# Had he been alive or if he were alive



## Oros

May 20, 2010 would have been Mr Aban's 100th birth anniversary, had he been alive.


Is the above fine?
...........................................................................................................................
I think the following is the correct one.

May 20, 2010 would have been Mr Aban's 100th birth anniversary, *if he were alive.*


----------



## Loob

Hi Oros

_Had he been alive_ is a more formal version of _If he had been alive._

The more formal version of _If he were alive_ is _Were he alive._


----------



## Oros

Thanks Loob
So you approve the words 'had he been alive'.
In other words, you think the original is perfect. *Please tell me.*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Mr Aban were alive by May 20, 2010, he would have been 100 years old.
[ I think the above is the correct of all.]
*What do you think?*


----------



## buzhidao

If it's not May 20th yet, don't say "Had he been alive" at the end, because it means "Had he been alive tomorrow he would be 100." 
Even "Had he been alive, tomorrow he would be 100" sounds wrong.

If May 20th has happened, say 
"Had he been alive, he would have been 100 years old on May 20th"
or
"On May 20th, he would have been 100 years old." 
(You don't need to let us know that someone who is around 100 years old "would have been, if he were still alive" because if the person were alive you would be saying "will be" or "turned 100")


----------



## e174043

Oros said:


> Thanks Loob
> So you approve the words 'had he been alive'.
> In other words, you think the original is perfect. *Please tell me.*
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> If Mr Aban *had been* alive , he would have been 100 years old.


 
In day-to-day speech, it sounds a little wierd. But if you want to emphasize your feelings, opinions ,then you can say ;
Had he been alive , he would have been 100 years old.


----------



## e174043

buzhidao said:


> If it's not May 20th yet, don't say "Had he been alive" at the end, because it means
> "Had  *Were* he been alive (tomorrow) he *will* be 100."
> Even "Had he been alive, tomorrow he would be 100" sounds wrong.


For me.


----------



## buzhidao

e174043 said:


> For me.



I would say "Were he alive tomorrow, he would have been 100" is correct also, but that is different from "had he been alive tomorrow".


----------



## e174043

buzhidao said:


> I would say "Were he alive tomorrow, he would have been be 100" is correct also, but that is different from "had he been alive tomorrow".


 
I would say "would be". Because this is not an unreal situation in the past. It's present. 

As you said , "had he been alive" is different from "were he alive". One of them is about the past and the other is the present.


----------



## Oros

*So after reading all the comments, it is my understanding that all of the following are correct.*
 ….............................................................................................................................................
 If Mr Aban had been alive , he would have been 100 years old. *( unacceptable)*
 Had he been alive , he would have been 100 years old. * ( fine)*
 ….............................................................................................................................................
If we are in month of February, March or April
 Had he been alive, he would have been 100 years old on May 20th. * (fine)*

On May 20th, he would have been 100 years old.*  (fine)*
 ….............................................................................................................................
 Mr Aban died a long time ago.
 Were he alive (tomorrow) he will be 100?*  (fine)*
 Were he alive 2nd February 2011 he will be 100? *(fine)*
 ….............................................................................................................................  
 Were he alive tomorrow, he would be 100? *(fine)*

Were he alive tomorrow, he would have been 100?* (fine)*


----------



## e174043

Oros said:


> *So after reading all the comments, it is my understanding that all of the following are correct.*
> ….............................................................................................................................................
> If Mr Aban had been alive , he would have been 100 years old. *( unacceptable)*
> Had he been alive , he would have been 100 years old. *( fine)*
> ….............................................................................................................................................
> If we are in month of February, March or April
> Had he been alive, he would have been 100 years old on May 20th. *(fine)*
> (I'm not pretty sure but I think we should be in May, June, July ...)
> ....................................................................................................................................
> On May 20th, he would _*will*_ be 100 years old.* (fine)*
> ( I'd say "he will" because it's about the future and he's not dead yet.)
> ….............................................................................................................................
> Mr Aban died a long time ago.We are talking about the future.But he is dead we are making just an assumption.
> Were he alive he will *would *be 100?* (fine)*
> Were he alive 2nd February 2011 he will *would* be 100? *(fine)*
> 
> ….............................................................................................................................


