# If I was to & If I were to



## yokohama134072

Which is correct 1 or 2 to write about a possible condition in the past?

  1. If I was to succeed as a doctor, I had to study hard.  
  2. If I were to succeed as a doctor, I had to study hard.

I think 1 is better but I found many cases where "were" is used in the Internet as the following:

  If I were to continue, I had to bring some organization to the effort.
  If I were to succeed, I had to accept the world on the world's terms, not mine.
  If I were to buy, I had to decide on hardware.


----------



## Kirill V.

Let's see what native speakers say, but to me all these are not quite right, if not plainly wrong 

If you are talking about future (you still have a chance to succeed), I think the wording should be
_If I am to succeed with obtaining my degree in medicine / with becoming a doctor, I (will) have to study hard._

Another situation is where you are not studying hard enough at the moment, so there is a good chance you are not going to succeed. Then I guess the wording would be:
_If I were to succeed, I would have to study hard/harder._

And if your studies are over and it is already a fact that you haven't succeeded, then:
_If I had really wanted to become a doctor, I should have studied hard_

(Subject to critics and corrections by native speakers)


----------



## boozer

I largely agree with KV.  Of course, that subjunctive 'were' looks a bit strange to me as it seems to imply that the speaker believes his own success to be impossible - I mean, it makes it sound really impossible, not merely unlikely, very much like 'if I were an alien'.  I know that many will not agree with this, of course.


----------



## boozer

By the way, for me 'if I were to succeed' works in the 3rd conditional, too: If I were to succeed, I would have had to study harder than I did.


----------



## Kirill V.

Oh, yes, the _was/were_ thing is a separate story. I've been using _were_ after _if_ ever since I first read this was the rule in my English textbook in the middle school many years ago. So it's become a habit, many say a bad one.


----------



## yokohama134072

kayve and boozer, thank you for your comments.

However, what I would like to know is about the following sentence, which I read in a book and
changed a little for a copyright-related reason:

   If I were to stay in this industry, I had to overcome some of the obstacles.

I would like to know whether "If I were to stay" is better than "If I was to stay".


----------



## boozer

Some will say it is better because they prefer to use the subjunctive. For me, they do not mean the same. If I were to stay - you know you do not have to stay; If I was to stay - it is remotely possible that you are made to stay. And then, the second part of the sentence is does not agree with the first one and is, therefore, ungrammatical. It should be - I would have to overcome/I would have had to overcome...


----------



## Loob

For me, yokohama's





yokohama134072 said:


> 1. If I was to succeed as a doctor, I had to study hard.


is a straightforward reported-speech-type backshifting of "If I am to succeed as a doctor, I have to study hard".

To my mind, the sentence is correct with "was"; "were" would be incorrect.

My reaction to the sentence in post 6 is the same:
If I *were* to stay in this industry, I had to overcome some of the obstacles.
If I *was* to stay in this industry, I had to overcome some of the obstacles.


----------



## boozer

Oh, sure, Loob, the sentence you quoted is a straightforward backshifted sentence one can see in any past-tense narration novel. I did not see it probably because of the interference of 'were', which made me think of second conditionals.


----------



## Loob

I'm sure it's the same sort of  interference that causes people to say/write the "were" versions of yokohama's sentences, MrB.


----------



## You little ripper!

Loob said:


> If I *was* to stay in this industry, I had to overcome some of the obstacles.


I would say, _If I was to stay in the industry, I *would have *to overcome some of the obstacles._


----------



## Kirill V.

Loob said:


> For me, yokohama'sis a straightforward reported-speech-type backshifting of "If I am to succeed as a doctor, I have to study hard".
> 
> To my mind, the sentence is correct with "was"; "were" would be incorrect.
> 
> My reaction to the sentence in post 6 is the same:
> If I *were* to stay in this industry, I had to overcome some of the obstacles.
> If I *was* to stay in this industry, I had to overcome some of the obstacles.



