# Subjunctive 'as if': 'as if they had been...'



## EnglishABC

I read that the past subjunctive and past perfect subjunctive are used respectively after 'as if' to show something that was untrue in the present and untrue in the past. If this is true, then this is correct:

He spoke to the group of teachers as if they *had been* his friends.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## owlman5

I think it sounds right.  I don't think it says much more than "He spoke to a group of teachers as if they were his friends."  I guess your version implies that he spoke to them as if they had been his friends at some earlier time.  My version merely implies that he spoke to them at some time in the past, pretending that they were his friends.


----------



## Copyright

Most likely: _He spoke to the group of teachers as if they were his friends._
Most acrimonious: _He spoke to the group of teachers as if they had been his  friends (and no longer were)._


----------



## EnglishABC

> _He spoke to the group of teachers as if they had been his friends *(and no longer were).*_


 
I'm unsure this is what the past perfect subjunctive implies. Obviously the past perfect indicative mood does...

I'll try locate the source.


----------



## EnglishABC

This is another site, not the same one, but saying the same thing:

http://www.eslmonster.com/article/as-ifas-though-past-subjunctive

After _as_ _if_ / _though_we use a past perfect when referring to a real or imaginary action in the past:


----------



## Forero

It is a grammatically correct sentence, and so is this one:

_He spoke to the group of teachers as if they *were* his friends._

To me, this sentence with "were" would refer to their hypothetically being his friends, either generally, or specifically at the time he spoke, and the original sentence with "had been" refers to their hypothetically having been his friends at some earlier time.

And I think it is an overgeneralization to say that this type of subjunctive applies only to untrue or impossible things. We use it also with things that might be true or might become true but that are either doubtful or dubious.

EDIT: This is in answer to the original post. I was typing while all the above conversation was going on.


----------



## EnglishABC

I found the source.

Is the source wrong??? It seems like a reasonably credible website, but all of you disagree with what it's saying...

http://www.grammaring.com/as-if-as-though

_"If we talk about a __hypothetical__ past situation, the past __perfect__ tense is used."_


----------



## owlman5

Hello, English.  I looked at your source.  Let's take a look at two of those sentences:

You seem as if you hadn’t slept for  three days. (= You seem not  to have slept for three days, but I know you have.)  _This explanation seems straightforward to me.  

_ He grinned as though he’d been  drinking for hours.  He grinned. It looked like a drunken grin.  It wasn't.  He had not been drinking for hours, though it looked as though he had been.

As far as I can tell, there isn't anything particularly tricky about these two sentences from your last source.  What's puzzling you?


----------



## EnglishABC

I think I misread your answers, so I'm sorry for that, guys. You all seem to agree with the link I provided in post #7.

Please tell me if you agree with the following:

He *is speaking* to the group of teachers as if they *are *his friends.

There is a good chance he is friends with them at the time he is speaking.


He *is speaking* to the group of teachers as if they *were* his friends.

He isn't friends with them at the time he is speaking.

He *spoke* to the group of teachers as if they *were *his friends.

He wasn't friends with them at the time he spoke.

He *spoke* to the group of teachers as if they *had been* his friends.

He wasn't friends with them at an earlier time than when he spoke
OR 
He was friends with them at an earlier time than when he spoke


----------



## owlman5

I read all those examples exactly the way you do, English.  It's always nice to know that I'm on the same page with at least one other person!


----------



## EnglishABC

> It's always nice to know that I'm on the same page with at least one other person!


 
I second that!


----------



## Forero

_He *is speaking* to the group of teachers as if they *are *his friends.
_ There is a good chance he is friends with them at the time he is speaking. 
 
_ He *is speaking* to the group of teachers as if they *were* his friends.
_ He isn't friends with them at the time he is speaking. *a possible meaning**
* 
_ He *spoke* to the group of teachers as if they *were *his friends.
_ He wasn't friends with them at the time he spoke. *a possible meaning*

_ He *spoke* to the group of teachers as if they *had been* his friends.
_ He wasn't friends with them at an earlier time than when he spoke. * possible* 
 He was friends with them at an earlier time than when he spoke. *also possible
**
*A. _He *is speaking* to her as if she *is *his wife and *has* been to Paris with him and *took* care of him when he was sick.
_ There is a good chance all this is true, that she is indeed his wife, that she has been to Paris, and that she took care of him when he was sick.