 
But in my opinion ,
If he's alive in 2015, he will be 100.
He is not dead, and if he's not, he is going to be 100.


----------



## iskndarbey

If he were alive (=now), he would be 100. (But he's dead)
Had he been alive (=then, in the past or future), he would have been 100. (But had already died)
If he is alive (he is alive now, and he will be in the future, too), he'll be 100


----------



## Thomas Tompion

buzhidao said:


> I would say "Were he alive tomorrow, he would have been 100" is correct also, but that is different from "had he been alive tomorrow".


 
This is an issue discussed in an earlier thread, here.



Oros said:


> *So after reading all the comments, it is my understanding that all of the following are correct.*
> ….............................................................................................................................................
> If Mr Aban had been alive , he would have been 100 years old. *( unacceptable) - *No, not unacceptable.  This is fine.
> Had he been alive , he would have been 100 years old. *( fine) -* Yes, this is fine too.  It's a slightly more formal version of the first.
> ….............................................................................................................................................
> If we are in month of February, March or April
> Had he been alive, he would have been 100 years old on May 20th. *(fine) -* No, wrong.  I couldn't say this, but an authoritative AE member said in the other thread that he could.  I couldn't say _had he been_ of a future event.
> 
> On May 20th, he would have been 100 years old.* (fine) - *No, wrong.  I couldn't say this, but an authoritative AE member said in the other thread that he could.  I couldn't say _had he been_ of a future event.
> ….............................................................................................................................
> Mr Aban died a long time ago.
> Were he alive (tomorrow) he will be 100?* (fine)* - No, wrong.  It must be _were he still alive, he would be..._basic sequence of tenses in conditional sentences.
> Were he alive 2nd February 2011 he will be 100? *(fine) - *No, wrong.  It must be _Had he still been alive, he would have been..._  That's fine for past events, in my view.  It could be the less formal version, as we discussed earlier.
> ….............................................................................................................................
> Were he alive tomorrow, he would be 100? *(fine) -* No, wrong.  I'm not happy about the suggestion here that he might suddenly become alive tomorrow - life and death isn't like that, in my experience.  We've considered how to say this above.
> 
> Were he alive tomorrow, he would have been 100?* (fine) *- No wrong.  For reasons I gave above*.*


Hello Oros,

I've given my reactions.  In doing so I've not included repeated reminders that these are just my opinions, and may have sounded rather downright as a result.  I felt you needed a reaction, and some of your suggestions are pretty wild, in my view.


----------



## Oros

I am confused after reading Thomas' latest post.


----------



## cursosmotivacion

In this sentece " and I continue the conversation as if he were still alive." Can you explain me the sentence "if he were still alive". Why it uses the form "were" for the 3rd. person, it shouldn´t be "was" instead? Thanks


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Oros said:


> I am confused after reading Thomas' latest post.


Tell us what is confusing you.  Without that information, it's hard for us to help you.


cursosmotivacion said:


> n this sentece " and I continue the conversation as if he were still alive." Can you explain me the sentence "if he were still alive". Why it uses the form "were" for the 3rd. person, it shouldn´t be "was" instead? Thanks


This is the imperfect subjunctive.  In British English it means that he isn't alive but we want to imagine what would be the case had he been alive.


----------



## e2efour

cursosmotivacion said:


> In this sentece " and I continue the conversation as if he were still alive." Can you explain me the sentence "if he were still alive". Why it uses the form "were" for the 3rd. person, it shouldn´t be "was" instead? Thanks



When making a hypothetical or unreal statement like this, you can also say _if he was alive_ (and many people do).

