# was or were in conditional clauses



## raymondaliasapollyon

Hi,

I'd like to know whether "was" or "were" should be used in the following:

If there were a 20-story office building, those whose office *was* / *were *on the 18th floor would climb many steps each day.

I'd appreciate your help


----------



## entangledbank

Only 'was' is possible there, I would say. Having set up the hypothetical situation (if there were such a building), that clause is factual: in this situation, some people do have an office there, that is their floor. And they have to climb a lot.


----------



## The Newt

The subject is the singular "office," so it has to be "was." That part of the sentence is not conditional.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

That's the tricky part; if it is factual, why is it not in the indicative, i.e. "is"?
If it is conditional, why is it not "were"?


----------



## The Newt

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> That's the tricky part; if it is factual, why is it not in the indicative, i.e. "is"?
> If it is conditional, why is it not "were"?



It's not _is_ because the backshifting affects the whole sentence. In the present you would have:

If there is a 20-story office building, those whose office *is *on the 18th floor would climb many steps each day.


----------



## SevenDays

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to know whether "was" or "were" should be used in the following:
> 
> If there were a 20-story office building, those whose office *was* / *were *on the 18th floor would climb many steps each day.
> 
> I'd appreciate your help



Let's simplify things: _were _needs "if:"
_*
If *there *were *a 20-story building ...
*If *their office *were *on the 18th floor ...
_
The reason is that this "were" is a relic from the past, and it's only viable in counterfactual contexts. The catch is that the counterfactual context needs to be explicitly expressed with "if." In your example, "was/were" appears in an _embedded structure _("deep" in the sentence) and not _directly _governed by "if." As a result, "were" is automatically ruled out: 
_
If there were a 20-story office building, those whose office *was *on the 18th floor would climb many steps each day.
_
If you want more detail:

This "were" is what's typically called "subjunctive," but that in itself is not particularly helpful, and it can be confusing, especially for learners who think that "conditional sentences" need to use the "subjunctive," so they start putting "were" everywhere. In sentences like yours, what's _commonly done _is to _*backshift* _the verbs to signal that what's talked about is "hypothetical/unrealized." "Was" is the "backshift" of "is," and so you can use "was" not only in the embedded structure, but also in the "if-clause:"

_If there *was *a 20-story office building, those whose office *was* on the 18th floor would climb many steps each day_ 

If _were _is "subjunctive," then _was _is "subjunctive" as well, because both verbs are _hypothetical/unrealized._ If there's a distinction to be made, it's on semantic grounds: _was _is "closer" to reality than _were._ But this semantic difference doesn't affect syntax; from a syntactic perspective, both _were _and _was_ work.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

The Newt said:


> It's not _is_ because the backshifting affects the whole sentence. In the present you would have:
> 
> If there is a 20-story office building, those whose office *is *on the 18th floor would climb many steps each day.



Backshift refers to "the changing of a present tense to a past tense in a subordinate clause under the influence of a past tense in the main clause," but there is no past-tense in the main clause of my example in the first place. It is an example of subjunctive, not past tense.


----------



## The Newt

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Backshift refers to "the changing of a present tense to a past tense in a subordinate clause under the influence of a past tense in the main clause," but there is no past-tense in the main clause of my example in the first place. It is an example of subjunctive, not past tense.



Yes, but we use a past tense _form_ of the verb (we often call this the "past subjunctive"), even though there's actually no reference to time in a sentence like "If there were a 20-story building..." Any non-subjunctive or non-conditional verbs that follow have to be in the past tense.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

The Newt said:


> Yes, but we use a past tense _form_ of the verb (we often call this the "past subjunctive"), even though there's actually no reference to time in a sentence like "If there were a 20-story building..." Any non-subjunctive or non-conditional verbs that follow have to be in the past tense.



If so, for the verb _be_, there are two past subjunctive forms, i.e. _were _and _was_.
And the question comes back to why only one of the two subjunctive forms can be used in particular cases, i.e., why the past subjunctive form of _be _is sometimes inflected for person and number as _was_, and sometimes invariant as _were_.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

My example is actually far from basic. Consider it again (with slight modifications) and another one I've just thought of:

a. If there were a 20-story office building without an elevator, those whose office *was *on the 18th floor would climb many steps each day.

b. If there were someone who *was *able to speak over 500 languages at native levels, he would be considered a genius of some sort.