Loob, you are a marvelous ray of light in the darkness of ignorance! It is only after your post that I realized that the question had nothing to do with conditionals in the first place.


----------



## Loob

You little ripper! said:


> I would say, _If I was to stay in the industry, I *would have *to overcome some of the obstacles._


Yes, that would work as backshifting too, ripper ~
_If I *was* to stay in this industry, I *had* to overcome some of the obstacles ... _is a backshifting of
_If I *am* to stay in this industry, I *have* to overcome some of the obstacles.
If I _*was*_ to stay in this industry, I *would have *to overcome some of the obstacles ... _would be a backshifting of
_If I *am* to stay in this industry, I *will have* to overcome some of the obstacles.

--------_
PS. Thanks for the "marvellous ray of light", kayve - no-one's ever called me that before!


----------



## boozer

A sentence that contains the word 'if' cannot not have anything to do with conditionals.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

kayve said:


> Loob, you are a marvelous ray of light in the darkness of ignorance! It is only after your post that I realized that the question had nothing to do with conditionals in the first place.


You've got to decide whether you wish to say:

_Given that I was going to stay in this industry, I had to overcome some of the obstacles_ - _If I *was* to stay in this industry, I had to overcome some of the obstacles_.

or 

_If I wished to stay in this industry, I would have to overcome some of the obstacles_ - type II conditional.

Only the second is a true conditional sentence, ie. a sentence where the main clause is contingent on the condition's being met.

In my view, Loob is entirely correct, as usual.


----------



## Kirill V.

boozer said:


> A sentence that contains the word 'if' cannot not have anything to do with conditionals.


Well, I exaggerated, but only a little bit. Because the issue here is backshifting of conditionals rather than conditionals as such.
(And, by the way, as Thomas is pointing out above, a sentence with_ if_ can have nothing to do with the conditionals
_- Kate only came back home at 6 am.
- If she was out all night she will sleep till 5 o'clock.)_


----------



## yokohama134072

Thank you everybody. I understand Loob's comment that the following sentence is correct with "was" and "were" would be incorrect:

    If I was to succeed as a doctor, I had to study hard.


----------



## boozer

Yes, this one is correct and, as already explained, is a regular first conditional narrated in the past tense. 'Were' would not work here because it can only be used in 2nd and 3rd conditionals.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

boozer said:


> Yes, this one is correct and, as already explained, is a regular first conditional narrated in the past tense. 'Were' would not work here because it can only be used in 2nd and 3rd conditionals.


Hi Boozer,

I'm not very clear about this.

How can _If I *was* to succeed as a doctor, I *had* to study hard_ be a backshifted first conditional?

Loob said (post #13) that it was a backshifted version of _If I *am* to stay in this industry, I *have* to overcome some of the obstacles _which doesn't look like a first conditional to me.

Wouldn't the first conditional (with that if-clause) have to be _If I *am* to stay in this industry, I *will have* to overcome some of the obstacles_?

I had these considerations in mind when I analyzed the sentence differently.

Maybe we are considering different sentences, because we could all take your correspondence course on this.


----------



## boozer

Well, I understand the sentence can be interpreted in a different way, but, for me, 'have to' and 'will have to' can have pretty much the same meaning. 'Have to' can have future force, can it not? 'I am to stay' itself refers to the broad present time that includes the future, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

boozer said:


> Well, I understand the sentence can be interpreted in a different way, but, for me, 'have to' and 'will have to' can have pretty much the same meaning. 'Have to' can have future force, can it not? 'I am to stay' itself refers to the broad present time that includes the future, wouldn't you say?


For me, it's a question of syntax rather than semantics.  Although* I have to* can have future force, in the world of tense sequencing I find its present tense jarring, and hence ambiguous, in a type I conditional.

I'm afraid I take Loob's view about this backshift.


----------



## Loob

Thomas Tompion said:


> ... I'm afraid I take Loob's view about this backshift.