The reason that _were_ is used is that it is a relic of the subjunctive, and in grammar books it is often called "the _were_-subjunctive". However, this subjunctive only exists in the third person (_he/she/it_) and the first person (_I) _of the verb_ to be_, although in the first person it is more common to say _if I were _(as in #1) and in the fixed phrase _if I were you_).

You can invert _if he were _and say _were he_. But you cannot change _if I was_ to _was I._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> However, this subjunctive only exists in the third person (_he/she/it_) and the first person (_I) _of the verb_ to be_, although in the first person it is more common to say _if I were _(as in #1) and in the fixed phrase _if I were you_).


You've got me puzzled, E2E4.  Isn't_ If you *were* alive, you would tell me I was crazy_ an example of it?


----------



## e2efour

An example of an unreal statement? Yes. But there is no problem using the indicative _were_ with _you. _


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> An example of an unreal statement? Yes. But there is no problem using the indicative _were_ with _you. _


My point is that given that_ If he were alive, then..._ is an example of a subjunctive, then_ If you were alive, then..._ must surely be one too.  The fact that *you were* is both a subjunctive and an indicative form is immaterial, as I see it.

I'm not very good on 'unreal' statements.  Our language (BE) treats logically impossible suppositions (*if I were you*) differently from empirically impossible ones (*if I was in Paris*).  Many people who talk about unreal statements don't distinguish between these different types of impossibility.


----------



## pasfacil

Thomas is right in all the posts above.


----------



## e2efour

As I sai_d, if he were alive_ is an example of the_ were-_subjunctive_, _but I would hardly describe_ if you were alive _as a subjunctive_, _which can only be the past simple and can only be used when talking about the present or the future.

To quote from Palmer (The English Verb, 1988): "Belonging to this pattern is the almost fossilized _If I were you_. Only in this form is _were_ used regularly with _I _in spoken English. _If I was yo_u might be regarded as substandard English, but in other cases either _was_ or _were_ is possible. There is a choice between : _If I were rich . . . If I were to ask him _and_ If I was rich . . . If I was to ask him._"

Compare also Leech (Meaning and the English Verb, 2004): "The Past Subjunctive, on the other hand, expresses HYPOTHETICAL MEANING. It survives as a form distinct from the ordinary Indicative Past Tense *only* in the use of _were_, the Past Tense form of the verb to be, with a singular subject: _She looks as if she WERE accusing me of fraud_." [the bolding is mine]

This emphasis on the subjunctive leads some people to use the unreal _were_ to refer to a real condition in the past, which is impossible:
_If she were in Germany in 1942, she was at risk of being sent to a concentration camp.
_
This confusion does not arise with the use of _if she had been in Germany_, since only the context can tell you whether a real or an unreal condition is meant.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> This confusion does not arise with the use of _if she had been in Germany_, since only the context can tell you whether a real or an unreal condition is meant.


I take that point, but surely the issue isn't whether we can tell what sort of condition is being met: in exactly analagous situations I can't see why anyone should say that we are dealing with an indicative rather than a subjunctive, just because the indicative would take the same form as the subjunctive.  Why should *if you were me *be an indicative when * if I were you* is a subjunctive?  I don't get it.

I still feel that any confusion there is stems from talking about unreal and real conditions without considering what sort of impossibility we are concerned with.  For me it's only logical impossibility which calls for the subjunctive, and when we meet it the indicative sounds wrong to my ear.  I know there are people who say 'If I was you' but I'm not one of them.

Maybe we'll have to agree to differ, E2E4.


----------



## e2efour

The idea that _you _were is a "subjunctive" tense is just a fantasy. It is the same as the past simple.

I don't think you will find much (if any) support for this view among modern grammarians. The quotes I gave in #21 made clear that _were_ is only a subjunctive form in the 1st and 3rd person. You will find the same approach in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language etc.
So in _If I won the lottery, I would ... _is not a subjunctive, precisely because it is only one form of the verb, namely the past simple. I should not really have used _indicative past tense_ since that implies that _you were_ is not a subjunctive.
The situation, of course, may well be different in other languages (including Romance languages), but the English "subjunctive" is a far cry from the verb forms used there.

