# "as if" clauses: is this an indicative sentence?



## cheshire

Do you approve of my understanding of respective as-if clauses? That (1) is merely an indicative sentence, whearas (2) is a contrary-to-fact statement.

(1) They looked as if they *were *produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
(2) They looked as if they* had been* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
​


----------



## Alxmrphi

Don't understand the question, 1) sounds odd and the first thing I thought of was changing it to "had been", then I saw that was the second sentence, I don't see how 2) is contrary-to-fact.

Can you explain it a bit more please?


----------



## dn88

cheshire said:


> Do you approve of my understanding of respective as-if clauses? That (1) is merely an indicative sentence, whearas (2) is a contrary-to-fact statement.
> (1) They looked as if they *were *produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
> (2) They looked as if they* had been* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
> ​



I guess I know what you meant. 


(1) They looked as if they *were *produc*ed* hundreds of years ago. (they were actually produced hundreds of years ago)
(2) They looked as if they* had been* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago. (in fact they weren't produced hundreds of years ago)

Is that the point?


----------



## cheshire

Yes dn88, yours is exactly what I wanted to ask. We were taught there are two usage types of "as if": indicative usage and contrary-to-fact usage. 

Indicative: as if [*indicative *simile]
contrary-to-fact: as if [*subjunctive *simile] 


(1) They looked as if they *were *produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
(2) They looked as if they* had been* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.​I interpreted (1) as meaning something like "They looked as if they were actually produced hundreds of years ago."
(2): "They looked as if they had been produced hundreds of years ago, which I know is not true: they were thought to be produced ten years ago.


----------



## LV4-26

Yes, dn88, I think that's what cheshire is asking. However...


> (1) They looked as if they *were *produc*ed* hundreds of years ago. (they were actually produced hundreds of years ago)


(colour added)...Not sure. At best, that is the speaker's own appreciation of reality.

I don't think the tense used indicates anything about the veracity of the statement.
I think it's just a matter of pure syntax : the tense in the subordinate clause depends on the tense of the main verb, in an almost mechanical way, i.e.
They  loo*k* as if they were produced hundreds of years ago.
They look*ed* as if they had been produced hundreds of years ago.

They way I read them, they can imply both attitudes on the speaker's part, i.e. :
(A)- it seems to me that they were produced...
(B) - I know they were not but they look as if they were...

If I wanted them to clearly express (A), I think I would say something like
They look to have been produced.......
They looked to have been produced.....

Even thus, I suspect the sentences are still ambiguous. I don't know that there is a safe way to make the difference, apart from the context. 

Of course, there would be no such problem if the event described in the subordinate were subsequent or contemporary ==>
He looks as if he's going to lose his temper. (= A)
He looks as if he was(/were) going to lose his temper. (=B)


Mmm...I feel like I'm on pretty unstable ground here....What do the others think?


----------



## dn88

I suppose the sequence of tenses comes into play here, and that can be the main source of this ambiguity. Thus, only the latter sentence (#2) is beyond reproach:

(2) They looked as if they* had been* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
--> They look as if they* were* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.

Now, have a closer look at the former sentence:

(1) They looked as if they *were *produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
--> They look as if they *are *produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.

In no way can the above sentence be acceptable, taking into consideration the time determiner --> "hundreds of years ago".

I was wrong at first, solely cheshire's second example works. You are right, LV4-26.


----------



## cheshire

dn88 said:


> I suppose the sequence of tenses comes into play here, and that can be the main source of this ambiguity. Thus, only the latter sentence (#2) is beyond reproach:
> 
> (2) They looked as if they* had been* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
> --> They look as if they* were* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
> 
> Now, have a closer look at the former sentence:
> 
> (1) They looked as if they *were *produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
> --> They look as if they *are *produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
> 
> In no way can the above sentence be acceptable, taking into consideration the time determiner --> "hundreds of years ago".
> 
> I was wrong at first, solely cheshire's second example works. You are right, LV4-26.


We were taught that the tense never changes in "subjunctive clauses" when the tense of its principal verb is shifted to the past tense.

I wish I wish I were a punk rock girl.​
-->I wished I were a punk rock girl. (not "I wished I had been a punk rock girl.")​


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I've very much enjoyed these posts.

Initially I inclined to dn88's opening view, with the proviso that, while authenticity was more likely in the first sentence, it was still uncertain.

