelled "roll".
-
>.<
I really need to get more sleep.
-
So what's the difference in meaning between "If I was a rich man" and "If I were a rich man"?
I think it has something to do with the difference between Topol and Gwen Stefani, which is about 150 pounds.
*giggle*
"If I was a rich man" implies that you think it is possible, even if not true.
"If I were a rich man" is a plaintive admission that it just ain't never gonna happen.
-
I firmly disagree. Most people use the indicative in the exact same way that others use the subjunctive. Some people freely alternate back and forth, using both moods in the same sorts of contexts. I think the difference you're seeing is inferred, not implied. :P
-
I don't think I usually interpret the subjunctive to mean that such a thing is not possible, rather that it is not so now and has not been so in the past. I mean, when you're dealing with concrete things, there's not much room for probability. You either are or aren't a rich man. Unless you don't know your own current or past net worth, I suppose.
-
I firmly disagree. Most people use the indicative in the exact same way that others use the subjunctive. Some people freely alternate back and forth, using both moods in the same sorts of contexts. I think the difference you're seeing is inferred, not implied. :P
If we are using common usage as our guide, you are correct.
But that's what the difference used to mean (certainly it's what I was taught by multiple grammar teachers and texts), and what I think it still should mean.
I may be in the minority, but I'm loud! :P
-
I'll second what Saxon said. If someone says "If I were a rich man" I wouldn't assume that the speaker will never be rich. He only seems to be saying that he's not rich now and possibly that he doesn't know about any future possibility of becoming a rich man (because if he knew that he was going to be a rich man at some point, he'd probably say, "When I become a rich man").
-
Let me see if I can be more clear. I would say "If I were a rich man, I wouldn't be living in this apartment," because I'm not a rich man. To my mind, there's not exactly a difference in meaning to say "If I was a rich man, I wouldn't be living in this apartment" so much as there's no meaning because to use "was" in that sentence doesn't make sense. The only time I'd use "If I was" would be in a different kind of sentence, like "If I was rude, I apologize profusely." Or maybe, "If I was a rich man, I sure don't remember it."
The difference in usage to me seems to be that "was" is talking about the past, whether or not there is any probability involved, whereas "were" is talking about some hypothetical present.
-
*shrug* I was taught to say "If I was taller" (because it could happen) but "If I were a unicorn" (because it can't).
-
But that's what the difference used to mean (certainly it's what I was taught by multiple grammar teachers and texts), and what I think it still should mean.
I may be in the minority, but I'm loud! :P
I'll agree with you on that. According to traditional rules, you are correct (except for what I said above). However, what I meant when I asked what the difference is, is this:
Person A says, "If I were a rich man . . ."
Person B says, "If I was a rich man . . ."
Do their utterances have different meanings? That is, do they intend to convey different messages with their respective utterances, or is there no semantic difference? This is a question of descriptive grammar, not prescriptive grammar.
-
*shrug* I was taught to say "If I was taller" (because it could happen) but "If I were a unicorn" (because it can't).
:o
Rivka was taught incorrectly!
*dies*
-
The sentence "I would really like it if I was taller" sounds quite wrong to me.
Edit: Even if I had said it 15 years ago when I was still growing.
-
*shrug* I was taught to say "If I was taller" (because it could happen) but "If I were a unicorn" (because it can't).
:o
Rivka was taught incorrectly!
*dies*
Wish I had the grammar book to check my memory . . . but this was when I was in junior high.
-
Link (http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html)
According to traditional rules, you use the subjunctive to describe an occurrence that you have presupposed to be contrary to fact
I think it's safe to say that the occurrence of you being taller than you are now is presupposed to be contrary to fact. However, it would be correct to say, "If I was to grow taller . . ." because, as a child, you don't know that you won't.