# As if I was/were



## ariadna_y

Hi everyone, I have a question about this sentence.

At first, I heard applauses because most of the audience hadn’t heard what I said, but then they gaped at me, as if I was/were nuts. 

Is "were" possible, like in conditional type 2?

Thanks in advance


----------



## idemockle

ariadna_y said:


> Hi everyone, I have a question about this sentence.
> 
> At first, I heard applauses because most of the audience hadn’t heard what I said, but then they gaped at me, as if I was/were nuts.
> 
> Is "were" possible, like in conditional type 2?
> 
> Thanks in advance



Yes, it would be correct to use either was (past) or were (subjunctive) in this situation.  This is one of the few situations where the subjunctive mood can be used in English.  Keep in mind that the subjunctive form is usually optional.

I would probably use "were" but it makes little or no difference.  It sounds a little bit more educated to me though.

As a side note, in English the word "applause" is always singular.

I hope that helps!


----------



## SeñorO

Yes, I would say "as if I were nuts." 

"As if I was nuts" is incorrect, although occasionally used and informal.

Also, I think you wanted to say "gazed" instead of "gaped." Gazed = looked, gaped = made a hole. 
Applause = plural, so you can say "I heard applause"  and not "I heard applauses" 

Hope that helps!



ariadna_y said:


> Hi everyone, I have a question about this sentence.
> 
> At first, I heard applauses because most of the audience hadn’t heard what I said, but then they gaped at me, as if I was/were nuts.
> 
> Is "were" possible, like in conditional type 2?
> 
> Thanks in advance


----------



## idemockle

SeñorO said:


> gaped = made a hole.



I'm afraid I have to disagree with that.  To gape means to stare at someone in a surprised way.  The word gaped works fine in the sentence.  I think you might have it confused with the word gaping, which is often used to describe big holes.


----------



## SeñorO

Interesting... I don't know if I've ever heard that before. I would definitely say that gazed would be a more familiar option for most English speakers.


----------



## Fer BA

Yami:

I'd also use _if I were_, but I heard a lot _if I was_, but mostly in places or from people considered uneducated.

Regarding the _gape at me_...I'd avoid it because of its sexual connotations.... (google it and you will see why).


----------



## Bigote Blanco

Fer BA said:


> Yami:
> 
> I'd also use _if I were_, but I heard a lot _if I was_, but mostly in places or from people considered uneducated.
> 
> Regarding the _gape at me_...I'd avoid it because of its sexual connotations.... (google it and you will see why).


 
In many locations, in normal conversation, was and were are used interchangably. However "were" is most correct. 

I believe it is quite similar in español.
If I were......   Si yo fuera.......

If I were you.... Si yo fuera tu

If I were rich.....Si yo fuera rico


Se comportaba como si fuera rico.
He behaved/acted as if he was/were rich.


----------



## elianecanspeak

"At first, I heard *applause* because most of the audience hadn’t heard what I said, but then they gaped at me, as if I was/*were* nuts. "

--*Were vs was *:  In this instance only were is truly "correct".  It is one of the few traces of the subjunctive left in English.  The "if" makes it contrary to fact.  Another current example : "I wish I were . . . "  Other uses may tend to be/sound more archaic : ie "would that I were able to go to her". 

Since schools have put less emphasis on learning grammar many people, including the well educated, use "was" instead of "were" and and unaware that the subjunctive exists in English.  Someday it may disappear, but if you want to stick strictly to the rules, "were" is still used in these cases.

--*"Gaped"* means _*to stare open-mouthed.*_  The open mouth is the connection to the use of "gaping" in "gaping hole".  Your use of "gape" in your sentence is perfectly idiomatic and works well.

I had never heard the sexual use before, referring to a stretched anus.  I am not sure whether it is a well-entrenched usage or very restricted.  The conventional use remains extremely common.