 B. _He *is speaking* to her as if she *were *his wife and *had* been to Paris with him and *had taken* care of him when he was sick.
_ Subjunctive. Same relative times. Maybe she is indeed his wife, but I won't bet on it, or I take issue with it somehow. Maybe she has been to Paris with him, and maybe she took care of him - or maybe not.

C. _He *spoke* to her as if she *were *his wife and *had* been to Paris with him and *had taken* care of him when he was sick.
_  Subjunctive. B in past tense.

D. _He *spoke* to her as if she *had been *his wife and *had* been to Paris with him and *had taken* care of him when he was sick._
 The "as if" part of this sentence clearly concerns the time before he speaks. Otherwise it is ambiguous, with at least three interpretations:

D1. He speaks as if she has been his wife for some time. [_has been_ -> _had been_]
D2. He speaks as if she was his wife earlier. [_was_ -> _had been_]
D3. He speaks as if she were his wife now. [_were_ -> _had been_]

In the case of D3, as with B, the subjunctive may be suggesting she is not his wife or maybe that I just don't care to say they are married.


----------



## owlman5

That's quite a lucid and thorough job you did in your last post, Forero.  You're very  good at reasoning your way through conditional events.


----------



## Copyright

I'll just step out of this discussion -- and take my unique interpretation with me -- and hope we're all still friends.


----------



## owlman5

Copyright said:


> I'll just step out of this discussion -- and take my unique interpretation with me -- and hope we're all still friends.


No need to take a back seat here, my friend.  I'd never thought about different levels of disgust in relation to this language.  I'm glad you gave me a chance to do that.


----------



## EnglishABC

Thanks for that, Forero. Very comprehensive, I might add.

One question on this sentence of yours:

_He *is speaking* to her as if she *were *his wife and *had* been to Paris with him and *had taken* care of him when he was sick._


I was under the impression that the past perfect subjunctive following ás if' was used exclusively for a hypothetical past situation--one that happens before another past action. Since we are dealing with ''ís speaking'' isn't the past subjunctive required here, not the past perfect subjunctive?


----------



## Forero

EnglishABC said:


> Thanks for that, Forero. Very comprehensive, I might add.
> 
> One question on this sentence of yours:
> 
> _He *is speaking* to her as if she *were *his wife and *had* been to Paris with him and *had taken* care of him when he was sick._
> 
> I was under the impression that the past perfect subjunctive following ás if' was used exclusively for a hypothetical past situation--one that happens before another past action. Since we are dealing with ''ís speaking'' isn't the past subjunctive required here, not the past perfect subjunctive?


It sounds as though you might be advocating something like this:

_He is speaking to her as if she *were *his wife and *were* to Paris with him and *took* care of him when he was sick._

Well, I don't think anyone says "... as if she were to Paris". Having "been to" a place requires a perfect, regardless of tense or mood. Besides, as I am about to demonstrate, a perfect in the indicative remains a perfect in the subjunctive.

What Copyright and the rest of us are trying to get across is that "past" subjunctive is not really about past time but about a time that perhaps does not exist at all, in the past, in the present, or in the future. Such hypothetical time is tenseless. "Past" subjunctive is as tenseless, meaningwise, as gerunds or infinitives.

Here are two indicative versions, showing tense:

  Present: _It seems that__ she is his wife_, _she has been to Paris, and __she took care of him in sickness._
Past: _I heard her say__ she was his wife, she had been to Paris_, _she had taken care of him in sickness._

Comparing these two, the second is just a tense-shift away from the first. Present in the first corresponds to past in the second, and past in the first (_took_) corresponds to pluperfect in the second.

Gerunds: _What we are talking about is the possibility, at least in his manner of speaking, of her__ being his wife and having been to Paris with him and having taken care of him in sickness._

Note the gerunds _being_ and _having_, corresponding to _was_ and _had_ in the past tense sentence. Gerunds have no tense, but some do have a "perfect" aspect. The above sentence is about the present, but change _are _to _were_ and _is _to _was_ in the blue part, and it becomes a sentence about the past. Yet the gerunds do not change with the change of tense.

Infinitives: _She wishes_/_wished to be his wife, to have been to Paris with him, to have taken care of him in sickness.

_Just like gerunds, infinitives have no tense, so _to be_ and _to have_ remain the same whether we use _wishes_ or _wished_.