I don't really like the Type zero - I - II - III categorisation, but if forced to choose, I think I'd say that _If I *am* to stay in this industry, I *have* to overcome some of the obstacles _is a first conditional and that_ If I *was* to stay in this industry, I *had* to overcome some of the obstacles _is therefore a "backshifted first conditional".  No?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

The point about the categorisation is that it gives a pretty foolproof guide to correct conditional tense-sequencing.  If you follow it, you won't go wrong.  That's not to say that you have to follow it to avoid going wrong.

The type I, as I don't need to say, means present in the if-clause, and future in the main clause -_ if I am to stay, I will have to..._

Your sentence - _if I am to stay, I have to... _- looks very like a zero conditional to me (present in both clauses), and zero conditionals often aren't concerned with one thing being contingent on the other.  

I agree with you about what sentence has been backshifted to get _If I *was* to stay in this industry, I *had* to overcome some of the obstacles, _but I wouldn't call the sentence before it was backshifted - _If I *am* to stay in this industry, I *have* to overcome some of the obstacles - _a first conditional.

I'm not saying, of course, that _If I *was* to stay in this industry, I *had* to overcome some of the obstacles _is in any sense incorrect, but, for me, it doesn't necessarily have a conditional meaning.

I think the conditional meaning would be forced were we to shift the if-clause into the subjunctive - _If I were to stay in this industry_.  Then we'd need the main clause to be _I would have etc_.  And for me that is one of the interesting points about the thread.  The use of the indicative while not following the conventional tense-sequencing tells us that the person probably isn't using *if* to present a condition, but rather in the sense of *given that* or *granted that*.

We are familiar with the tense sequencing in the Type I (present/future) and Type II (perfect/conditional) conditional sentences, so some people might be tempted to say that all Type II conditional sentences are backshifted Type I sentences.  This is why, when people talk of backshifting in this context, rather than of types I & II, I wonder whether they've stopped using *if* to present a condition.


----------



## Kirill V.

Well, let me tell you what I've been taught as a foreign learner  (right or not, I guess this may be of interest)

1. _If I go to the cinema I'll take Jane with me._
This is conditional (I am always confused with their numbers, let's say this one is #1)

2. _If I go to the cinema I take Jane with me._
Now, this is a tricky one and can be used to make foreirn learners fail their exam if the teacher wants them to. Because depending on context it can mean the same as 1, and then it is the #1 conditional. BUT it can also mean _whenever I go to the cinema I take Jane with me_. Then it is not a conditional.

In terms of backshifting it doesn't matter whether in a particular context the sentence is a conditional or a statement, however, so it is a pretty much theoretical question.

(cross-posted with Thomas)


----------



## boozer

Right, KV - in the second case you mention it is still a conditional - ZERO conditional  I will reply to TT later when I have time.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hello Kayve,

I agree with a lot of what you say.

For me an interesting point emerging from all this is that when we look at the two numbered sentences in the OP:

_1. If I was to succeed as a doctor, I had to study hard. _
_2. If I were to succeed as a doctor, I had to study hard._

We are happy with 1. but not with 2.

If we change the tense of the main verbs:

_1a. If I was to succeed as a doctor, I would have to study hard. _
_2a. If I were to succeed as a doctor, I would have to study hard._

Now we are happy with both sentences.

It's this which suggests to me that in 1. and 2. (the upper two sentences) we are not concerned with true conditional sentences - sentences where the truth of the main clause is contingent upon the if-clause being met.


----------



## Kirill V.

Another example just came to my mind, which tells me that saying _were_ and not _was_ in conditional sentences may not be such a bad habit, as this helps to distinguish conditionals from non-conditional statements.

_If I was in New York I would visit Times Square._
And by this I mean I used to visit New York at some point, and every time I was there I would visit Times Square because I loved the place.

This is of course quite different from the conditional:
_If I were in New York I would visit Times Square.