Here *was *is used to describe hypothetical situations and is considered correct even in Standard American English

People here are trying to explain this in terms of "sequence of tenses," but those "past-tense" verbs above are not really indicative, but subjunctive. So I don't see how such an account could work. If instead we explain this in terms of "sequence of moods," we will have to recognize two past-subjunctive forms of the English verb *be*.


----------



## The Newt

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> [...]
> 
> People here are trying to explain this in terms of "sequence of tenses," but those "past-tense" verbs above are not really indicative, but subjunctive. So I don't see how such an account could work. If instead we explain this in terms of "sequence of moods," we will have to recognize two past-subjunctive forms of the English verb *be*.



I'm not quite sure how this affects your original question. The answer to that is unambiguous:

If there were a 20-story office building, those whose office *was *on the 18th floor would climb many steps each day.


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> If it is conditional, why is it not "were"?


The conditional does not require the subjunctive if the condition is real:
"If he is at home (the *real *condition), he will give us a meal."
(Compare: "He is on holiday in Africa at the moment, but if he *were *at home (the *un*real condition), he would give us a meal.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> If instead we explain this in terms of "sequence of moods," we will have to recognize two past-subjunctive forms of the English verb *be*.


There are three:

"If I *were* taller, I would be able to touch the ceiling." *Were *is the subjunctive form that is used free of any implication of tense or time. "Were taller" takes place in an imaginary time dimension. The sentence means "If, *at any time, past, present or future,* I were taller, I would, *at that time,* be able to touch the ceiling. (Here, it is implicit that "he" is never going to be taller and has never been taller than he is now.)

If I *be* taller, then I might touch the ceiling - this form of the subjunctive is specific to the present. There is no implication that at any other time (past or future) at which the speaker would be able to touch the ceiling. Here, the subjunctive implies that, in the real world, "being taller" is highly improbable.

A real future can be created by a time phrase: -> the action becomes "now" *with respect to the real time specified by the main verb.*
_If, by midnight, I *[were to] be* taller, then I might touch the ceiling. _Here, the subjunctive implies that, in the real world, "being taller" is highly improbable.
Compare "That he *go* to London is/was/will be my command!" -> the action is "now" *with respect to the time specified by the main verb.*

*Had I been *taller, I could have touched the ceiling." - this form of the subjunctive is specific to the past. There is no implication that at any other time the speaker would be able to touch the ceiling.


----------



## SevenDays

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> My example is actually far from basic. Consider it again (with slight modifications) and another one I've just thought of:
> 
> a. If there were a 20-story office building without an elevator, those whose office *was *on the 18th floor would climb many steps each day.
> 
> b. If there were someone who *was *able to speak over 500 languages at native levels, he would be considered a genius of some sort.
> 
> Here *was *is used to describe hypothetical situations and is considered correct even in Standard American English
> 
> People here are trying to explain this in terms of "sequence of tenses," but those "past-tense" verbs above are not really indicative, but subjunctive. So I don't see how such an account could work. If instead we explain this in terms of "sequence of moods," we will have to recognize two past-subjunctive forms of the English verb *be*.



If you use the label "subjunctive," then you need to explain why "was" works in (a) but "were" is ruled out, even though you are calling both "was" and "were" _past subjunctive. 
_
As I said earlier, this "were" is a fixed expression, part of the _counterfactual construction_ "If ... were." The moment you step away from this fixed construction, "were" sounds distinctly odd. In (a), what's "counterfactual" is _If there *were* a 20-story office building without an elevator _(not _those whose office *was* on the 18th floor, _which is taken as "factual" by the speaker, thus requiring "was").