In the same manner, "past" subjunctive is also tenseless, in terms of meaning:

_She wishes_/_wished she were his wife, she wishes_/_wished she had been to Paris with him, she wishes_/_wished she had taken care of him in sickness.
__
He speaks_/_spoke as if she were his wife and had been to Paris and had taken care of him in sickness.
_
Changing _wishes_ to _wished_ or _speaks_ to _spoke_ does not change the "past" subjunctives: these subjunctives are abstract, like gerunds and infinitives, and they are past tense in form only.

Because of its past tense form, a "past" subjunctive can cause backshifting of tenses in clauses subordinate to it, but it does not backshift with the tense in a clause to which it is subordinate.

I hope this helps.


----------



## EnglishABC

> In the same manner, "past" subjunctive is also tenseless, in terms of meaning:
> 
> _She wishes_/_wished she were his wife, she wishes_/_wished she had been to Paris with him, she *wishes*_*/*_*wished* she *had taken* care of him in sickness._


 
So if the tense in the main clause doesn't determine whether we use the past subjunctive or past perfect subjunctive, what does? Why did you choose 'had taken' instead of 'took' irrespective of the tense of 'wish'?

I read that the *past perfect subjunctive* is used if the the hypothetical situation is in the past, sometime before the past time we are discussing in the main clause (She wished she *had taken*). In all other cases, the *past subjunctive* is used: (She wishes she *took*...)

This is why I believed we required the past subjunctive here (obviously 'were to' doesn't work, but 'took' is correct based on my understanding):

_He is speaking to her as if she *were *his wife and *had been to *Paris with him and *took* care of him when he was sick_

If you could clear this up, that would be great.


----------



## Forero

EnglishABC said:


> So if the tense in the main clause doesn't determine whether we use the past subjunctive or past perfect subjunctive, what does? Why did you choose 'had taken' instead of 'took' irrespective of the tense of 'wish'?


I used "had taken" to indicate that her taking care of him, in the subjunctive world, was when he was sick, not at the time of her wishing about it:

_She hopes she takes good care of him._ [Maybe she does.]
_She wishes she took good care of him._ [She wishes to, but she doesn't.]

_She hopes she is a good enough wife and __has taken good enough care of him._ [Maybe she is, and maybe she has (during his illness).]
_She wishes she were a good enough wife and had taken good enough care of him._ [She wishes to be, she wishes to have, but she isn't and she hasn't/didn't.]

_She hoped she had taken good enough care of him._ [Maybe she had.]
_She wished she had taken good enough care of him._ [She wished to, but she hadn't.]





> I read that the *past perfect subjunctive* is used if the the hypothetical situation is in the past, sometime before the past time we are discussing in the main clause (She wished she *had taken*).


Yes, if the main clause is in past tense.





> In all other cases, the *past subjunctive* is used: (She wishes she *took*...)


This is not right, and the websites you pointed us to do not say this.





> This is why I believed we required the past subjunctive here (obviously 'were to' doesn't work, but 'took' is correct based on my understanding):
> 
> _He is speaking to her as if she *were *his wife and *had been to *Paris with him and *took* care of him when he was sick_
> 
> If you could clear this up, that would be great.


One more time, here is how it works:

Subjunctive: _I feel as though she were gone but had been here before._
Indicative: _I feel as if she is gone but has been here before._
= The way I feel, she is gone but has been here before.

Subjunctive:_ I felt as though she were gone but had been there recently._
Indicative: _I felt as if she was gone but had been there recently._
= The way I felt, she was gone but had been there recently.


----------



## EnglishABC

Thanks again, Forero

I think I have it now. I previously believed the use of the past perfect subjunctive was *limited to cases where the verb in the main clause was past tense.*

From your sentence examples, however, I now realise that this is untrue--that it also can be used when the verb in the main clause is in the present tense--*so long as the subjunctive verb's corresponding indicative form was in the perfect aspect*.

Please clarify whether I finally have it right.


----------



## Forero

EnglishABC said:


> Thanks again, Forero
> 
> I think I have it now. I previously believed the use of the past perfect subjunctive was *limited to cases where the verb in the main clause was past tense.*
> 
> From your sentence examples, however, I now realise that this is untrue--that it also can be used when the verb in the main clause is in the present tense--*so long as the subjunctive verb's corresponding indicative form was in the perfect aspect or in past tense subordinate to a present tense clause (see example below)*.
> 
> Please clarify whether I finally have it right.


I think it is right with my amendment.