----------



## ariadna_y

Thanks everyone for your help. Every one of your answers has been very useful to me. As for the word "gape" we've been studying "ways of looking" and my teacher likes it whenever we include these kind of vocabulary. 
I'll use "as if I were"
Thanks a lot again


----------



## SydLexia

As I see it, the use of 'nuts' to mean 'mad' is of the same level of informality as the use of 'was' instead of 'were'.

syd


----------



## Bigote Blanco

SydLexia said:


> As I see it, the use of 'nuts' to mean 'mad' is of the same level of informality as the use of 'was' instead of 'were'.
> 
> syd


 
Syd,
That may be somewhat true, but only a real "fruitcake" would use them both together.  

"When you got drunk last night, you were behaving as if you was nuts"
"When you got drunk last night,you were behaving as if you were nuts."


----------



## Istriano

Bigote Blanco said:


> In many locations, in normal conversation, was and were are used interchangably. However "were" is most correct.
> 
> I believe it is quite similar in español.
> If I were......   Si yo fuera.......
> 
> If I were you.... Si yo fuera tu
> 
> If I were rich.....Si yo fuera rico
> 
> 
> Se comportaba como si fuera rico.
> He behaved/acted as if he was/were rich.



_Si yo *fuese *tú_ is more elegant, even in Latin American newspapers


----------



## duvija

Needless to add: 90% of the population would say 'was'. We know what's grammatical, but there isn't the need for the subj. in Eng. Why? a native Sp. speaker cannot understand it (we need the subj. badly) but in America, as I said, 90% don't. 
What about England? is it still used?


----------



## Istriano

I don't know why all this shock over _If I was you..._
In UK, most people say_ If I was you, I wish I was _just like they say

_I recommended that she should be transferred to another school_ and not
_I recommended that she be transferred to another school._

The resurrection of the subjunctive in American English has more to due with the normative language policies in the 40ies and 50ies of the last century than
with the supposed fact that US English is somehow more subjunctive-friendly...


----------



## gengo

Bigote Blanco said:


> That may be somewhat true, but only a real "fruitcake" would use them both together.
> 
> "When you got drunk last night, you were behaving as if you was nuts"
> "When you got drunk last night,you were behaving as if you were nuts."



Sys was referring to the use of "was" with a first-person subject:  as if I was nuts.  No one would say "as if you was nuts" unless they were poorly educated or spoke a dialect.



Istriano said:


> I don't know why all this shock over _If I was you..._
> In UK, most people say_ If I was you, I wish I was_



Well, most people say that here in the US, too, but it is still incorrect.  They also say things like "I'm going to lay on the beach," and "I would have won if he would have helped me," and spell weird as "wierd."  But that doesn't make any of those things correct.  It only shows the appalling quality of education in both countries.


----------



## pops91710

SeñorO said:


> Yes, I would say "as if I were nuts."
> 
> "As if I was nuts" is incorrect, although occasionally used and informal.
> 
> Also, I think you wanted to say "gazed" instead of "gaped." Gazed = looked, gaped = made a hole.
> Applause = plural, so you can say "I heard applause"  and not "I heard applauses"
> 
> Hope that helps!



Gaped is not incorrect. It means to stare as in shock.


----------



## duvija

'Gaped' es mirar con la boca abierta de asombro. Inglés debe ser el único idioma del mundo que tiene unas 200 formas de gestos de la cara. Y también el "gaper's delay" en el tráfico, que es algo tan increíblemente específico como 'el amontonamiento en las carreteras, debido a que los que manejan se apilan a mirar con la boca abierta un accidente que sucedió 'del otro lado de la ruta'. 
Me fascina. De modo que 'gaped' es totalmente razonable.

(ah, y de paso, el otro día fui al gimnasio y me puse a charlar con alguien desconocido, que al poco rato me dijo 'I knew you was friendly, cuz you smiled')


----------



## pops91710

Lo diste en el puro clavo!


----------



## Bigote Blanco

Istriano said:


> _Si yo *fuese *tú_ is more elegant, even in Latin American newspapers


 Istraino,
Lo se y si yo fuera tu usaria "fuese" pero soy del campo.