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

SevenDays said:


> If you use the label "subjunctive," then you need to explain why "was" works in (a) but "were" is ruled out, even though you are calling both "was" and "were" _past subjunctive.
> _
> As I said earlier, this "were" is a fixed expression, part of the _counterfactual construction_ "If ... were." The moment you step away from this fixed construction, "were" sounds distinctly odd. In (a), what's "counterfactual" is _If there *were* a 20-story office building without an elevator _(not _those whose office *was* on the 18th floor, _which is taken as "factual" by the speaker, thus requiring "was").



How could we justify that "those whose office was on the 18th floor" is factual? It's part of the counterfactual situation after all.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

A native speaker offered he following remark and examples:

"I'm thinking the past tense shows up in subordinate clauses about things that exist only under the counterfactual hypothesis."

If there were a 2000-story office building and you worked on the top floor, you'd need that oxygen tank that you *keep* in your basement.  (This is really "factual.")

If there were a 2000-story office building and you worked on the top floor, you'd probably have an oxygen mask that *plugged *into a central supply. (This is counterfactual.)


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> "I'm thinking the past tense shows up in subordinate clauses about things that exist only under the counterfactual hypothesis."


Another native speaker did the same thing:


PaulQ said:


> *Were *is the subjunctive form that is used free of any implication of tense or time. "Were taller" takes place in an imaginary time dimension. The sentence means "If, *at any time, past, present or future,* I were taller, I would, *at that time,* be able to touch the ceiling. (Here, it is implicit that "he" is never going to be taller and has never been taller than he is now.)


----------



## The Newt

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> How could we justify that "those whose office was on the 18th floor" is factual? It's part of the counterfactual situation after all.



It's neither factual nor counterfactual. Compare to:

If there *were* a God who *was* able to control every aspect of existence....

What is subjunctive is _the existence_ of God; the attributes of that God follow from that possible existence and specify the nature of it, but are not themselves subjunctive.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

PaulQ said:


> Another native speaker did the same thing:



Well, his remark was referring to the past tense in subordinate clauses, like the "was" in my example, specifically, as his examples show.


----------



## SevenDays

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> How could we justify that "those whose office was on the 18th floor" is factual? It's part of the counterfactual situation after all.



_Taken as factual_, by the speaker (in his mind).
Taken as factual, but _unrealized _(because it's all hypothetical; realized in the mind of the speaker, but not outside of it).


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

SevenDays said:


> _Taken as factual_, by the speaker (in his mind).
> Taken as factual, but _unrealized _(because it's all hypothetical; realized in the mind of the speaker, but not outside of it).



But then again, a state of affairs described by a subjunctive is also _taken _as factual in someone's mind but unrealized. So the distinction between that kind of indicative and the subjunctive has yet to be defined more distinctly.


----------



## SevenDays

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But then again, a state of affairs described by a subjunctive is also _taken _as factual in someone's mind but unrealized. So the distinction between that kind of indicative and the subjunctive has yet to be defined more distinctly.



Whatever distinction is to be made in English between "indicative mood" and "subjunctive mood" runs into a basic problem: in languages with moods (Latin, Spanish, etc.), the distinction between "indicative" and "subjunctive" is _morphological_ (based on morphemes), but modern English has no subjunctive morphemes. As a result, (many) linguists simply avoid using the label "subjunctive" in English, leaving that term for languages where mood is shown through _verb inflection._


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> How could we justify that "those whose office was on the 18th floor" is factual? It's part of the counterfactual situation after all.


I gave a related reply earlier: I will make it clearer:
"*whose office was on the 18th floor*" is an adjectival clause qualifying "those" consequently, the tense (and mood) of this type of clause depends *only *on the type of adjectival attribute you wish to give to its referent. The verb in the clause is irrelevant to the rest of the sentence.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

SevenDays said:


> Whatever distinction is to be made in English between "indicative mood" and "subjunctive mood" runs into a basic problem: in languages with moods (Latin, Spanish, etc.), the distinction between "indicative" and "subjunctive" is _morphological_ (based on morphemes), but modern English has no subjunctive morphemes. As a result, (many) linguists simply avoid using the label "subjunctive" in English, leaving that term for languages where mood is shown through _verb inflection._



On second thought, for speakers of informal British English at least, maybe the backshifting account could work, except that the definition should be broadened to cover non-tense-related cases where a subjunctive, e.g. 'was" (as in "If John *was *here *now*, he'd help me") sets up a hypothetical world that requires all subsequent forms with non-factual meaning to be in the subjunctive. It seems the past subjunctive *were *is an oddball, disrupting an otherwise uniform pattern of backshifting in other English varieties.