Example:

Incorrect use of present perfect: _She says she has gotten that when she was fourteen._ 
 Simple past tense subordinate to present tense: _She says she got that when she was fourteen. _
Perfect infinitive corresponding to that past tense: _She is glad to have gotten that when she was fourteen._
Perfect gerund: _She mentions having gotten that when she was fourteen.
_PPS: _She wishes she had gotten that when she was fourteen._ [subjunctive required here]
PPS: _She speaks as if she had gotten that when she was fourteen._ [optional subjunctive]
Simple past indicative again: _She speaks as if she got that when she was fourteen._ [This sentence means practically the same thing as the previous one with PPS.]

Does that make sense?


----------



## EnglishABC

Yes, makes sense, thanks! 

Two uses of PPS (Please correct if wrong):

1.
She talks as if she *has known* about the accident for years. (Indicative)
She talks as if she *had known* about the accident for years. (PPS)

2.
She says she *disliked* Christmas last year. (Indicative)
She speaks as if she *had disliked* Christmas last year. (PPS)

*Question:* If you personally were writing my final example, the PPS version, would you envisage the indicative form first, and then backshift accordingly?



> PPS: _She speaks as if she had gotten that when she was fourteen._ [optional subjunctive]
> Simple past indicative again: _She speaks as if she got that when she was fourteen._ [*This sentence means practically the same thing as the previous one with PPS.]*


 
*Question:* Only this part in bold eludes me. The second to last one expresses a hypothetical situation, whereas the final sentence does not. So how can they mean practically the same thing? I think I must have missed something.


----------



## Forero

EnglishABC said:


> Yes, makes sense, thanks!
> 
> Two uses of PPS (Please correct if wrong):
> 
> 1.
> She talks as if she *has known* about the accident for years. (Indicative)
> She talks as if she *had known* about the accident for years. (PPS)
> 
> 2.
> She says she *disliked* Christmas last year. (Indicative)
> She speaks as if she *had disliked* Christmas last year. (PPS)


I think you've got it.


> *Question:* If you personally were writing my final example, the PPS version, would you envisage the indicative form first, and then backshift accordingly?


I usually do it unconsciously by "thinking subjunctively", so to speak.





> *Question:* Only this part in bold eludes me. The second to last one expresses a hypothetical situation, whereas the final sentence does not. So how can they mean practically the same thing? I think I must have missed something.


Both sentences mean that she speaks like someone who got whatever it was at the age of fourteen. The difference in nuance comes from the speaker's/writer's attitude/opinion/comfort level about the matter, or from what the speaker/writer assumes but is not actually saying.


----------



## EnglishABC

> Both sentences mean that she speaks like someone who got whatever it was at the age of fourteen. The difference in nuance comes from the speaker's/writer's attitude/opinion/comfort level about the matter, or from what the speaker/writer assumes but is not actually saying.


 
Doesn't the PPS version express that she speaks like someone who didn't acutally get something when she was fourteen (hypothetical), while the indicative version implies she may have got whatever it was when she was fourteen?


----------



## EnglishABC

One more thing: You say that the subjunctive is tenseless. This seems to hold true only with the past subjunctive when it is in a clause subordinate to another:

She wishes she *were* smarter.
She wished she *were* smarter.

But what about with the PPS and subjunctives in conditionals? They seem to have tense:

PPS:
She wishes she *had been* smarter.
She wished she *had been* smarter.

Both of these subjunctives express a time before the main verb. So don't they have a tense?

Conditionals:
If I *were* smarter, I would be rich.
If I *had been* smarter, I would have been rich.

Again, these have tenses, don't they?

Thanks


----------



## Forero

EnglishABC said:


> One more thing: You say that the subjunctive is tenseless. This seems to hold true only with the past subjunctive when it is in a clause subordinate to another:
> 
> She wishes she *were* smarter.
> She wished she *were* smarter.
> 
> But what about with the PPS and subjunctives in conditionals? They seem to have tense:
> 
> PPS:
> She wishes she *had been* smarter.
> She wished she *had been* smarter.
> 
> Both of these subjunctives express a time before the main verb. So don't they have a tense?


It probably depends on how you define _tense_. To me they have no more tense than an infinitive ("She wishes/wished to *have been* smarter") or a gerund ("She is/was sad about not *having been* smarter").





> Conditionals:
> 
> If I *were* smarter, I would be rich.
> If I *had been* smarter, I would have been rich.
> 
> Again, these have tenses, don't they?
> 
> Thanks


They are past tense in form, but because they are subjunctive, they do not imply past time.