----------



## duvija

Nunca escuché que 'fuese' sea/fuera más elegante. Lo usamos más a menudo en Uruguay, pero nadie sabe por qué.


----------



## Dr. Funkenstein

It's strange that where I live (Indiana- not exactly the most educated part of the country), "if I were" is more commonly heard than "if I was", even by people with terrible grammar.  These are the same people who say things like "I haven't ate", "my car is broke", "I should have went", "I did good", etc.

"If I was" makes me cringe almost as much as "you be".


----------



## Istriano

To me, _If I was, I wish I was _sound just like _It is me, I just saw_ or _Who did you see?_ instead of _It is I_, _I have just seen, Whom did you see?_
I would not use them in an essay, but they are acceptable in colloquial speech.


----------



## elianecanspeak

Dr. Funkenstein said:


> It's strange that where I live (Indiana- not exactly the most educated part of the country), "if I were" is more commonly heard than "if I was", even by people with terrible grammar.



Igual en mi zona.


----------



## Istriano

Well Texas is not exactly the most educated part of the  US, but most people pronounce _why, when_ just like Shakespeare did: hwy, hwen.

So, should we say that the people who have a silent h in these words are ignorant and slovenly?
_
Wales ~ whales, witch ~ which, weather ~ whether_ and other pairs lead more to confusion than _If I was ~ If I were..._


----------



## Dr. Funkenstein

Istriano said:


> Well Texas is not exactly the most educated part of the  US, but most people pronounce _why, when_ just like Shakespeare did: hwy, hwen.
> 
> So, should we say that the people who have a silent h in these words are ignorant and slovenly?
> _
> Wales ~ whales, witch ~ which, weather ~ whether_ and other pairs lead more to confusion than _If I was ~ If I were..._



Pronunciation in English is far more malleable and variable than grammar, in my opinion.  English isn't a phonetic language by any means and there are no real pronunciation rules.  As a good example, Bernard Shaw once said that "ghoti" can be pronounced like "fish".  The "gh" from "tough", the "o" from "women", and the "ti" from "nation".  "Ough" can be pronounced at least 9 different ways if I remember correctly.  American and British pronunciation is very different but we can't really say either is correct or incorrect because pronunciation in English is more or less a crapshoot.

I can't even imagine how to pronounce those words like you've described without letting out a large amount of air, in which case everyone would probably laugh at me.

I see your point, all languages are constantly evolving and what was once considered incorrect is often later accepted because of persistent usage.  However, "if I were" is still the standard in modern English.  Shakespeare's pronunciation of "why" and "when" isn't, nor is his use of antiquated words such as "hast" and "thou".


----------



## ariadna_y

duvija said:


> Nunca escuché que 'fuese' sea/fuera más elegante. Lo usamos más a menudo en Uruguay, pero nadie sabe por qué.




En Argentina, casi nadie usa "fuese" y no porque sea más elegante, simplemente creo que es porque suena más natural. No hay una razón específica.


----------



## LeoLeo9

Aunque lo más correcto es usar If I were you, con la primera persona del singular no se considera erróneo el uso del "was", aunque sea menos formal y más propio del inglés hablado que escrito, no es gramaticalmente incorrecto.
Respecto a fuese/fuera, los castellano-parlantes no solemos diferenciar su uso, pero algunas personas extranjeras estudiantes de español con las que he hablado me han comentado que ellas sí que marcan diferencias, más que por su elegancia, lo diferencian por la probabilidad o credibilidad que se otorga a la condicional que acompaña al subjuntivo.


----------



## duvija

Honestamente, nadie diferenció nunca fuera/fuese. Mucha gente cree que lo hace, por supuesto, pero no tiene por qué ser verdad, ya que al hablar tenemos mucho automatizado. O sea que de verdad 'no se puede pensar antes de hablar' y lo que nos decían nuestras madres, no solamente no es cierto, sino imposible.