(cross-posted)_


----------



## Kirill V.

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hello Kayve,
> 
> I agree with a lot of what you say.
> 
> For me an interesting point emerging from all this is that when we look at the two numbered sentences in the OP:
> 
> _1. If I was to succeed as a doctor, I had to study hard. _
> _2. If I were to succeed as a doctor, I had to study hard._
> 
> We are happy with 1. but not with 2.
> 
> If we change the tense of the main verbs:
> 
> _1a. If I was to succeed as a doctor, I would have to study hard. _
> _2a. If I were to succeed as a doctor, I would have to study hard._
> 
> Now we are happy with both sentences.
> 
> It's this which suggests to me that in 1. and 2. (the upper two sentences) we are not concerned with true conditional sentences - sentences where the truth of the main clause is contingent upon the if-clause being met.



I agree, this is what Loob opened my eyes on 
1 (red) is NOT a conditional; 2 (red) is wrong because _were_ points to a conditional but then the tense in the second part of the sentence is wrong; 1a I was taught was wrong but now most native speakers tell me it's Okay in the modern English; and 2a is conditional.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

kayve said:


> I agree, this is what Loob opened my eyes on
> 1 (red) is NOT a conditional; 2 (red) is wrong because _were_ points to a conditional but then the tense in the second part of the sentence is wrong; 1a I was taught was wrong but now most native speakers tell me it's Okay in the modern English; and 2a is conditional.


I think that puts it very well.


kayve said:


> Another example just came to my mind, which tells me that saying _were_ and not _was_ in conditional sentences may not be such a bad habit, as this helps to distinguish conditionals from non-conditional statements.
> 
> _If I was in New York I would visit Times Square._
> And by this I mean I used to visit New York at some point, and every time I was there I would visit Times Square because I loved the place.
> 
> This is of course quite different from the conditional:
> _If I were in New York I would visit Times Square._


This is an excellent example.  And it illustrates the point I was trying to make.


----------



## boozer

Thomas Tompion said:


> The point about the categorisation is that it gives a pretty foolproof guide to correct conditional tense-sequencing.  If you follow it, you won't go wrong.  That's not to say that you have to follow it to avoid going wrong.
> 
> The type I, as I don't need to say, means present in the if-clause, and future in the main clause -_ if I am to stay, I will have to..._
> 
> Your sentence - _if I am to stay, I have to... _- looks very like a zero conditional to me (present in both clauses), and zero conditionals often aren't concerned with one thing being contingent on the other.


Of course, this is right, TT.

What intrigues me, though, is that someone so acutely sensitive to meaning as you attaches so much importance to form. (Please, treat this as the mildest form of friendly criticism  ) It is all form vs. meaning. The primary objective of a language is to convey meaning. Form gives guidance as to the possible intended meaning, but form alone is not enough. Thus, a conditional sentence has to meet certain semantic requirements in order to qualify as 1st conditional - it has to express an open condition and it has to be about the present/future (non-past). Indeed, this is most of the time achieved by using 'will'. However:
_if I am to stay, I will have to_
can be, for me, only a less certain/forceful way of saying
_if I am to stay, I have to_
Of course, it could be argued that in the first example the obligation/compulsion has not arisen yet, but I think the two are equated when used loosely, as is often the case. If I was in France, I could say:
_If I stay, I may learn French_. 
All of the above are, for me, 1st conditionals.


----------



## Loob

Thomas Tompion said:


> [...]It's this which suggests to me that in 1. and 2. (the upper two sentences) we are not concerned with true conditional sentences - sentences where the truth of the main clause is contingent upon the if-clause being met.


I'm getting lost.

But I feel pretty sure that _If I am to succeed as a doctor, I have to study hard _and therefore _If I was to succeed as a doctor, I had to study hard _are 'cond_i_tionals' in te sense that the second clause is contingent upon the first_._ Either I'm going to succeed, or I'm not.  If I'm going to succeed, I have to study.  If I'm not going to succeed, I don't have to study.