Examples of "had been" in different contexts:

Present (perfect): _I have never been rich, as __I have never been very smart with my investments. If I *had been* smarter, I would have been rich.
_Past: _I was not rich: I was not smart enough. If I *had been* smarter, I would have been rich.
_
Is subjunctive "had been" different tenses in these different contexts? I don't think so.

Examples of "if I were":

Present: _I believe I'd turn back if I *were* you.
_Past: _My father said, when I was very young, that I would grow up to be six foot nine and stronger than an ox. My mother said she had doubts about all that.__ She said if I *were* wanting to be six foot nine, I should have chosen different parents. But sh__e did say that if I *were* to eat all my spinach, I could get really strong, but perhaps not like an ox.
_
The reality is I am not you [present] but I do believe I'd turn back. Perhaps I was really wanting to be six foot nine [past] but I have given up that idea. I did eat all my spinach [past].

I have heard "if I were" called "past subjunctive", "present subjunctive", and "subjunctive II", but it seems to me to be about a nonexistent time, not one that was or is. If I were something, I suspect I would know it, whether past or present. Otherwise how could I know it?

Time adverbs might change tense, but _were_ would still be _were_ if it were back then as well as if it were right now.

Lewis Carroll said "If it were, it would be; if it was, it might be; but since it isn't, it ain't."  Now I'm getting silly, so I'm turning in. Back tomorrow.


----------



## EnglishABC

> They are past tense in form, but because they are subjunctive, they do not imply past time.
> 
> Examples of "had been" in different contexts:
> 
> Present (perfect): _I have never been rich, as __I have never been very smart with my investments. If I *had been* smarter, I would have been rich._
> Past: _I was not rich: I was not smart enough. If I *had been* smarter, I would have been rich._
> 
> Is subjunctive "had been" different tenses in these different contexts? I don't think so.


 
I'm not quite sure I understand this, perhaps because the following has been drilled into me:


_Conditional 3:_
*→ It is impossible that the condition will be fulfilled because it refers to the past*
_Example: If I had found her address, I would have sent her an invitation._

_http://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/grammar/conditional-sentences_


Are you disagreeing with this, or have I misunderstood what you're saying? 

In both of your sentences, don't *'had been smarter'* refer to a time before the verbs in the main clause--and therefore express a past time. Is that not right?


----------



## Forero

EnglishABC said:


> I'm not quite sure I understand this, perhaps because the following has been drilled into me:
> 
> 
> _Conditional 3:_
> *→ It is impossible that the condition will be fulfilled because it refers to the past*
> _Example: If I had found her address, I would have sent her an invitation._
> 
> _http://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/grammar/conditional-sentences_
> 
> 
> Are you disagreeing with this, or have I misunderstood what you're saying?
> 
> In both of your sentences, don't *'had been smarter'* refer to a time before the verbs in the main clause--and therefore express a past time. Is that not right?


I can see truth in this statement from the website, but I don't believe it is entirely accurate. For one thing, _impossible_ is quite a strong word to me and I can think of exceptions. Come tomorrow, for example, I may have found her address.

Surely past perfect indicative is about the past, but what about present perfect, PPS, and conditional perfect?

Let's think about this a little. Is present perfect about the past?

C1. _I have found her address!_
To me this is about the present. In the present, her address is in the state we call "found", and I am in the state called "having found it". The actual finding of the address had to precede this, but the sentence is not about the time when I found the address, is it?

C2. _I have sent her an invitation_.
Consider her invited ... in the present.

C3. _I have been smart with my investments._
I am in the present state of "having been smart".

C4. _I have been rich._
I am in the present state of "having been rich".

Now for the subjunctive and conditional. "If I had found her address, I would have sent her an invitation" means that if the situation expressed by C1 were real, then the situation expressed by C2 would be too. Is this sentence about the past, the present, or the future?

To me, "If I had ..., I would have ..." is really about a possibly nonexistent time. I don't say that such a time is impossible or even "very unlikely", but neither do I say it is the present or the past (or the future).

Similarly, "If I had been smart with my investments, I would have been rich" means that if C3 expressed reality, then C4 would too. Again, I would say this is about a time in our imagination. It might be completely unreal, but who knows?

If I claim that "If I had been smart, I would have been rich, and if I had found her address, I would have invited her" is absolutely true, am I saying that any of the four sentences C1-C4 corresponds to present reality? Am I saying that any of the four once corresponded to reality or used to correspond to reality in the past? Am I speaking about the future?