El lío con -ra/-se, empezó a armarse cuando el uso del condicional en lugares donde debería/debiera ir el subjuntivo (y vice-versa), se fue consolidando. Dado que el condicional tiene 'r' pareció más fácil sustituirlo por el subjuntivo en 'ra'. Simplemente sonaba más familiar. 
Y de ahí, se empezó a perder la forma en -se, en muchos lugares del globo. Por razones incomprensibles, se sigue usando en Uruguay más que en otros países.

Bueno, estos datos los tengo desde hace unos 15 años, en un estudio estadístico del tema. Tal vez ahora cambió, no sé.


----------



## pops91710

Dr. Funkenstein said:


> It's strange that where I live (Indiana- not exactly the most educated part of the country), "if I were" is more commonly heard than "if I was", even by people with terrible grammar.  These are the same people who say things like "I haven't ate", "my car is broke", "I should have went", "I did good", etc.
> 
> "If I was" makes me cringe almost as much as "you be".



BAH! Don't down your town! I have heard bad grammar coast to coast. _*We was *_is so common! Wasn't you... and so on.


----------



## gengo

LeoLeo9 said:


> Aunque lo más correcto es usar If I were you, con la primera persona del singular no se considera erróneo el uso del "was", aunque sea menos formal y más propio del inglés hablado que escrito, no es gramaticalmente incorrecto.



Sorry, but that is just plain incorrect.

I agree that language is more art than science, that it is constantly evolving, and that what is correct to one person is often incorrect to another, but we must also agree that there ARE rules.  Without them, it becomes more difficult for us to judge the quality of writing and speech.  And although popular usage should be one of the factors considered in this judgment, it cannot be the only one.

Of course, the argument in favor of using the subjunctive in English is greatly weakened by the fact that its form is only apparent in some conjugations, and completely invisible in others.  For example:

as if you were
as if they were
as if we were

In these, it is impossible to say, without more context, whether the verb is in the indicative or subjunctive mood, since those are written exactly the same for these pronouns.  So one might argue that if we don't need the subjunctive (in recognizable form) in these cases, we don't need it at all.

Still, the bottom line here is that educated writers and speakers still agree that, as of now, the subjunctive form is the correct one, so anyone not using it where appropriate risks appearing uneducated.  Caveat escritor.


----------



## Lurrezko

duvija said:


> Nunca escuché que 'fuese' sea/fuera más elegante. Lo usamos más a menudo en Uruguay, pero nadie sabe por qué.



Estoy de acuerdo. Tengo la impresión de que en España se usa más *fuera*, pero jamás oí que fuera/fuese más elegante una que otra, esa diferencia no existe en mi cabeza.


----------



## SevenDays

You could use the indicative "was" in a couple of ways:

By adding "in fact:" _At first, I heard applause because most of the audience hadn't heard what I said, but then they gaped at me, as if I was *in fact* nuts._ 

By focusing on the audience: _At first, I heard applause because most of the audience hadn't heard what I said, but then they gaped at me, as if *they* (the audience) thought I was nuts._

Of course, that's not really fair; I've changed the original sentence enough to pull it away from the subjunctive. 

Cheers


----------



## Fer BA

Hay una serie de hilos sobre _fuese/fuera_, no encuentro una explicación fantástica de XiaoRoel sobre el tema (lo que recuerdo, en galego, _fose_ es el imperfecto del subjuntivo y _fora_ es el plusuamperfecto del indicativo -como en latín-, en el castellano de Nebrija, _fuesse,_ presente del optativo y pasado del subjuntivo no acabado, _fuera,_  pasado del optativo y pasado del subjuntivo más que acabado). En BA muchos usamos la forma fuese, más que nada por influencia gallega -así como casi no usamos tiempos compuestos-.


----------



## gengo

SevenDays said:


> You could use the indicative "was" in a couple of ways:
> 
> By adding "in fact:" _At first, I heard applause because most of the audience hadn't heard what I said, but then they gaped at me, as if I was *in fact* nuts._



That is still incorrect.  The construction "as if..." always takes the subjunctive, because by its very nature it is a hypothetical statement.  The same applies in Spanish with "como si..."  Adding "in fact" changes nothing, as that only means "actually."  