I agree that if you see a past tense used in a conditional sentence, you have to decide whether or not it is a hypothetical statement from the context, since there is no "subjunctive" form to guide you. Even in the two cases where _were_ is a subjunctive, you could use the indicative were_. _There is nothing to stop me from saying _If I was an elephant_ instead of _If I were an elephant. If I were to do something_ and_ If I was to do something_ are interchangeable.

To quote Leech again: "Nowadays the Indicative Mood has become all–important, and the Subjunctive Mood is little more than a footnote in the description of the language. While the contrast between the Subjunctive and Indicative Moods has largely disappeared from present-day English grammar, the distinctions of meaning which Mood used to express are still important within the language. Modern English has a threefold distinction between FACTUAL, THEORETICAL and HYPOTHETICAL meanings, corresponding to the Mood distinctions mentioned above."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I don't think we are in contact with each other, E2e4.  I agree with much that you say but not with the view that *were* is a subjunctive only in the 1st and 3rd person, for the reasons I have given.

I think you are concerned with form while I am concerned with function.

The problem with hypotheticals remains.  I can't sidestep the issue of the sort of non-factual situation we are considering, and I don't find your suggestion of a tripartite distinction helpful, which is why I stick to talking about the sort of departure from the observed present we are considering.

I'd maintain that *if I was an elephant* is as unidiomatic in BE as it is in AE, except in a fantasy world where it was logically possible for me to be an elephant.


----------



## e2efour

I'm not sure what your objection to _I was_ is. These are all hypothetical statements.
In the BNC, for example, we can read _if I were a football match/a chained bear etc._
Similarly, _if I was a building/a rich peasant/a plant._

These are all hypothetical statements.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Many thanks for this.  Remember that I have been avoiding the use of the word _hypothetical_ and talking rather of 'the sort of departure from the observed present' we are dealing with.  I regard the word hypothetical as a carpet under which a great deal is concealed.

I'm quite happy with 'if I was' when we are dealing with empicical impossibility -* if I was in Paris* (when I'm sitting in my house in London), but I find the subjunctive necessary for logical impossibility - *if I were you*.  I can't be you under normal rules concerning personal identity.

The Americans don't face this problem because they regard *if I was in Paris* when one isn't as a savage breach of educated grammar.

The BNC's example of *If I was a building *was spoken.  I doubt if the speaker wouldn't have changed it on mature reflection, or in writing.  I'm a little surprised you are defending the form, if that is what you are doing.


----------



## e2efour

I am saying that you can say "he talks to me as if _I was a child_/_I were a child_". I know of no serious grammar book which says that _were_ is correct and _was _is incorrect.
According to CGEL: "Preterite _was_, however, is very widely used instead of irrealis _were_ in these constructions, especially in informal style."

Also: "_Was_ has been in competition with _were_ for 300-400 years, and in general the usage manuals regard it as acceptable, though less formal than _were_."

But to go back to #1, there is nothing wrong with the original statement.
_If he were alive_ is also possible, but I might write _If he was alive today _(also _would be_, not _would have been_).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thank you.  So you don't accept my distinction between empirical and logical impossibility? or at least you don't think it forms a basis for determining whether one should use the indicative or the subjunctive?  I couldn't say of a dead person 'if he was alive today', because one of the attributes of a dead person is that he's not alive.  There's an important distinction: none of my permanent attributes is that I'm not in Paris; I just don't happen to be in Paris at the moment.

I regard talk of the_ irrealis_ as being as much of a carpet under which to hide things as the adjective _hypothetical_.  I've been distinguishing betweeed different sorts of 'departure from the observed present' in an attempt to avoid these vague terms, as I regard them.