My answer to these questions is "Not really." The PPS can be used in a sentence about the past or the present:

_I imagine that if I had found her address, ...._ [present]
_I thought that if I had found her address, ...._ [past]

But is the "if I had found ..." part about the present or the past? Am I imagining something present? Did I think of something already in the past? What about the following?

_ I imagine myself to have found her address and to have sent her an invitation.
I thought about having found her address and having sent her an invitation.
_
Is "to have found" or "having found" about the present or the past?

As I see it, these constructions have perfect aspect but are not predicating a particular time. They are not about the present world or the past world but about a world in which I have found her address, which may or may not be real now, might or might not have ever been real in the past, and might not, but just might, be real at some time in the future.

_As if_ sentences are similar. In fact they are metaphorical in nature:

_She speaks as if she had gotten that when she was fourteen._
_She speaks as if she got that when she was fourteen._
These two sentences do not say whether she got "that" when she was fourteen. They both describe how she speaks, saying that she speaks like a person who (perhaps) did get "that" at the age of fourteen.

The difference between "as if she got" (past indicative) and "as if she had gotten" (subjunctive) is like the difference between "she may have gotten" and "she might have gotten", or  the difference between "wish I may" and "wish I might". Subjunctive is subjective ... 

Now consider this clause in the subjunctive:

_If I were to die, ....

_Is it about when I was to die (in the past)? About when I am to die (in the present or future)? From my point of view, no. It is about a time I prefer not to realize or to assign a time to because it gives me the heeby-jeebies, and that is why I express it with the subjunctive.

... subjective indeed!


----------



## EnglishABC

Hi again, Forero 

I understand the concept of the timeless subjunctive now, I think. 

I also think I understand why I was confused: Because the PPS talks of a completed action, I thought that meant it had a tense.

To ensure you have not wasted your time, please confirm I have it right by answering this one simple question. What is the difference between these?

a. I imagine that if I *were* drunk, I would make a fool of myself.
b. I imagine that if I *had been* drunk, I would make a fool of myself.

Thanks


----------



## Forero

Perhaps _a_ means I imagine I might make of fool of myself because of being drunk.

If so, then _b_ means I imagine I might make a fool of myself because of having been drunk. That might be because I have been drunk for a foolishly long time or because I have a hangover that makes me "foolish".

Is this the difference you had in mind?

Oh, did anyone mention that _had been_ in the original _as if_ sentence might be indicative? I think the meaning would be very nearly the same as with subjunctive, and the form is identical.


----------



## EnglishABC

Thanks, Forero. That's what I had in mind.

So essentially the past subjunctive and pps are timeless, in that they are about an imaginery time and world. But the pps is used to express a completed action right? That's how it differs from the ps?


----------



## Forero

A completed action? PPS can be used for a completed action, but the form itself does not generally say that. I suppose _if I had been drunk_ might mean "if someone had completed drinking me", but that is not how I understood the sentence. As I was suggesting, I took it to mean something more like "if I had been drunk a long time" or else "if I had a hangover", in other words, as an ongoing state, not as an action, completed or otherwise.

And I don't think _as if they had been friends_ always has to mean "as if they used to be friends", but _as if they were friends_ is less likely to be interpreted that way. I would need more context to resolve the ambiguity with confidence, but in the absence of context, interpreting _had been_ here as "used to be" does seem reasonable.

Perfects, subjunctives, and modals (like _would_) are hard to explain both because of the inherent ambiguities and because there is sometimes no exact synonym for a given meaning of these forms.


----------



## EnglishABC

Sorry, completed action is not really the term I was looking for. I think I meant *an action that began before the action in the main clause. *

I also think I got the impression from you that the difference between the PS and PPS differs depending on whether it follows wish, as if etc, but after re-reading your posts, I don't think that was your intent.


----------



## Forero

Examples explain better than terms like "completed action". Verbs of course are not always about actions, and perfects, in spite of the Latin origin of the term, are not always about completion.

Books and websites explaining perfect tenses and such usually tell in what sorts of situations they are used and do rather poorly at explaining the underlying meanings (as if that were possible). I don't know, but I suspect perfect tenses may have only a small number of meanings that, supplemented with context, allow for lots of applications.

I am not sure, but I think subjunctive in an _as if_ clause is essentially the same as subjunctive after plain _if_. And it has a lot in common with verbals, including, I think, tenselessness.