The key point to remember here is that "as if" introduces an idea that is not real.  The speaker is not really nuts (crazy, insane), but the audience was staring at him as if he were.  That is, if he had actually been nuts, they would have stared at him that way.

Again, while many, many native English speakers break this rule, the rule still exists and has no exceptions.

_They stared at him as if he really *were* nuts._
_They stared at him as if he truly *were* nuts._
_They stared at him as if he *were* in fact nuts._
_They stared at him as if he *were* actually, truly, and in fact nuts._

Whether or not you follow this rule is up to you, but you should at least be aware that the above is the correct form.


----------



## Spug

Hola,



gengo said:


> That is still incorrect... The key point to remember here is that "as if" introduces an idea that is not real.



gengo is correct. By definition, the clause that follows any _as if_ construction is contrary to fact. The correct form of the verb is the past subjunctive. This rule is violated every day, but it's still the rule, and careful speakers and writers follow it.

Saludos...


----------



## elianecanspeak

I do not have my dialect maps with me, so I cannot quote a lot of precise examples, but *different regions in Spain historically used -se or -ra.  *

“. . . whereas in the standard Spanish both forms subsist as equivalents, sociolinguistic surveys show that, in Seville, for instance, the –ra  forms are far more frequently used. In Castile, on the other hand, the –se forms are current.” (The Romance Languages / Rebecca Posner)

Immigration to the western hemisphere most usually occurred with inhabitants of a particular region in Spain moving to the same regions in Latin America, taking the regional features of their dialect with them.  (Thus, for example, immigrants from the Canaries brought a dialect where the "s" tended to disappear from the end of the syllable to the Carribean.)  Similarly, the customary stylistic variation in the imperfect subjunctive (and the substitution of the subjunctive for the conditional) would be a product of the region in Spain from which the majority of the local population immigrated.

*In American English*, since we too are a nation of immigrants, the language status of new arrivals affected the use of the subjunctive.  The majority of immigrants were from non-English speaking countries.  Learning the indicative is easy, but the variations which occur in some but not all of the persons when using the subjunctive often do not appear logical to the second language learner, especially if usage of the subjunctive in English does not coincide with subjunctive usage in the native language.  In the US at the turn of the century (I am referring to 1900, not the more recent turn) the average educational level was (as I recall) third grade.  Thus, recent immigrants were not exposed to higher education, and did not learn the subjunctive unless their parents were more highly educated and had learned English in a formal setting. As the immigrants became more financially secure and education levels rose, their customary  English went along with them. Thus, even those who are highly educated in areas other than English grammar (PhDs in sociology, science, etc.) may not use the subjunctive form. This has been one of the forces in the evolution of the current language.


----------



## SevenDays

gengo said:


> That is still incorrect. The construction "as if..." always takes the subjunctive, because by its very nature it is a hypothetical statement. The same applies in Spanish with "como si..." Adding "in fact" changes nothing, as that only means "actually."
> 
> The key point to remember here is that "as if" introduces an idea that is not real. The speaker is not really nuts (crazy, insane), but the audience was staring at him as if he were. That is, if he had actually been nuts, they would have stared at him that way.
> 
> Again, while many, many native English speakers break this rule, the rule still exists and has no exceptions.
> 
> _They stared at him as if he really *were* nuts._
> _They stared at him as if he truly *were* nuts._
> _They stared at him as if he *were* in fact nuts._
> _They stared at him as if he *were* actually, truly, and in fact nuts._
> 
> Whether or not you follow this rule is up to you, but you should at least be aware that the above is the correct form.