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> It seems the past subjunctive *were *is an oddball, disrupting an otherwise uniform pattern of backshifting in other English varieties.





PaulQ said:


> *Were *is the subjunctive form that is used free of any implication of tense or time.


----------



## DonnyB

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> On second thought, for speakers of informal British English at least, maybe the backshifting account could work, except that the definition should be broadened to cover non-tense-related cases where a subjunctive, e.g. 'was" (as in "If John *was *here *now*, he'd help me") sets up a hypothetical world that requires all subsequent forms with non-factual meaning to be in the subjunctive. It seems the past subjunctive *were *is an oddball, disrupting an otherwise uniform pattern of backshifting in other English varieties.


Sorry, but I think you're missing the point slightly here, if I may say so.

In the sentence "If John *were *here *now*, he'd help me",  'were' isn't an _'oddball'_ as you put it, it's a grammatically correct use of the past subjunctive in a closed or type II conditional sentence.  Many people do now use the indicative "If John *was *here *now*, he'd help me" but I personally don't: it really grates on me.

However, if we alter the sentence slightly to:
"If John, who *was* my best friend at school, *were *here *now*, he'd help me", you don't use the subjunctive in the subordinate clause for the simple reason that that _isn't_ part of the conditional.  He *was* your best friend at school irrespective of whether or not he's around now to help you.  So therefore you use the indicative.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

DonnyB said:


> Sorry, but I think you're missing the point slightly here, if I may say so.
> 
> In the sentence "If John *were *here *now*, he'd help me",  'were' isn't an _'oddball'_ as you put it, it's a grammatically correct use of the past subjunctive in a closed or type II conditional sentence.  Many people do now use the indicative "If John *was *here *now*, he'd help me" but I personally don't: it really grates on me.
> 
> However, if we alter the sentence slightly to:
> "If John, who *was* my best friend at school, *were *here *now*, he'd help me", you don't use the subjunctive in the subordinate clause for the simple reason that that _isn't_ part of the conditional.  He *was* your best friend at school irrespective of whether or not he's around now to help you.  So therefore you use the indicative.



Of course I know "were" is the standard (and perhaps a bit formal) usage. By "oddball," I mean "were" is unlike "was," which varies its form according to person and number in (counterfactual) backshifting contexts. Or rather, the subjunctive "was" participates in backshifting contexts, whereas the invariant subjunctive "were"  does not.

As for your example ""If John, who *was* my best friend at school, *were *here *now*, he'd help me", the use of "was" is unsurprising, because I said the subjunctive "sets up a hypothetical world that requires all subsequent *forms with non-factual meaning* to be in the subjunctive. " So if "who was my best friend at school" is factual, it doesn't occur in the subjunctive form.


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Or rather, the subjunctive "was" participates in backshifting contexts, whereas the invariant subjunctive "were" does not.


I see your mistake:

There is *no* subjunctive "was".
*Was *is the indicative mood of the *singular* simple past tense of the verb to be -The cat was dead
*Were *is the indicative mood of the *plural* simple past tense of the verb to be - The cats were dead
*Were *is the subjunctive mood of the *singular and plural* (see above for notes on the "tense") of the verb to be - *Were *the cat dead, I would not have fed it. / *Were *the cat*s* dead, I would not have fed them.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

PaulQ said:


> I see your mistake:
> 
> There is *no* subjunctive "was".
> *Was *is the indicative mood of the *singular* simple past tense of the verb to be -The cat was dead
> *Were *is the indicative mood of the *plural* simple past tense of the verb to be - The cats were dead
> *Were *is the subjunctive mood of the *singular and plural* (see above for notes on the "tense") of the verb to be - *Were *the cat dead, I would not have fed it. / *Were *the cat*s* dead, I would not have fed them.