My other main point in this thread is that present perfect and simple past tense, which have become practically equivalent in some languages, still maintain a useful distinction in English. But put "It used to be that" (forcing past tense) or "Would that"/"I wish" in front (forcing subjunctive II), and both forms shift to the same form: _had_ + past participle.

In spite of this merger of forms, some grammarians try to maintain the distinction by calling one use of _had _+ past particple a "past perfect" and the other a "pluperfect". I don't know if they make a similar distinction between subjunctive uses of _had_ + past participle.

But in an _as if_ clause, indicative and subjunctive are both possible, and _had _+ past participle in this environment is thus doubly merged, so to speak. It can even confuse us natives.


----------



## EnglishABC

> But in an _as if_ clause, indicative and subjunctive are both possible, and _had _+ past participle in this environment is thus doubly merged, so to speak. It can even confuse us natives.


 
Yes, exactly! All this doubling. And, were you to utter the word subjunctive to a group of natives, there's a high chance they would just scratch their heads and think you're talking gibberish. Yet, they all speak fine without knowing what the subjunctive is. Go figure!



> Examples explain better than terms like "completed action


 
Couldn't agree more. Sometimes I get sick of reading about John Smith though. 




> The PPS can be used in a sentence about the past or the present:
> 
> _I imagine that if I had found her address, ...._ [present]
> _I thought that if I had found her address, ...._ [past]


 
I actually spoke to a very competent grammarian about this point above a while back now. Just like me, he didn't understand about this backshifting. I'd say he would've recommended the past subjunctive to me in your above sentences. That's why I was a bit slow on the uptake, since until now I've followed his line of thinking.

So basically, the PPS above is tenseless, but had I used the PS instead, the action of finding wouldn't have happened before the imagining, unlike with the PS, right?


----------



## Forero

EnglishABC said:


> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> _I imagine that if I had found her address, ...._ [present]
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, the PPS above is tenseless, but had I used the PS instead, the action of finding wouldn't have happened before the imagining, unlike with the PS, right?
Click to expand...

Since the time of the finding may very well be entirely unreal, does it matter? It might never have happened and it might not ever happen.

I think a sentence that begins:

_I imagine that if I found her address, ...
_
is as ambiguous timewise as one that begins:

_I imagine that in a situation involving my finding her address, ..._

I can imagine that the time of the finding is here and now along with my imagining it, or yesterday, perhaps before I started imagining it, or tomorrow, or never. It works the same for any time I am imagining:

_I imagine that if I found her address while I was still in my mother's womb, ...
I imagine that if I found her address yesterday, ..._
_I imagine that if I found her address today, ...
I imagine that if I found her address tomorrow, ..._
_I imagine that if I found her address when hell was freezing over, ...

_


----------



## EnglishABC

> Since the time of the finding may very well be entirely unreal, does it matter?


 
Then how do we decide between using the PPS or the PS?


----------



## Forero

EnglishABC said:


> Then how do we decide between using the PPS or the PS?


Decide based on what you imagine. Do you imagine those teachers being his friends, or do you imagine them having been his friends?

Do you imagine her being his wife or her having been his wife, her being at Paris or being back home, her taking care of him or having taken care of him?

Do you imagine yourself finding her address or having found it?

 Decide as you would for any other choice between simple and perfect, all other things being equal. You don't have to decide between present and past since the subjunctive is timeless.

If he is or was speaking to teachers the way one speaks to friends, that's "as if they were his friends". If he is or was speaking to teachers the way one speaks to former friends, that's "as if they had been his friends" or just "as if they were his former friends".

If he is or was speaking to the teachers the way one speaks with people who have always been one's friends, that's "as if they had always been his friends".

And if he is or was speaking to the teachers the way one speaks to people who have already been his friends, that's "as if they had already been friends", whatever that might mean.

"As if they had once been his friends" means "the way one speaks to people who were once one's friends".

In general, a phrase like "as if they had been his friends" will mean something like "as his former friends", unless context dictates an implicit something like "always" or "ever since third grade". Otherwise, "as if they were his friends" is less complicated.