I'm interested in LV4-26's view that the matter resolves itself in the present.

Take the two cases:

1. he gives the correct impression that he's about to lose his temper.

He looks as if he's about to lose his temper.

2. he gives the false impression that he's about to lose his temper.

LV suggests: he looks as if he were about to lose his temper. I think this works and that one wouldn't say he looks as if he was about to lose his temper.

So this supports Cheshire's book, doesn't it? - the second sentence needs a subjunctive.

Now go into the past, the matter about which Cheshire was asking.

I can see myself saying: They looked as if they *had been* produced hundreds of years ago. And I agree that that suggests that they weren't produced then. Is it out-of-the question that they were? Does the statement imply necessarily that they are faked? I think there remains just a faint possibility that they are as old as they seem.

They looked as if they had been produced hundreds of years ago, and they were as old as they looked. The sentence certainly has a flip in its tail. It suggests that the speaker is a lover of paradox, but not, in my book, an abuser of language.

How about: they looked as if they *were* produced hundreds of years ago, the sentence which dn88 at first accepted and then had second thoughts about? 

I think I could say it and I'm confident I've heard people say it. I think authenticity remains uncertain, however. Not as uncertain as with *had been*, but still not 100% certain, as has been suggested. I don't think it's grammatically wrong to say they looked as if they were produced hundreds of years ago and yet they were fakes.

How would you say that they looked that old and were authentic? I agree with LV4-26; you'd use some other formula.

So I go with dn88's first post, except that I don't think the first sentence necessarily implies authenticity.

P.S.  Sorry, Cheshire.  Our posts overlapped.  I think I'm agreeing with you and your book again, though.


----------



## dn88

Wooah, looks like I'm confused!!!

But now I'm almost certain that "as if/though" is not governed by the sequence of tenses. It's so-called "unreal past" and the tense of the subjunctive should remain intact, regardless of the tense of the main clause. But I am still not sure enough...


----------



## cheshire

Thanks a lot!
Can we say (3)?

(3) They *look* as if they* had been* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.


----------



## dn88

cheshire said:


> Thanks a lot!
> Can we say (3)?
> 
> (3) They *look* as if they* had been* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.



Yes, I think we can. It emphasizes that probably they weren't produced hundreds of years ago or, at least, nobody knows that for certain.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

cheshire said:


> Thanks a lot!
> Can we say (3)?
> 
> (3) They *look* as if they* had been* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.


Oh dear!  I think I'm going to disagree with dn88 here.  I don't think I could say this.

They look as *if* they *were* produced hundreds of years ago - strong suggestion that they are fakes.  Funny that!  More of a suggestion of faking than with they *looked *as if they were produced hundreds of years ago.  Why should that be?

They look as* though* they were produced hundreds of years ago - much less of a suggestion of faking, if inflected in the right way.

Up to now we've assumed, I think, that as *if* and as *though* mean the same thing.  Can there be a difference?  It looks to me as though (I wouldn't naturally say if here, for instance) there is one.


----------



## dn88

I'm getting more and more perplexed...

1) She looks as if she were ill. (but we know she's well)
2) She looks as if she is ill. (she is ill in fact)

A single tense shift (within the subjunctive) changes the probality.

So, are the following transformations correct (I'm changing the tense of the main clause, "present simple" --> "past simple"):

1) She looked as if she had been ill.
2) She looked as if she was ill.

 Do they convey the meaning of their respective "antecedents"? I mean is the probality the same?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

dn88 said:


> I'm getting more and more perplexed...
> 
> 1) She looks as if she were ill. (but we know she's well)
> 2) She looks as if she is ill. (she is ill in fact)
> 
> A single tense shift (within the subjunctive) changes the probality.
> 
> So, are the following transformations correct (I'm changing the tense of the main clause, "present simple" --> "past simple"):
> 
> 1) She looked as if she had been ill.
> 2) She looked as if she was ill.
> 
> Do they convey the meaning of their respective "antecedents"? I mean is the probality the same?


 
Very interesting dn88.

I'm with you until the second two sentences.  For me, the matching pair would be:
1) She looked as if she were ill.
2) She looked as if she was ill.

Your *1) She looked as if she had been ill* would mean that she was better now, not that she was giving a false impression of being ill.