If you are talking about* standard English*, I agree that there is no subjunctive "was."
But if you are talking about informal English, "was" can be a subjunctive.

The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar gives the following:

The so-called past subjunctive (also called the were-subjunctive) is used in clauses of hypothetical condition. It differs from the past indicative of be only in the first and third person singular, *which popularly replace it*. The reference is to present (or future) time, e.g.  If I were you, I'd own up (*If I was you …*)  If only my grandfather were alive today (*If only my grandfather was …*)  If she were to come tomorrow … *(If she was to …*)


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But if you are talking about informal English, "was" can be a subjunctive.


No - it cannot be.

The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar needs to be read more carefully than you seem to have done:

The so-called past subjunctive [...] differs from the past indicative of be only in the first and third person singular, *which *[i.e. the past *indicative* of be]* popularly replace it *[i.e. the *subjunctive*]. The subjunctive verb has been replaced - the subjunctive is no longer there - the subjunctive (in this use) does not exist - something else - the indicative - exists.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

PaulQ said:


> No - it cannot be.
> 
> The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar needs to be read more carefully than you seem to have done:
> 
> The so-called past subjunctive [...] differs from the past indicative of be only in the first and third person singular, *which *[i.e. the past *indicative* of be]* popularly replace it *[i.e. the *subjunctive*]. The subjunctive verb has been replaced - the subjunctive is no longer there - the subjunctive (in this use) does not exist - something else - the indicative - exists.



That really depends on whether you define the subjunctive in terms of form or function. Obviously, you are taking the form approach. However, such an approach would reject "enter" of "Enter Hamlet" as a present subjunctive, as its form coincides with the bare infinitive. 

The said dictionary is taking the form of the first and third person singular of the past indicative _be _as a subjunctive (in terms of function).


----------



## PaulQ

I am merely stating what the dictionary says: it says that the *subjunctive *"were" has been replaced by the *indicative *"was": "If only my grandfather *was* alive today" has no subjunctive in it - either in form or function.


----------



## Loob

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> the subjunctive "sets up a hypothetical world that requires all subsequent *forms with non-factual meaning* to be in the subjunctive."


If this statement leads you to produce sentences like
_If there were a 20-story office building, those whose office *were *on the 18th floor would climb many steps each day._​then it is, quite simply, an incorrect statement.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

PaulQ said:


> I am merely stating what the dictionary says: it says that the *subjunctive *"were" has been replaced by the *indicative *"was": "If only my grandfather *was* alive today" has no subjunctive in it - either in form or function.




Its function is state a counterfactual hypothesis, exactly what a subjunctive does.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Loob said:


> If this statement leads you to produce sentences like
> _If there were a 20-story office building, those whose office *were *on the 18th floor would climb many steps each day._​then it is, quite simply, an incorrect statement.



No, I said "were" is an "oddball" that does not participate in backshifting contexts.


----------



## PaulQ

As I said: that is because it does not have a time frame to backshift.
Again:


PaulQ said:


> *Were *is the subjunctive form that is used free of any implication of tense or time. "Were taller" takes place in an imaginary time dimension.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Btw, if we say "A differs from B only in C, which popularly replaces A," does it mean  C is (an instance of) B?
Probably not. But that seems to be how you interpret the Oxford statement:

It [=The subjunctive were] differs from the past indicative of be only in the first and third person singular, *which popularly replace it*.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

PaulQ said:


> As I said: that is because it does not have a time frame to backshift.
> Again:



Many would say the subjunctive were refers to the unreal present or future.

If I were a billionaire, I would buy you a Cadillac.

And whether 'were" has a time frame or not has nothing to do with the function of
"was" in  "If only my grandfather *was* alive today. ..."

As I said, "was" indicates a counterfactual hypothesis contrary to what holds in the present.


----------



## Loob

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> No, I said "were" is an "oddball" that does not participate in backshifting contexts.