----------



## EnglishABC

> Decide based on what you imagine. Do you imagine those teachers *being *his friends, or do you imagine them *having been* his friends?


 
being and having been his friends in relation to the *time the utterance was spoken?*


If I were singing in the shower, I... (I wasn't singing at the time I said this)

If I had been singing in the shower, I... (I wasn't singing at a time earlier than when I said this)


----------



## Forero

EnglishABC said:


> being and having been his friends in relation to the *time the utterance was spoken?*
> 
> 
> If I were singing in the shower, I... (I wasn't singing at the time I said this)
> 
> If I had been singing in the shower, I... (I wasn't singing at a time earlier than when I said this)


Being or having been his friends at the time in our imagination.

I think the only way to unequivocably tie a particular real time to the imaginary is to specify it:

_If I were singing in the shower now, I ....
If I had been singing in the shower just now, I ....
If I were singing in the shower yesterday, I ....
If I had been singing in the shower this morning, I ....
... as if she got it when she was fourteen.
... as if she had gotten it when she was fourteen.

_


----------



## EnglishABC

Hi again, Forero

_If I had been singing in the shower just now, I ...._

_Above is an example of the third conditional. And I believe the third conditional, which uses the past perfect subjunctive, does refer to a past time invariably:_


With the *third conditional* we talk about the *past*. We talk about a condition in the past that did *not* happen
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-conditional_4.htm


So I'm still not sure what to believe. What you have said makes sense, but so do the many sites explaining it as this link above does...

Maybe it's just over my head and you are in fact agreeing with what is said in the above link.


----------



## Forero

Hello again, EnglishABC.

The sites you have linked to are wrong. Not terribly wrong, but certainly not perfectly correct. For one thing, sites that say the subjunctive always expresses an impossibility are wrong, because it can be used for possible things too.

 It may be that the original sentence is not subjunctive at all, in which case _had been_ would probably mean "before he spoke to the teachers". Further context may change this perception though.

I am a native speaker but not an expert, so I suspect I am wrong too. That is, I suspect something I have said here is inaccurate. But I think we natives all agree about the difference between sentences like the following:

_ He spoke to the teacher as if she *were* his friend.
_ _ He spoke to the teacher as if she *had been* his friend.
_ 
The latter sentence does seem to be talking about a time before "he spoke", and it does seem reasonable that a person choosing the latter over the former as a representation of reality has probably done so because the way the subject person of the sentence spoke to the teacher suggests she no longer was his friend when he spoke but had been earlier. Note that this is not the same as saying the latter sentence actually states that the former sentence is not also true.

As a native speaker, do you not agree?


----------



## EnglishABC

> As a native speaker, do you not agree?


 
My big problem is that I often think far too theoretically and almost become a non-native when discussing grammar. Sometimes it helps. But for the most part it is just totally impractical.

Anyway, um, yes I agree with you. But what you are saying agrees with the link I provided. That is, the past perfect relates to a past time, a time before the verb in the main clause (he spoke). Do you not agree?


----------



## berndf

Forero said:


> Examples of "had been" in different contexts:
> 
> Present (perfect): _I have never been rich, as __I have never been very smart with my investments. If I *had been* smarter, I would have been rich._
> Past: _I was not rich: I was not smart enough. If I *had been* smarter, I would have been rich._
> 
> Is subjunctive "had been" different tenses in these different contexts? I don't think so.


To me this only means that _perfect aspect, present tense_ cannot be distinguished from_ perfective aspect, past tense_ but not that the expression is tenseless; it is just ambiguous.


----------



## Forero

EnglishABC said:


> My big problem is that I often think far too theoretically and almost become a non-native when discussing grammar. Sometimes it helps. But for the most part it is just totally impractical.
> 
> Anyway, um, yes I agree with you. But what you are saying agrees with the link I provided. That is, the past perfect relates to a past time, a time before the verb in the main clause (he spoke). Do you not agree?


Well, we are certainly all trying to describe the same language. 

The (four?) web sites you have provided links to are not in complete agreement with each other. I think we know what they are trying to say, however imperfectly, but I can see how they might confuse non-natives.


----------



## EnglishABC

> Well, we are certainly all trying to describe the same language


 
What I was trying to say is that I analyse a sentence and discuss its grammar without fully considering the semantics and without considering how, I, as a native, would write the sentence. Stupid, huh...

I always thought of the past perfect subjunctive the same way I thought of the third conditional. The first and second conditionals are about present and future conditions while the third about past conditions... The past perfect subjunctive is the same, as confirmed on this wiki:



> The pluperfect subjunctive is used like the past subjunctive, except that it expresses a past-tense sense


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive

Are we gong around in circles?


----------