----------



## e2efour

I understand you to say that you would not accept the following as grammatical (on the grounds that it mixes the indicative and the subujunctive, or rather that only the subjunctive _were_ should be used):
_I wish I was a dog and Ronald Reagan were a Jelly Bean tree (Reinhold Ahman, 1933).
_
The fact remains that _was_ is commonly used in hypothetical statements:
_The situation in the Middle East ... might be very different if there was an international left with a strong base_ (Chomsky, 1969). There is clearly not such an international left, although it is not inconceivable.

I don't know on what grounds you reject _if he was alive today_. You may describe it as an impossible condition to meet, but would that not rule out the use of verbs like _imagine_, _suppose_ etc. from ordinary discourse?
You would, I suppose, reject sentences like _Imagine that I was able to run 100 metres in 5 seconds_. It may be humanly impossible, but are you saying that it cannot be imagined?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> The fact remains that _was_ is commonly used in hypothetical statements:
> _The situation in the Middle East ... might be very different if there was an international left with a strong base_ (Chomsky, 1969). There is clearly not such an international left, although it is not inconceivable.


You don't apply my criteria: there is nothing logically impossible about having an international left with a strong base. Chomsky is suggesting that it is currently an empirical impossibility. He uses *there was*, which is exactly what I've been advocating. This is an example which supports my case.

Using the vague word _hypothetical_ obliterates the distinction I am drawing.


e2efour said:


> I don't know on what grounds you reject _if he was alive today_.


I have given them. I don't easily accept the indicative for logical impossibilities. Being alive is not a possibility open to dead people: a dead person's being alive is logically impossible, so I'd try not to say *if he was alive today*.


e2efour said:


> I don't know on what grounds you reject _if he was alive today_. You may describe it as an impossible condition to meet, but would that not rule out the use of verbs like _imagine_, _suppose_ etc. from ordinary discourse?
> You would, I suppose, reject sentences like _Imagine that I was able to run 100 metres in 5 seconds_. It may be humanly impossible, but are you saying that it cannot be imagined?


You don't distinguish between different sorts of impossibility here which makes your question and your implied syllogism hard to follow. Whyever shouldn't one indicate in verbs of imaging and supposing what kind of world one is imagining or supposing. I'd regard changing the mood of the verb as helpful to achieve this aim, and to clarify such statements for the listener or reader.

My being able to run 100 metres in 8 seconds is not logically impossible, though it's technically unlikely. You seem to me to be applying only part of my argument to these examples and thereby depriving it of what force it may have.

I'm sorry that post was deleted.  I had mishandled the strike-through convention.


----------



## e2efour

I think we had better call a truce. 
I see not reason why a logical impossibility should affect what form of the verb is used, especially in a case where two forms commonly compete with one another.
I prefer to use terms like _hypothetical_, which includes all unreal conditions.

But what I really don't understand is that you seem to be questioning the statement that the _were_-subjunctive only exists (or is only distinguishable) in the first and third persons, as widely stated in grammar books.
Quirk et al.: "The _were_-subjunctive may be regarded as a fossilized inflection: it is nowadays *a less usual alternative* to the hypothetical past indicative. [It is] therefore to be viewed as indicative, rather than as a
neutralization of indicative and subjunctive." [The bolding is mine]

Do you dispute this view?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> But what I really don't understand is that you seem to be questioning the statement that the _were_-subjunctive only exists (or is only distinguishable) in the first and third persons, as widely stated in grammar books.
> Quirk et al.: "The _were_-subjunctive may be regarded as a fossilized inflection: it is nowadays *a less usual alternative* to the hypothetical past indicative. [It is] therefore to be viewed as indicative, rather than as a
> neutralization of indicative and subjunctive." [The bolding is mine]


I'm not clear what Quirk is saying there.  I'm not sure that he is either.  I wouldn't care to précis that piece of prose.