I feel equally sure that in  _If I am to stay in this industry, I have to overcome some of the obstacles _  - and therefore in _If I was to stay in this industry, I had to overcome some of the obstacles - _the second clause is contingent upon the first.  If I'm to stay, I have to overcome some obstacles; if I'm not to stay, I don't.



In relation to yokohama's original question, the bottom line is surely that we agree that
_If I was to succeed as a doctor, I had to study hard... _is correct;
and
_If I were to succeed as a doctor, I had to study hard... _isn't.

At least, I *think *that we agree on that


----------



## Thomas Tompion

The attraction of the forms, Boozer, is

a.  They are amazingly helpful to learners wishing to avoid error in a complicated area.
b.  They are amazingly helpful to native speakers wishing to avoid some of the many false conditionals which they like to slip into their conversation.
c.  By using them we avoid the ambiguity into which we can easily fall in this area of language.

Few areas in my experience are so error-strewn in the everyday language of native speakers as conditional sentences.

Sometimes the problem is logical - the obvious one being things like *given that* for *if*.  But there are other ones, such as, for instance, where two events (A & B) are conditional upon a third event (C), but, because they usually go together, A is presented as the condition of B.

In this case we had the alert given by our inability, about which we agreed, I think, to use the subjunctive in the if-clause; but sometimes the cases are far less obvious.

I find it handy to be able to shift into the often derided forms, to see exactly what the person is trying to say.  Often when one can't easily shift the sentence into any of the forms, that helps us to see that either we aren't dealing with a true conditional, or the form chosen has led to ambiguity.


----------



## Loob

Thomas Tompion said:


> In this case we had the alert given by our inability, about which we agreed, I think, to use the subjunctive in the if-clause;


The fact that we can't use a subjunctive doesn't, at all, mean that yokohama's sentence (1) isn't a conditional, TT. At least, not to me.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

boozer said:


> _if I am to stay, I will have to_
> can be, for me, only a less certain/forceful way of saying
> _if I am to stay, I have to_
> Of course, it could be argued that in the first example the obligation/compulsion has not arisen yet, but I think the two are equated when used loosely, as is often the case. If I was in France, I could say:
> _If I stay, I may learn French_.
> All of the above are, for me, 1st conditionals.


Hi Boozer,

Let's look at these separately.

_If I am to stay, I will have to_ is what you mean.

You say _If I am to stay, I have to_ is a satisfactory alternative.  But you don't need me to tell you that this very easily can be a way of saying _Given that I am to stay, I have to_.  This is just the sort of ambiguity I'm referring to.  I know that people do say this and intend a first conditional, but I think it's sloppy, and leads to such things as thinking that_ If I was to stay, I had to_ is a perfectly satisfactory alternative for a second conditional. For me the conditional structure springs to life, a cloud disperses, and the meaning becomes plain when you construct it conventionally and say _If I was to stay, I would have to_ - now there's no question of _if _meaning _given that_.  And the same thing happens with the 1st conditional structure.

Your second example _If I stay, I may learn French_  is, I think, less problematic.  English modals are complicated and _may_ can easily have future force - it can easily mean _it is possible that I will_.  That would make your sentence a conventional 1st conditional in my book and I'd be happy with it.  Your sentence can't mean _Given that I stay, I am learning French_, can it?  I don't see any opening for ambiguity.

I have a lamentable taste for complication.  I wonder how you'd backshift this last sentence:  _If I stayed, I might learn French_?  And would that mean _If I stayed, it was possible that I would learn French_? or _Given that I was staying, it was possible for me to learn French_? Or something else entirely?


----------



## Loob

TT, can't the _if_-clause in *both *"If I am to stay, I have to X" and "If I am to stay, I will have to X" mean "Given that I am to stay, ..."?

Can I just check - do we agree, in relation to yokohama's original question, that





Loob said:


> _If I was to succeed as a doctor, I had to study hard... _is correct;
> and
> _If I were to succeed as a doctor, I had to study hard... _isn't.


?