 
Does the construction "as if"_ always_ take the subjunctive?
You look at the sky. It's overcast, dark clouds moving in. Would you then say?
(A)_ It looks as if it *were* going to rain_
or would you say?
(B)_ It looks as it* is* going to rain_

The subjunctive "were" in (A) suggests rain is_ unreal_. Yet, from all the information at hand (the wind, the clouds, the change of barometric pressure felt in your bones, etc.) you gather that rain is quite possible, if not likely; the _assumption_ is that, indeed, it will probably rain. Therefore, I suspect the natural, if not the only, choice would be the indicative was"" in (B). 
Not all clauses beginning with "as if" (or "as though") take the subjunctive. In_ he acted as if he were angry_, the meaning is subjunctive, _contrary to fact_. But in _he acted as if he was angry_, the clause makes reference to something that is true or probably true, and therefore not truly subjunctive.

Back to the original sentence, with my change:
_In fact, I heard applause because most of the audience hadn't heard, but then they gaped at me, as if I was in fact nuts._

I wouldn't label it as incorrect. But, your comments made me realize that "_as if I was in fact_" is ambiguous and clumsy. Is the clause making a statement, that _I'm not nuts_, and thinking otherwise is unreal and contrary to fact? Then, clearly, the subjunctive is needed:_ as If I were nuts._
On the other hand, is the clause making a supposition, an assumption, as to what the audience thought? The audience, based on the information at hand (namely, how I was acting), thought it quite probable that I was indeed nuts. If that's the intended meaning, I would embed the indicative "was" in a broader subjunctive clause (_as if the audience thought I was in fact nuts_), where the subjunctive meaning is carried by "thought" and "in fact" strengthens that supposition (assumption).

In English, I suspect "possibility" and "probability" (of_ rain_, that _I was nuts_) are often best expressed with the indicative, and "unreal" with the subjunctive, though I guess what's probable and unreal is in the eye of the beholder.

Cheers


----------



## Spug

SevenDays said:


> You look at the sky. It's overcast, dark clouds moving in. Would you then say?
> (A)_ It looks as if it *were* going to rain_
> or would you say?
> (B)_ It looks as it* is* going to rain_



I'd say, "It looks _like _it's going to rain." 

I can't think of a situation in which _as if_ does not indicate something contrary to fact.

Saludos...


----------



## gengo

SevenDays said:


> Does the construction "as if"_ always_ take the subjunctive?
> You look at the sky. It's overcast, dark clouds moving in. Would you then say?
> (A)_ It looks as if it *were* going to rain_
> or would you say?
> (B)_ It looks as it* is* going to rain_



I agree with Spug that most native speakers would say "looks like."  Again, I have heard many native English speakers use the indicative after "as if," but it just isn't correct.  Here are some examples of sentences you might hear.

She talks as if she owns the place. (owned is correct)
They brag as if they have already won the game. (had won)
Live each day as if it was your last. (were)
That guy looks as if he needs a shave. (looks like is correct)

Let me give you an example that I think shows why it is useful to preserve this distinction.

He looked as if he were sixteen.
He looked like he was sixteen.
He looked to be sixteen.

The first one, in which the subjunctive is used, tells us clearly that the speaker knows, or believes, that the boy is NOT sixteen, despite his appearance.  The second and third, on the other hand, tell us that the speaker believes that the boy is about sixteen.  So useful information is conveyed by the different verb conjugation.


----------



## SevenDays

gengo said:


> I agree with Spug that most native speakers would say "looks like." Again, I have heard many native English speakers use the indicative after "as if," but it just isn't correct. Here are some examples of sentences you might hear.
> 
> She talks as if she owns the place. (owned is correct)
> They brag as if they have already won the game. (had won)
> Live each day as if it was your last. (were)
> That guy looks as if he needs a shave. (looks like is correct)
> 
> Let me give you an example that I think shows why it is useful to preserve this distinction.
> 
> He looked as if he were sixteen.
> He looked like he was sixteen.
> He looked to be sixteen.
> 
> The first one, in which the subjunctive is used, tells us clearly that the speaker knows, or believes, that the boy is NOT sixteen, despite his appearance. The second and third, on the other hand, tell us that the speaker believes that the boy is about sixteen. So useful information is conveyed by the different verb conjugation.