Are you suggestig, then, that native speakers
- would use past subjunctive in your "building" sentence for verbs that do not have a distinctive past subjunctive form,​but
- would avoid it for the one verb that does have a distinctive form?​


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Loob said:


> Are you suggestig, then, that native speakers
> - would use past subjunctive in your "building" sentence for verbs that do not have a distinctive past subjunctive form,​but
> - would avoid it for the one verb that does has a distinctive form?​



In the "building" example, the past subjunctive *was *(in informal speech) or *were *establishes a counterfactual hypothetical world that justifies the use of subjunctive forms for elements with non-factual meaning. 

If there *were / was* a 20-story office building without an elevator, those whose office *was* on the 18th floor would climb many steps each day.

However, most past subjunctive forms in English are identical with past-tense forms. (E.g. If I had 10 billion dollars, I would buy you a Cadillac. Here, "had" is a past subjunctive that looks the same as a past indicative.)

And invariant subjunctive "were" is an oddball that does not participate in such backshifting.


----------



## Loob

I commend Occam's razor to you, raymond.


----------



## e2efour

PaulQ said:


> There is *no* subjunctive "was".
> *Was *is the indicative mood of the *singular* simple past tense of the verb to be -The cat was dead
> *Were *is the indicative mood of the *plural* simple past tense of the verb to be - The cats were dead
> *Were *is the subjunctive mood of the *singular and plural* (see above for notes on the "tense") of the verb to be - *Were *the cat dead, I would not have fed it. / *Were *the cat*s* dead, I would not have fed them.


There is no such thing as a "past subjunctive" form of the verb in English. Where did you get this impression from? I prefer a simple approach rather than inventions that fit foreign languages like Spanish, Italian etc. In _Were the cat dead_, we have a relic of a past subjunctive (commonly called the _irrealis_ or (by some) the _were_ _subjunctive_).

Take the following sentences:
1a.  _Were the cats dead, I would not have fed them._
1_._b._ If the cats were dead, I would not have fed them._
2_.    If the cats had been dead, I would not have fed them._
3.    _If the cat were dead, I would not feed it._​
Where is the subjunctive, apart from sentence 3?
Sentences 1 and 2 are past real conditionals. The difference in 2 is that _had been dead_ is an unlikely or untrue statement. Another term for sentence 2 is a remote conditional (the use of the past tense in a hypothetical or unreal sense).
Sentence 3 uses the _were subjunctive_, which cannot refer to the past. It has to refer to the present or future. This subjunctive only occurs in the 1st and 3rd forms of verbs.


----------



## PaulQ

e2efour said:


> There is no such thing as a "past subjunctive" form of the verb in English.


Had they been larger, we could have used them.
English subjunctive - Wikipedia


> As noted in the sections above, some clauses containing subjunctive verb forms, [...]
> 
> The most common example of this is in condition clauses, where inversion is accompanied by the omission of the conjunction _if_. This is described in more detail at English conditional sentences § Inversion in condition clauses. The principal constructions are:
> 
> Inversion with _had_ in the pluperfect, referring to usually counterfactual conditions in the past: _Had he written, …_ (equivalent to _If he had written_)


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Loob said:


> I commend Occam's razor to you, raymond.



Occam's razor works only when a competing theory does a job equally well.
But if you cannot explain why "is" cannot be used instead of "was" in "those whose office was on the ...," then there is no justification for a simple theory. I remember a saying that goes like this: For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

e2efour said:


> There is no such thing as a "past subjunctive" form of the verb in English. Where did you get this impression from? I prefer a simple approach rather than inventions that fit foreign languages like Spanish, Italian etc. In _Were the cat dead_, we have a relic of a past subjunctive (commonly called the _irrealis_ or (by some) the _were_ _subjunctive_).
> .



To speak of past subjunctives in English would make it easier for a learner to understand the following sentences:

If they were there yesterday, they must have witnessed the accident. (Not counterfactual; they could indeed have been there yesterday. The speaker just isn't quite sure.)

If they were billionaires, they would buy me a Cadillac. (Counterfactual; they are not billionaire.)

Although verbs generally don't have distinct subjunctive forms, the subjunctive meaning is there, and thus deserves to be described as such.


----------