My case about the were-subjunctive is this:

It's a feature of subjunctive forms in English that they don't inflect.  The present subjunctive of _to be_ is_ I be, you be, he be, we be, you be, they be_; the perfect subjunctive - _I were, you were, he were, we were, you were, they were._

Now in the case of the perfect subjunctive, only the 1st and 3rd persons singular deviate from the indicative forms, but that doesn't mean that when one uses the subjunctive in the 2nd person singular or in one of the plural persons, one is using an indicative.

I'm distinguishing between use and form, and trying to define the subjunctive in use.  I understood you to be saying that when the subjunctive has the same form as the indicative, it is an indicative.  Why can't one argue in the opposite direction: when the indicative has the same form as the subjunctive, then it is a subjunctive.  Why not say of the second person singular of the indicative - *you were singing in the rain* - or one of the plural persons (we, you, they) that one actually is using the subjunctive, just because the forms are the same?  Wherin lies the supremacy of the indicative for you?  Defining by use rather than form gets round this problem.  Maybe I've misunderstood you.

Just to be clear about use of the were-subjunctive: I'm not saying that the careful speaker is never free to choose between the subjunctive or the indicative.  In cases other than logical impossibility both options are open to him, the indicative suggesting a higher probability.  This is a choice not open to Americans, it seems - I'm accepting the word of many erudite Americans on WR who have insisted on the were-subjunctive in the cases we are considering.

I'm saying that in cases of logical impossibility the indicative is a dangerous choice, one which a careful speaker might wish to avoid.


----------



## e2efour

I agree that grammarians' prose is not always to be copied!

But I really wonder how you could prove that _if you were_ was a subjunctive form, given that it has the form of the past simple.
The so-called "past subjunctive" can be seen if _if she were_, but given that _if she was_ is more common, why should one postulate a tense where _you/we/they were_ do not change? I would also be interested if you could tell me a language where the subjunctive form and the indicative form were the same.

It seems to follow from what you say that in the remote conditional _If I won the lottery, I would be overjoyed_, you regard _won_ as a past subjunctive (or "imperfect subjunctive", which, to my knowledge, is not a term use in English grammar). But again you would not be able to provide any evidence for the existence of this "subjunctive" tense. Calling an indicative a subjunctive does not seem to be any help to anyone. The idea of a a real or an unreal conditional comes from the context, not from an imaginary "subjunctive" form. You would not write, I hope, _If I were an elephant in a previous life._ But if you object to _if I was an elephant_ when talking about the present or future, what is to prevent people from wrongly using _If I were_ when talking about the past?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> But I really wonder how you could prove that _if you were_ was a subjunctive form, given that it has the form of the past simple.


By analogy: *If I were you *is clearly a subjunctive, so, equally, *If you were me* must also be a subjunctive.  How can it be anything else?


e2efour said:


> But again you would not be able to provide any evidence for the existence of this "subjunctive" tense.


Now you are assuming that I've failed to answer the first question.  I'm not happy with that *again*.  It suggests that you regard my case as lost before I've made it.


e2efour said:


> But if you object to _if I was an elephant_ when talking about the present or future, what is to prevent people from wrongly using _If I were_ when talking about the past?


You've lost me here.  I don't see the logical chain.  Are you talking about tense shifting?  I don't think being an elephant in a previous life is logically impossible, so, for what it's worth, I'd use the indicative when talking about a previous life and regard the subjunctive as incorrect.


e2efour said:


> It seems to follow from what you say that in the remote conditional _If I won the lottery, I would be overjoyed_, you regard _won_ as a past subjunctive


But can you regard winning the lottery as logically impossible?  

Couldn't you say *If I were to win the lottery* as well as* If I was to win the lottery*?  If you could, mightn't that make *won* a subjuntive?  I've known sensible people here who have argued that case very strongly.  Most of them were American, if I remember correctly.  I remain agnostic on the issue, and am not clear that there's much point in trying to decide it.