----------



## dn88

Thomas Tompion said:


> Very interesting dn88.
> 
> I'm with you until the second two sentences.  For me, the matching pair would be:
> 1) She looked as if she were ill.
> 2) She looked as if she was ill.
> 
> Your *1) She looked as if she had been ill* would mean that she was better now, not that she was giving a false impression of being ill.



That would work, Thomas.  

1) She looks as if she were ill. --> She looked as if she were ill.
2) She looks as if she is ill. --> She looked as if she was ill.

The reason for that is, I suppose, that in the former "as if... clause" acts as a conditional clause (in the sense of its structure, I mean). In the latter we simply cannot say "She looked as if she is ill." if we want to avoid a tense "disagreement".


----------



## dn88

I had another thought.

How would you opine the level of probability in the following sentence:
_
She talks about London as if she had been there herself._

My interpretation is that actually she hasn't been there or at least it's highly unlikely (or perhaps we don't know whether she has been or not). Will it make any difference if we change "as if" to "as though"?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

dn88 said:


> I had another thought.
> 
> How would you opine the level of probability in the following sentence:
> 
> _She talks about London as if she had been there herself._
> 
> My interpretation is that actually she hasn't been there or at least it's highly unlikely (or perhaps we don't know whether she has been or not). Will it make any difference if we change "as if" to "as though"?


 
I agree with you about *as if*.  I think 'as though' makes it a bit more likely that she's actually been there, though it seems very strange that it might.  I wonder what other people think.


----------



## elroy

I'd like to approach this topic from a different angle.

I believe that in the vast majority of the cases _as if_ is used when
a.) the speaker is making a comparison with a situation he knows is not true,
or
b.) the speaker is making a comparison with a situation that could be true, but the speaker does not know whether it is.

Examples:

_She looks as if she were ill._

This can mean that that the speaker knows that she is not ill but thinks that she looks ill, or that the speaker does not know whether she is ill or healthy but thinks she looks ill.

If the speaker knows that she is in fact ill, as indicated by her appearance, I do not think he would use _as if_.

1. _She is ill, and she looks it._
2. _She looks as if she is ill._

Sentence 2 sounds very odd to my ears if the speaker knows that she is ill.  I do not think native speakers would express it that way.  At least I wouldn't.  I would use sentence 1, or something similar. 

It is important to emphasize that the use of _as if_ does not necessarily mean that the clause following it has to be untrue, only that the speaker thinks that it is or is not sure whether it is.  If the speaker knows that something is true, he would not use _as if_ with it.  So it has to do with what the speaker thinks at the time of speaking, not what anyone else knows is true or what later turns out to be true.


----------



## LV4-26

I really see no difference between
She talks about London as if she'd been there herself and
She talks about London as though she'd been there herself

In both cases, I have no doubt she's never been there.
But then, this is only my own feeling and I'm not a native.

PS : that was an answer to posts #16 and 17.


----------



## cheshire

(1) They looked as if they *were *produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
(2) They looked as if they* had been* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
(3) They look as if they *are *produced hundreds of years ago.
(4) They look as if they were produced hundreds of years ago.
(5) They look as if they had been produced hundreds of years ago.​Thanks everyone Let me ask the same question by another way.

If you hear the sentences (1) and (2), how would you interpret them? (X) Just usual indicative sentence, with agreement of tense, (Y) subjunctive sentence, with no agreement of tense?


----------



## dn88

cheshire said:


> (1) They looked as if they *were *produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
> (2) They looked as if they* had been* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
> (3) They look as if they *are *produced hundreds of years ago.
> (4) They look as if they were produced hundreds of years ago.
> (5) They look as if they had been produced hundreds of years ago.​Thanks everyone Let me ask the same question by another way.
> 
> If you hear the sentences (1) and (2), how would you interpret them? (X) Just usual indicative sentence, with agreement of tense, (Y) subjunctive sentence, with no agreement of tense?



As it has already been stated by Thomas, the construction with "had been" implies a lower level of probability (they are more unlikely to have been produced hundreds of years ago). But still, in each of the examples, there's a dose of uncertainty.

I guess 1 and 2 are both indicative sentences (I suppose they can't be referred to as "contrary-to-fact" statements as such because we're not sure when "they were produced"), only with different degrees of probability.


