Author Topic: Was/Were (Read 6134 times)

Jonathon · « **Reply #25 on:** August 05, 2005, 02:19:36 PM »

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.

saxon75 · « **Reply #26 on:** August 05, 2005, 02:28:39 PM »

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.

rivka · « **Reply #27 on:** August 05, 2005, 02:31:33 PM »

Quote

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.

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!

Jonathon · « **Reply #28 on:** August 05, 2005, 02:32:23 PM »

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").

saxon75 · « **Reply #29 on:** August 05, 2005, 02:36:04 PM »

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.

rivka · « **Reply #30 on:** August 05, 2005, 02:37:42 PM »

*shrug* I was taught to say "If I was taller" (because it could happen) but "If I were a unicorn" (because it can't).

Jonathon · « **Reply #31 on:** August 05, 2005, 02:38:13 PM »

Quote

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!

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.

Jonathon · « **Reply #32 on:** August 05, 2005, 02:39:02 PM »

Quote

*shrug* I was taught to say "If I was taller" (because it could happen) but "If I were a unicorn" (because it can't).

Rivka was taught incorrectly!

*dies*

saxon75 · « **Reply #33 on:** August 05, 2005, 02:39:59 PM »

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.

rivka · « **Reply #34 on:** August 05, 2005, 02:41:55 PM »

Quote

Quote
*shrug* I was taught to say "If I was taller" (because it could happen) but "If I were a unicorn" (because it can't).

Rivka was taught incorrectly!

*dies*

Wish I had the grammar book to check my memory . . . but this was when I was in junior high.

Jonathon · « **Reply #35 on:** August 05, 2005, 02:46:53 PM »

Link

Quote

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.