 
"As if" begins a subordinate clause, and such subordinate clause is dependent on (follows) an indicative clause. Syntactically, the main indicative clause, whether in the present or past, governs neither the mood nor the tense of the subordinate clause: we can say _she talks as if she own_*s*_ the place, she talks as if she own_*ed*_ the place, she talked as if she own_*s*_ the place, _and_ she talked as if she own_*ed*_ the place_. Syntactically, they are all correct (or perhaps I should say they are not wrong). What determines (governs) the use of the indicative "owns" or the subjunctive "owned" is semantics; the intended meaning. In _she talks as if she owns the place_, the “owning” is presented as “possible” by the indicative “owns;” in _she talks as if she owned the place_, the “owning” is presented as “improbable” (unreal) by the subjunctive “owned.” Put another way, if you knew that the house didn’t belong to her, then the subjunctive “_as if she owned the place_” is properly used: it states something contrary to fact. But what if you didn’t know who owned the house? You can’t present something as contrary to fact when you can’t ascertain that fact (the owner of the place) to begin with; therefore, “_as if she owns the place_” is correct. For those reasons, it's perfectly ok to say _he looked as if were sixteen __and __he looked as if he was sixteen_; the choice of the indicative or the subjunctive is determined by meaning, not syntax. 

Perhaps the only infallible rule is: use the subjunctive with a situation that is clearly contrary to fact. Other than that, it depends on what you mean to say (with an eye on keeping the tenses in both clauses properly aligned.) 

Regarding _like_ vs. _as if_. “Like” is a preposition and it can be followed by a noun or noun phrase: _it looks like rain_. “As if” is a subordinating conjunction, which introduces a subordinate clause with its own subject and verb: _it looks as if it is going to rain_. In other words, “like” cannot stand for “as if.” (Some argue “like” is indeed a conjunction, but that’s another story.) 

But these are only my opinions.

Cheers


----------



## Dr. Funkenstein

pops91710 said:


> BAH! Don't down your town! I have heard bad grammar coast to coast. _*We was *_is so common! Wasn't you... and so on.



That is definitely true, although it does tend to be better or worse in some areas of the country.


----------



## Istriano

SevenDays said:


> Regarding _like_ vs. _as if_. “Like” is a preposition and it can be followed by a noun or noun phrase: _it looks like rain_. “As if” is a subordinating conjunction, which introduces a subordinate clause with its own subject and verb: _it looks as if it is going to rain_. In other words, “like” cannot stand for “as if.” (Some argue “like” is indeed a conjunction, but that’s another story.)
> 
> But these are only my opinions.
> 
> Cheers



From the MW's Learner's Dictionary:



> *like* *Function: conjunction*
> 
> *Meaning:*
> 
> _informal  _1 a   *:* the way it would be if  ▪_ The plane looked like  [=as if] it would crash._  ▪ _It seemed like  [=as if] he'd never been away._  b  *:* the way someone would do if  ▪ _She acts like  [=as if] she's better than us._
> *usage* The use of _ like _as a conjunction is regarded by some  people as an error. It occurs mainly in speech and informal writing.


So, it's like using *me *instead of *I*, pretty frequent except in formal writing...
(_It's me, Me and Jane went into the store_..._It is I...Jane and I went into the store_).


So we have:

_She acts like she's better than us._   (informal)
_She acts as if she were better than us_. (formal)


----------



## duvija

I learnt the difference between 'like' and 'as', by checking reality.
He eats like a pig (he's not a real pig)
It tastes as homecooked (if it is really homecooked)

But 'like' is winning, and one of the first uses that made people jump was 'Lucky Strike tastes good, like a cigarrette should' (it wasn't Lucky Strike but I don't remember which other brand was). It needed to be 'as a cigarrette', cuz it was a real cig. but the commercial was interesting precisely for that 'like'.
Is this what we are discussing?


----------



## elianecanspeak

"Winston tastes good, like a (tap, tap) cigaret should"


----------



## Spug

Hola,



duvija said:


> I learnt the difference between 'like' and 'as', by checking reality.
> He eats like a pig (he's not a real pig)



As far as I know, this is grammatically correct. There's no clause following _like_. It is definitely common usage.



duvija said:


> It tastes as homecooked (if it is really homecooked)



I don't think you'll ever hear a proper native speaker say that. I'd say it one of two ways, depending on the meaning:

"It tastes homecooked," or, "It tastes like it's homecooked." I think it's homecooked. I think this is a fact.