----------



## cheshire

(1) Only X
(2) X or Y (because there's no subjunctive form for preterite (past perfect).
(3) Simply wrong sentence since "are produced ...years ago" is simply wrong.
(4) X
(5) Sounds wrong in itself


----------



## dn88

cheshire said:


> (1) Only X
> (2) X or Y (because there's no subjunctive form for preterite (past perfect).
> (3) Simply wrong sentence since "are produced ...years ago" is simply wrong.
> (4) X
> (5) Sounds wrong in itself



May I ask you why #5 sounds wrong to you?


----------



## cheshire

Hi dn88, it was just my feeling.

Sad, in either of the following sentences, you can't tell whether the as-if clause is *subjunctive *or *indicative*. (correct, native speakers?)

They looked as if they *were *cats.
They looked as if they *had been* cats.​


----------



## Thomas Tompion

cheshire said:


> Hi dn88, it was just my feeling.
> 
> Sad, in either of the following sentences, you can't tell whether the as-if clause is *subjunctive *or *indicative*. (correct, native speakers?)
> 
> 1. They looked as if they *were *cats.​2. They looked as if they *had been* cats.​


Cheshire, I'm not sure I'm very good at recognising a subjunctive when I come across one. My usual test is to shift into the 1st person singular where the forms are different. That works with the first sentence:

I looked as if I were a cat - subj.
I looked as if I was a cat - indicative.

Both are possible singular versions of your plural, which I've numbered 1. and there are differences of meaning which we've been discussing.

You are going to have to help me with 2. because all I can think of is:

*I looked as if I had been a cat*

and I'm not sure if it's a subjunctive or an indicative form, I'm ashamed to say. *I wish I were a cat* - the *were* is a subjunctive, surely? *I wish I had been a cat* - *had been* is subjunctive, surely? What is the indicative form? : *I knew I had been duped* has a very indicative feel to it.

So I think the forms are the same and that you can't in general tell, as you suggest. Except that, in your case, 2. *They looked as though they had been cats*, their having been cats is not an impossible condition - we might be in some sort of Buddist after-life here - and I think it has to be indicative. Had you said *they wished they had been cats*, I think that would have been a subjunctive. I think the main verb is the main determinant, in that temporal case.


----------



## domangelo

this is so confusing, that I am ignoring all the grammar talk and relying on instinct:

They look as if they had been..
They looked as if they had been...
They will look as if they had been...

Are all perfectly possible. The same goes for the other possibility: 

They look as if they were...
etc.

Are also just fine.

I believe that the only difference between the two "had been" and "were" is the level of formality. There are situations in English where the speaker has the option of either simple past or past perfect. I believe that this is one of them.

"As if" when followed by a subjunctive, as in this case, will always be "contrary to fact".


----------



## dn88

cheshire said:


> Hi dn88, it was just my feeling.
> 
> Sad, in either of the following sentences, you can't tell whether the as-if clause is *subjunctive *or *indicative*. (correct, native speakers?)They looked as if they *were *cats.
> They looked as if they *had been* cats.​



Huh, let's try using the present simple in the main clause:

"They look as if they *were *cats."

In the sentence above "were" is in the subjunctive, right? There's a possiblity of them being cats, however, we can't state it unequivocally.

Now we shift the tense within the main clause:

 "They looked as if they *were *cats."

The tense in the subjunctive remains the same as so-called "unreal past" disallows us to change it.

And I'm baffled at this point, how should I treat the sentence "They looked as if they *had been* cats."? What was it before the transformation?

"They look as if they *had been* cats."??

I guess the tense of the second part should be still the same, if we want to follow the rules of grammar. That's only my feeling.

PS: Just saw Thomas Tompion's post.


----------



## cheshire

dn88 said:
			
		

> I guess the tense of the second part should be still the same, if we want to follow the rules of grammar. That's only my feeling.


That's what I've found out asking questions here and there.
The "look as if..." type of sentences, even though they look similar to "If I *had been *a punk rock girl, I *would* *have* rul*ed *the world.", you don't need to "shift the tense" in order to make them a *subjunctive* sentence.
It's trickey, don't you think?

EDIT: You shift the tense: the first step: I am a punk rock girl.-->I were a...
But you don't do the second tense shift: I wished I were a...[*not* "I wished I had been...]
Very very complicating and tricky!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

dn88 said:


> Huh, let's try using the present simple in the main clause:
> 
> "They look as if they *were *cats."
> 
> In the sentence above "were" is in the subjunctive, right? There's a possiblity of them being cats, however, we can't state it unequivocally.