----------



## e2efour

Regarding conditional sentences, I see no difference in the hypothetical meaning of
_If I were to win the lottery ...
If I was to win the lottery ...
If I won the lottery ...
_
They are all hypothetical statements (or whatever you prefer to call them).

Nor do I see any subjunctive in these sentences -- only modal remoteness. I fail to see why it is helpful to use the term subjunctive. The fact that _were _is sometimes used due to a historical relic of the subjunctive does not suggest that the subjunctive is present in _I won_, rather than a past tense suggesting a remote conditional, or that _we/you/they were_ are examples of a subjunctive mood.

I only see a subjunctive in the third person singular of verbs and in sentences like _It is essential that she remain silent_ (where _remains_ is equally possible).
The verb _to be_ then has a regular subjunctive like other verbs (_It is urgent that he be prevented from entering the country_). Again the indicative _is_ is also possible.

Finally, I am not certain of this, but it would seem that only in English can the subjunctive mood be the same as the indicative mood (except in the third person). If this is the case, it suggests to me that our terminology has gone wrong in some way.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> Regarding conditional sentences, I see no difference in the hypothetical meaning of
> _If I were to win the lottery ...
> If I was to win the lottery ...
> If I won the lottery ...
> _
> They are all hypothetical statements (or whatever you prefer to call them).
> 
> Nor do I see any subjunctive in these sentences -- only modal remoteness. I fail to see why it is helpful to use the term subjunctive. The fact that _were _is sometimes used due to a historical relic of the subjunctive does not suggest that the subjunctive is present in _I won_, rather than a past tense suggesting a remote conditional, or that _we/you/they were_ are examples of a subjunctive mood.


I hadn't expected you to deny that* if I were you* is a subjunctive.

Strange sort of indicative isn't it!


----------



## e2efour

It's a matter of termnology. CGEL calls it irrealis and does not classify it as a subjunctive.

In any case it's the plain form of the verb, which makes the need for a term like subjunctive unnecessary in my view.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> it's the plain form of the verb


I don't know what you mean by this.


----------



## e2efour

All subjunctives use the plain form of the verb (the infinitive without _to_), including the verb _to be. _Example: _God be praised. _Of course, this phrase can be analysed in different terms.
_I/he/she/it were _is a historical relic.

In BE we often use _should _+ plain form, which expresses a mood, but is not a subjunctive.

You can say, if you want, that _they were_ is not the simple past. But that's like saying that two (to all intent and purposes) identical glasses of water are different. You can only tell the difference when you taste them (i.e. have a context).

Please excuse this crude analogy.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> All subjunctives use the plain form of the verb (the infinitive without _to_), including the verb _to be. _Example: _God be praised. _Of course, this phrase can be analysed in different terms.
> _I/he/she/it were _is a historical relic.
> 
> In BE we often use _should _+ plain form, which expresses a mood, but is not a subjunctive.
> 
> You can say, if you want, that _they were_ is not the simple past. But that's like saying that two (to all intent and purposes) identical glasses of water are different. You can only tell the difference when you taste them (i.e. have a context).
> 
> Please excuse this crude analogy.


I know, but we are talking about what you yourself above called the_ were-subjunctive_ - in post #21 - and *were* is hardly the base form of *to be*.

I expect you will say that *to be* is a conflation of several Anglo-Saxon verbs including _*wer*_, but I felt the point needed clarifying, because most learners would regard the plain (or base) form of *to be* as *be*.


----------



## e2efour

I do not claim any knowledge of old English, so you cannot guess what I would say about it. 

A more accurate definition would be the uninflected form of the verb, which may be the past tense form (_if wish I knew him_ or (if you must use the term _were-_subjucitve) _If she were here_, where _was_ is the irregular form).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm not going to say any more unless you wish me to, E2E4.  I think we have each discovered what the other feels about this.

Thank you for your patience and consideration.


----------

