Thread: English subjunctive

I've just realized my knowledge of the English subjunctive is woefully lacking. And I keep finding myself writing "If one was to" instead of "if one were to." Please, someone, enlighten me.

Don't feel bad. Most people who are nativly english will make that mistake quite often. "Was" is used in first and third person and if it's singular. "Were" is a contraction of we are. It's used in second person (singular and plural) and a plural third person

I(singular, first person) was eating a large pie.
He(singular, third person) was killing bears with sharp stick.
They(plural, third person) were sticking crayons in their noses.
You(singular, second person) were reading about world domination.


You get it?

That is the past tense; I am referring to the subjunctive mood:

If one were to invent a perpetual motion device, one would become wealthy.

I don't think any native speaker would ever mix up Was and Were for past tense.

Dunno, I've heard "you was" in slang.

yea there is a diffrence between people not knowning and just talking like 50 cent.

I doubt you'll get a straight answer on this one, because I don't think there is one. English has had several subjunctives throughout its development, and modern English still retains remnants of each of them.

I demand that you read the following sentences, each of which contains at least one example of the subjunctive mood (including this one).

Far be it from me to lecture anyone on the English subjunctive.

I do not dictate to anyone how they go about finding information.

Perish the thought.

But if need be, I can.

Were you to Google the word "subjunctive", you would find better explanations that I could offer, were I to try.

If you were to Google the word "subjunctive", you would find better explanations that I could offer, if I were to try.

Hmm. Looks familiar. I just write "if I was to" instead of "if I were to" sometimes. But this is what I don't like about English. Why aren't there any strict rules for anything?

Be that as it may, the English language is losing the subjunctive. That's why things seem confused, as one formal category passes in favor of another. I imagine another hundred years and it'll be gone altogether.

In some dialects I would not be surprised if it hasn't already disappeared completely. You can bet that among the poorly educated it is already gone.

It's a process known as entropy where language (etc.) tends to drop off everything that does not fit a uniformity. Eventually, I guess that means, our languages will all deteriorate into one and will consist of a single syllable, schwa, the ultimate uniformity of language. =:^0

Originally Posted by Pravit

But this is what I don't like about English. Why aren't there any strict rules for anything?

Isn't that a good thing? More leeway so it's harder to screw up.

You can bet that among the poorly educated it is already gone.

And among the kind-of-educated kind-of-not educated Americans like me, you sometimes remember to use it and sometimes don't.

Isn't that a good thing? More leeway so it's harder to screw up.

It's a good thing for casual conversation, definitely. But when you're writing something semi-serious, you have to remember to put in all these stupid rules nobody actually uses anymore in common speech, or else some pedant will think you're uneducated.

Originally Posted by Pravit

Hmm. Looks familiar. I just write "if I was to" instead of "if I were to" sometimes. But this is what I don't like about English. Why aren't there any strict rules for anything?

Use "If I were to" for something occuring right now or in the near future.
If I were to go home now, then . . .

Use "If I was to" for something that was supposed to happen in the past.
If I was to go home yesterday, then . . .

The difference in meaning is so subtle, nobody would even notice if you mixed them up. Even native English speakers mix them up.

Personnally, I leave out were/was altogether.
If I go home now, then my boss would be upset.
If I went home yesterday, then my wife would have been suprised.

If I were to become a big fat cow grazing on the train tracks.......wearing a moo-moo,

Use "If I was to" for something that was supposed to happen in the past.
If I was to go home yesterday, then . . .

The difference in meaning is so subtle, nobody would even notice if you mixed them up. Even native English speakers mix them up.

Personnally, I leave out were/was altogether.
If I go home now, then my boss would be upset.
If I went home yesterday, then my wife would have been suprised.

As far as I know, this is considered "informal" usage, and the second examples border on bad grammar, IMO. I'm not worried about that, as I have a very good grasp on informal English already. What I did want to know was the correct formal style.

Use "If I was to" for something that was supposed to happen in the past.
If I was to go home yesterday, then . . .

Nonsense. The past tense is

If I had gone home yesterday, then...

or even

Had I gone home yesterday, then...

Originally Posted by scotcher

Use "If I was to" for something that was supposed to happen in the past.
If I was to go home yesterday, then . . .

Nonsense. The past tense is

If I had gone home yesterday, then...

or even

Had I gone home yesterday, then...

These examples mean the same as "If I was to go home yesterday, then . . . "
But like I said, I would rather say "If I went home yesterday, then . . ."

In any case, the "If I was to ..." construct does sound somewhat awkward.

Originally Posted by kwatts59

These examples mean the same as "If I was to go home yesterday, then . . . "
But like I said, I would rather say "If I went home yesterday, then . . ."

In any case, the "If I was to ..." construct does sound somewhat awkward.

Are you on crack?

No, they absolutely do not mean the same thing. All of your examples are grammatically incorrect, and the reason they sound 'awkward' is because they are simply wrong. Not "unusual", not "borderline colloquial", just wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with tense.

Originally Posted by scotcher

Originally Posted by kwatts59

These examples mean the same as "If I was to go home yesterday, then . . . "
But like I said, I would rather say "If I went home yesterday, then . . ."

In any case, the "If I was to ..." construct does sound somewhat awkward.

Are you on crack?

No, they absolutely do not mean the same thing. All of your examples are grammatically incorrect, and the reason they sound 'awkward' is because they are simply wrong. Not "unusual", not "borderline colloquial", just wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with tense.

I do not see any problem with

If I went home yesterday, then . . .

versus

If I had gone home yesterday, then . . .

versus

If I was to go home yesterday, then . . .


At least in American English they all have the same meaning and are completely interchangeable. If you think the last one is gramatically incorrect then I cannot argue.

"If I was to go home yesterday" means "If I was supposed to go home yesterday...."

kwatts - finish those sentences that end in "then..." and see what you come up with.

Originally Posted by chaika

"If I was to go home yesterday" means "If I was supposed to go home yesterday...."

kwatts - finish those sentences that end in "then..." and see what you come up with.

Interesting, if I stress different parts of the sentence, the meaning changes.

If I was to go home yesterday, then I would not have been late for the funeral.
As opposed to going home at a later time.

If I was to go home yesterday, then my wife would have been happy to see me.
As opposed to not going home or going somewhere else.

If I was to go home yesterday, then I missed my flight.
In this case, my plane ticket was for yesterday and I was supposed to go home yesterday.


The same appears to apply with the other sentences.
If I went home yesterday, then I would not have been late for the funeral.
As opposed to going home today or some other time.

If I went home yesterday, then my wife would have been happy to see me.
As opposed to not going home or going somewhere else.

If I went home yesterday, then . . .
As opposed to staying somewhere else. I cannot seem to find a context for this example.