 
Hi dn88,

My reason for shifting to the 1st person singular was that it shows that the *were*, in your case, can be either a subjuntive or an indicative (the forms are the same).

One can say:

I looked as though I *was* a cat - indicative

I looked as though I *were *a cat - subjunctive

They looked as though they were cats - either subjunctive or indicative: it's not clear which, because the forms are the same.

In the sentence you and Cheshire are talking about:

They looked as if they *had been* cats.

I think the *had been* is indicative, and the sentence means that they looked as though, in some previous life, probably, they had been cats.

I think you both believe this is wrong and I'd very much like to know why.  You've taught me a lot about this.


----------



## cheshire

> I think you both believe this is wrong and I'd very much like to know why.  You've taught me a lot about this.


I was not sure, but thought it might be wrong, or unusual to say.
Now thanks to you, TT, I know it is permissible. Also learned that you don't tense shift as you would in the sentence type: "If I *had been* a bird, I *would have* flown to NY."


----------



## AWordLover

Hi,

I have a hint on this from learnenglish.

They (the British Council, whoever they are) are clear that shifting tense into the past indicates an unreal situation.



> We can also use *as if* and *as though* with a past verb tense, to suggest that something is unreal:
> [...]
> _They talk *as if/though* the world were coming to an end. (Of course it's not)_


 
I take this to mean...
The look as if they were cats. (they were not cats)
The X looks as if it were made hundreds of years ago. (it was not made hundreds of years ago)


----------



## cheshire

I guess most ESL learners are OK with what's written in the link.
Most learners might not sure if so called "second step tense shift" should be made or not. It turned out that you shouldn't regarding "as if" type of sentences.

First step tense shift: I *am *a cat.-->I *were *a cat.
Second step tense shift: If I *had been* a cat, I *would have* *caught *lots of mice. (am-->had been/catch-->would have caught)


----------



## Forero

cheshire said:


> Do you approve of my understanding of respective as-if clauses? That (1) is merely an indicative sentence, whearas (2) is a contrary-to-fact statement.
> 
> (1) They looked as if they *were *produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
> (2) They looked as if they* had been* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
> ​



They are both contrary-to-fact sentences - in form.  The use of the perfect aspect makes clear that the producing preceded the looking.  I will use another example:

(1') He looked as if he were drunk.
(2') He looked as if he had been drunk.

The choice of _were_ in (1') rather than _was_ is due to the contrary-to-fact idea, at least formally.

To make them truly indicative, you could say:

(1) They looked like they *were *produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
(2) They looked like they* had been* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
(1') He looked like he was drunk.
(2') He looked like he had been drunk.

However, in spite of their form, all four sentences with _as if_ can be used as synonyms for the ones with _like_.

You could use as though to be clearer about the contrary-to-fact meaning.

Now, for the other type of subjuctive (hypothetical, or whatever, but not contrary-to-fact):

(1) They looked like they *may have been* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago. [Not an exact equivalent since both _may_ and _might_ have a present tense meaning, so the paraphrase that looks like a perfect has to be used to "simulate" a past tense.
(2) They looked like they* might have been* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago. [Just a weak attempt at a past perfect.]
(1') He looked like he may have been drunk.
(2') He looked like he had possibly been drunk.  [Still groping for the right form.]

The problem is that the subjuctive idea has to be paraphrased in most cases since English has only vestiges of the subjunctive.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

The problem with all this, Forero, is that for me (in BE) you can't substitute *like* for *as if*, any more than you can say *do it like I do it* rather than *do it as I do it*.  I find it jarringly ungrammatical.


----------



## Forero

cheshire said:


> Do you approve of my understanding of respective as-if clauses? That (1) is merely an indicative sentence, whearas (2) is a contrary-to-fact statement.
> 
> (1) They looked as if they *were *produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
> (2) They looked as if they* had been* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
> ​



I'll give this another go.

Both sentences are ambiguous.  Either one can be indicative in meaning and either one can be contrary-to-fact.

They are both past subjunctive in form because of the subordinating conjunction "as if".  To be able to distinguish indicative from subjunctive, I'll add one more sentence with "as if" and a singular subject used with "to be":

(0) He looked as if he were drunk.

