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.
Printable View
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.
:D
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
Isn't that a good thing? More leeway so it's harder to screw up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pravit
And among the kind-of-educated kind-of-not educated Americans like me, you sometimes remember to use it and sometimes don't. :(Quote:
You can bet that among the poorly educated it is already gone.
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.Quote:
Isn't that a good thing? More leeway so it's harder to screw up.
Use "If I were to" for something occuring right now or in the near future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pravit
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,
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.Quote:
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.
Nonsense. The past tense isQuote:
Use "If I was to" for something that was supposed to happen in the past.
If I was to go home yesterday, then . . .
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 . . . "Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatts59
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 withQuote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
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.
Interesting, if I stress different parts of the sentence, the meaning changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by chaika
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.
I believe it'd have made sense if it had been written thusly --->Quote:
If I was to go home yesterday, then I missed my flight
"If I was to have gone home, I'd have missed my flight".
Dear God.
Look guys, there's a thread at the top of general discussions that you should have a look at. It says something about an ignorant's playground.
Rubbish. Only the second of those is grammatically correct, and it has absolutely nothing to do with differences between British and American English, the others are simply wrong.Quote:
kwatts59
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 had/ I'd gone home yesterday, then... or
Had I gone home yesterday, then...
Since those are both grammatically incorrect, they may well mean the same thing, but they're still both wrong. Correctly, they should be rendered:Quote:
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.
If I were/was* to have gone home yesterday, then... or
Were I to have gone home yesterday, then...
and
If I were/ was* supposed to have gone home yesterday...
*This use of "was" is what Pravit was originally asking about. This could be considered to be questionable grammar but, as has been said previously, only a pedant would complain about it, and in speech even a real pedant probably wouldn't notice it.
You seriously need to go take some English lessons. Not one of those examples is grammaticaly correct. Not one. It doesn't matter where you stress them, it doesn't mater what brand of English you are talking, they are just wrong. You're not even having a problem with the subjunctive as such, just with general tense.Quote:
kwatts59
If I was to go home yesterday, then I would not have been late for the funeral.
If I was to go home yesterday, then my wife would have been happy to see me.
If I was to go home yesterday, then I missed my flight.
If I went home yesterday, then I would not have been late for the funeral.
If I went home yesterday, then my wife would have been happy to see me.
There's nothing wrong with being basically illiterate, but you've got a damned cheek advising anyone else on a subject you quite evidently do not understand.
If I had gone home yesterday, I would have missed my flight.Quote:
brett
I believe it'd have made sense if it had been written thusly --->
"If I was to have gone home, I'd have missed my flight".
You're getting your causalities in a knot. Intention has nothing to do with result in this case.
If I was supposed to have gone home yesterday, then I would have gone home, and I would have missed my flight.
You guys are very lucky that you
Let me see, an American and an Aussie giving tips on grammar........hmm...interesting!
Scotcher, how could there possibly be anything wrong with the following sentence?Quote:
Originally Posted by scotcher
If I went home yesterday, then I would not have missed the funeral.
IF <conditional sentence>, THEN <resulting sentence>.
What is the difference between "I had gone home" versus "I went home"?
The difference is so minor that nobody would care.
To say that the sentence "I went home" is grammatically incorrect is ridiculous.
Actually, Scotcher is right, and - well, I do care about getting it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by "kwatts59
Sure, "I went home" is a perfectly fine sentence. But that's not the sentence in question! Can you say "I would not have missed the funeral" by itself? No. You have to explain further. As soon as you make a sentence conditional, it's dependent on the second half- you cannot have the "if" without the "then".
The following sentence is grammatically incorrect:
"If I went home yesterday, then I would not have missed the funeral."
You must keep the same tense in the whole sentence. "Went" is just plain old past tense. "Have missed" is past perfect. You just can't mix them like that.
I understand what you are saying. You are saying that the "if" part of the conditional sentence must match tenses with the "then" part of the sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moryachka
IF <past perfect sentence>, THEN <past perfect result>.
IF <past sentence>, THEN <past result>.
I tend to disagree. What is the gramatically correct way of saying
If I went home yesterday, then I would not be sitting here today.
"If I had gone home yesterday, then I would not be sitting here today."Quote:
Originally Posted by kwatts59
*conditional clause - a type of adverbial subordinate clause. Conditional clauses are usually introduced by if or unless. (If I win a million dollars, I'll travel around the world.) Conditional clauses may also occur without a conjunction, as in "Had I known you then, we could have had a lot of fun together."
-- www.uib.no/People/mbibt/Grammar.doc
try this: http://www.usingenglish.com/articles/en ... onals.html
--check out what they call the "third conditional" - that's what you're having trouble with.
If you like, I can rummage around for more info.
If you would like, I could rummage around for more info.
If you were to ask, I would rummage around for more info. :D
This UsingEnglish.com website is informative. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moryachka
On the second conditional, they state "if" + <simple past> + "would" + <base verb>. Here is their example:
If I won the lottery, I would travel around the world.
Therefore, the following sentences are gramatically correct.
If I went home, I would watch TV.
If I made a mistake, I would apologize.
If I went home yesterday, then I would not be sitting here today.
Your response to my question is not gramatically correct according to the UsingEnglish.com website.
According to the third conditional, it should beQuote:
Originally Posted by Moryachka
If I had gone home yesterday, then I would not have sat here today.
In conclusion,
If + <simple past>, then "would" + <base verb>. (Second conditional)
If + <past perfect>, then "would have" + <past particple>. (Third conditional)
This is what a professional editor from another forum had to say about the original question on this thread;
He was a bit rushed in writing this message, obviously, but it seems that 'were' is the correct word. But, this person I quoted may have some sort of irregularities to tell of, who knows? But for now, it seems that Pravit's question has been answered; 'were' is correct.Quote:
The subjunctive is complex and very useful. \"If one were to..\" is not subjunctive; it's conditional. If i were you, i'd learn the subjuncive well. If one were to know it well, he could do great things with the language. I'll tell you more soon. Must run. Today i can give you a better explanation.