"It tastes as if it were homecooked." I know it's not homecooked, but it tastes as if it were. Situation contrary to fact, so we use the past subjunctive (see gengo's comments).



duvija said:


> But 'like' is winning, and one of the first uses that made people jump was 'Lucky Strike tastes good, like a cigarrette should' (it wasn't Lucky Strike but I don't remember which other brand was). It needed to be 'as a cigarrette', cuz it was a real cig. but the commercial was interesting precisely for that 'like'.
> Is this what we are discussing?



Yes, I think this is part of what we're discussing.

The brand was Winston. "Winston tastes good like a (clap clap) cigarette should." (Man, you are going back in time! That's when cigarette commercials were still on tv in the States - before 1970 ) I remember our English teachers telling us that that was incorrect - it had to be _as _a cigarette should.

Saludos...


----------



## duvija

Spug said:


> Hola,
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, this is grammatically correct. There's no clause following _like_. It is definitely common usage.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you'll ever hear a proper native speaker say that. I'd say it one of two ways, depending on the meaning:
> 
> "It tastes homecooked," or, "It tastes like it's homecooked." I think it's homecooked. I think this is a fact.
> 
> "It tastes as if it were homecooked." I know it's not homecooked, but it tastes as if it were. Situation contrary to fact, so we use the past subjunctive (see gengo's comments).
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I think this is part of what we're discussing.
> 
> The brand was Winston. "Winston tastes good like a (clap clap) cigarette should." (Man, you are going back in time! That's when cigarette commercials were still on tv in the States - before 1970 ) I remember our English teachers telling us that that was incorrect - it had to be _as _a cigarette should.
> 
> Saludos...


 
Uh, no, I've never seen that commercial. I wasn't here in the 70's. We studied it in a class, in Linguistics! That's why I know it (and that's why I couldn't remember the brand). Thanks for the 'Winston' !

And you're right about the 'homecooking' or whatever. I just couldn't come up with a decent example, that wouldn't be 'as if' but just 'as'.


----------



## gengo

Spug said:


> The brand was Winston. "Winston tastes good like a (clap clap) cigarette should."



I'm afraid the thread police will say this is too much digression, but Winston responded to criticism with another commercial, in which singers sang these words:  What do you want?  Good grammar or good taste?


----------



## Lurrezko

gengo said:


> I'm afraid the thread police will say this is too much digression, but Winston responded to criticism with another commercial, in which singers sang these words:  What do you want?  Good grammar or good taste?



Good grammar is a matter of good taste, isn't it?


----------



## Istriano

For some people like me the contents are more important than the form. 
The lax language policy (or the lack of any language policy) might be the most important thing that made the English language _the universal language.
_Even in Arabic countries English is preferred to standard Arabic, so a person from Qatar can communicate with a person from Morocco with ease.
Also, in some Indian states (like Tamil Nadu) people send their kids to English schools (instead of Tamil schools) because it's easier for them
to learn English than the formal/written Tamil (which is basically 13th century Tamil very different from the modern colloquial language).
Did you know what, in English, progressive tenses were not possible with the passive voice, active voice was used instead, until the 1850ies, the standard usage was:_
My house is cleaning (My house is being cleaned _was considered incorrect_). 
_
Languages change. It's normal. This changing thing is more natural than keeping the medieval version of the language for the written standard,
and keeping it frozen in time (this is known as ''diglossia'' and Arabic and Tamil are perfect examples of it).


----------



## duvija

Istriano said:


> This changing thing is more natural than keeping the medieval version of the language for the written standard,
> and keeping it frozen in time (this is known as ''diglossia'' and Arabic and Tamil are perfect examples of it).


 

Don't forget Greek and Norwegian.


----------