----------



## Kirill V.

Loob said:


> Can I just check - do we agree, in relation to yokohama's original question, that
> _If I was to succeed as a doctor, I had to study hard... _is correct;
> and
> _If I were to succeed as a doctor, I had to study hard... _isn't.
> ?


Yes, I think we do.

I think I should appologize, becase I think I've changed my mind on the original sentence #1, now I think its present tense version and, therefore, the Yokohama's backshifted version, is a conditional. I think the key is this construction _If I am to succeed_ = _If I am going to succeed_, which does seem to set a condition. (still not 100% clear on this)

I think what I've been trying to say is that such sentences containing an if-clause are not always conditionals, like in this (fictional) story:

_Between 1960 and 1970 I used to spend a lot of time in the US. I loved the country, and in each big city I visited I had my own favourite place where I would stay for hours just watching the city moving around. If I was in Washington I would stay by the Capitol Pool. If I was in New York I would go to Times Square. If I was to understand the country I had to explore as much of it as I could._

I think of the last three sentences the first two are NOT conditionals, while the third one is, perhaps.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

kayve said:


> I think I should apologize, because I've changed my mind on the original sentence #1, now I think its present tense version and, therefore, the Yokohama's backshifted version, is a conditional. I think the key is this construction _If I am to succeed_ = _If I am going to succeed_, which does seem to set a condition.


Sure, but, given that you want to avoid being sloppy, you need, like Yokohama, to put the main clause into the future -_ if I am to succeed, I will have to_.


----------



## Loob

We'll have to agree to differ on this one, TT: I don't see anything sloppy about _If I am to succeed, I have to..._.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think we have a duty to learners to make our positions clear.  I will try briefly to do so:

My view is that

A. There is an important difference between

1. what I've been calling a true conditional sentence, where the main clause is contingent upon the meeting of the condition stated, and

2. sentences which contain if-clauses but which don't express true conditions - a common form of this is the sentence where the if-clause presents an assumption upon which we base the main clause: _If I wanted to stay in that job, I needed to work harder_ (ie. given that I wanted to stay in that job, I needed to work harder).  This last sentence is structurally similar to Yokohama's sentence 1.

B. Given that this is an important difference, language needs to be able to point that difference.  The usual way in which English does this is by using patterns of tense sequencing which represent a sort of code indicating that a true condition is probably being applied - these patterns are commonly called Type I, II, & III, as well as some mixed conditional types.

C.  These types are learnt by people wishing to speak English and they constitute a wonderfully handy guide to managing these complicated forms.

Many native speakers don't follow the strict conventions and this can lead to ambiguity, particularly in writing, though in speech the difference between A1 and A2 can often be drawn quite clearly by intonation: _If I wanted to stay in that job, I needed to work harder_ for the conditional; _If I wanted to stay in that job, I needed to work harder_ for the assumption, depending a little on the context.  When challenged as to what they mean, sensitive speakers often revert to the code and say either _'Given that I wanted...etc.'_ or _'If I wanted to stay in that job, I *would* need etc.'_

D.  These types are taught by most elementary textbooks and websites, for the reasons given here in A, B, & C.

E.  It often happens here on WR, that members deride the Type I, II, III approach, usually without establishing any sort of edifice in its place.  This puts what learners read here at odds with what they read in their textbooks or on good websites, like the BBC or the British Council, and leaves the learners struggling.


----------



## Kirill V.

Thank you very much, Thomas, for this overview!

(I am still not 100% sure whether _If I am to do something I have to do something else_ represents a true conditional, but never mind - I don't mean to ignite new rounds of arguing).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

kayve said:


> Thank you very much, Thomas, for this overview!
> 
> (I am still not 100% sure whether _If I am to do something I have to do something else_ represents a true conditional, but never mind - I don't mean to ignite new rounds of arguing).


It could be, on some people's lips, but it's ambiguous; that's what I meant earlier by calling it _sloppy_.

To tip the scales in favour of a 'true' conditional, change the main clause to _If I am to do something, __I will have to do something_ _else_.


----------