The contrary-to-fact meaning of these three sentences is -

(0) He looked as if he were drunk. = It appeared as though he were drunk.  [He was not drunk, but he appeared to be.]
(1) They looked as if they were produced hundreds of years ago. = It appeared as though they were produced hundreds of years ago.  [They were not produced that long ago, but they had that appearance.]
(2) They looked as if they had been produced hundreds of years ago. = It appeared as though they had been produced hundreds of years before.  [They had not been produced that long ago, but they had that appearance.]

The indicative meaning is -

(0) He looked as if he were drunk. = It appeared that he was drunk.  [He really looked drunk.]
(1) They looked as if they were produced hundreds of years ago. = It appeared that they were produced hundreds of years ago.  [They really looked old.]
(2) They looked as if they had been produced hundreds of years ago. = It appeared that they had been produced hundreds of years before.  [They really looked hundreds of years old.]

The same three sentences could also have a meaning between contrary-to-fact and indicative:

(0) He looked as if he were drunk. = It appeared that he might be drunk.  [He looked drunk, but we don't know whether he was.]
(1) They looked as if they were produced hundreds of years ago. = It appeared that they may have been produced hundreds of years ago.  [They really looked old, but we don't know whether they were.]
(2) They looked as if they had been produced hundreds of years ago. = It appeared that they might have been produced hundreds of years before.  [They really looked hundreds of years old, but we don't know whether they were.]


----------



## coiffe

cheshire said:


> Do you approve of my understanding of respective as-if clauses? That (1) is merely an indicative sentence, whearas (2) is a contrary-to-fact statement.
> (1) They looked as if they *were *produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
> (2) They looked as if they* had been* produc*ed* hundreds of years ago.
> ​



Hi Cheshire,

The distinction, to me, is whether you're looking at the things now, or whether you were looking at them in the past. (A book could be relating how, in the past, the things were looked at.) If you're looking at them now, you could say #1. If you were looking at them in the past, then you stated then (or the novel stated) that they had been produced a long time ago.

As for indicative and contrary-to-fact, I think you're mixing your metaphors. Conditionals are sometimes called hypothetical vs. counterfactual. A counterfactual would be something like:

If Napoleon were alive today, he would be fighting the Albanians.

The if clause is strongly negated because Napoleon isn't alive now and never will be again. This kind of construction can only occur in the present and the past.

A hypothetical conditional can occur in the present and the future, however:

If I had the money, I'd go to the Galapagos islands.

Counterfactuals are part of the so-called "imaginative conditionals," which retain some of the old subjunctive structures. Subjunctive contrasts with indicative, and I think that's the source of your question. Not sure how your grammar book is put together.

But if that's what you're talking about, then #1 is subjunctive, and #2 is indicative.

-----------------
Wow, how did I get to the end of this long thread>!>?!?! Okay, a couple of pages of extraordinary brainstorming have been cut and paste in before my response. I would have responded in kind to those extensive analyses ... okay, next time.


----------



## SpanishStudent_39

Another option is to use "like" instead of "as if".  It flows better in some cases.

They looked *like *they* had been* produced hundreds of years ago.

He looked *like* he *was* drunk.

They looked *like* cats. (Flows better than: "They looked _as if_ they were cats")


----------



## Forero

SpanishStudent_39 said:


> Another option is to use "like" instead of "as if".  It flows better in some cases.
> 
> They looked *like *they* had been* produced hundreds of years ago.
> 
> He looked *like* he *was* drunk.
> 
> They looked *like* cats. (Flows better than: "They looked _as if_ they were cats")



The reason I went through all those gyrations on my last post is that many grammarians object to "like" being used as a subordinating conjunction, but "as if" seems to force past subjunctive.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> The reason I went through all those gyrations on my last post is that many grammarians object to "like" being used as a subordinating conjunction, but "as if" seems to force past subjunctive.


My guess, for what it's worth, is that the like form works better in AE than in BE.


----------



## SpanishStudent_39

Yeah, I agree with Thomas Tompion.  I think Americans like the work "like" like way too much.  It's like an addition for some people.


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> My guess, for what it's worth, is that the like form works better in AE than in BE.



It works better after a verb like _looks_, _sounds_, etc., but is frowned upon even in America except in informal situations.


----------

