# If it were - subjunctive



## Quiendijo

Hola 

Me han dicho que 'were' como subjuntivo se usa para 'he' y 'she' y que 'it' se usa con 'was'. Yo creo que no es así, y quisiera su opinión. Sé que coloquialmente se usa 'was' para I he, she e it, pero estoy viendo el subjuntivo y aunque no se usa mucho, aquí se sigue enseñando y se evalúa en exámenes. Dejo un ejemplo que me han dicho que el uso del 'were' era incorrecto:

La fiesta es un desastre... Y como si no fuera lo suficientemente terrible, empezó a llover.
The party is a mess... And, as if it weren't terrible enough, it started to rain. 

Muchas gracias


----------



## Pedro Giraldo

Lo que pasa con el subjuntivo es que se refiere tipicamente a situaciones *hipoteticas* o *contrahecho*, es decir se debe identificar antes de usar esta forma si lo que se dice en el subjuntivo es un hecho opuesto a lo que se considera cierto de antemano.

Entonces si ya das por hecho que la fiesta fue un desastre, mencionar que la fiesta "no es lo suficientemente terrible" ya es un contrahecho y da lugar al uso del modo en cuestion, _*"as if it weren't terrible enough"*_ es correcto.

Lo que te dijeron sobre 'were' usado como subjuntivo para 'he' y 'she' es acertado.

Y por ultimo seguro encuentras alguien que comente sobre el uso de subjuntivo irrealis que aplicaria para el 'was' como subjuntivo del 'it' pero basicamente implica usar 'was' en lugar de 'were' y dejar de llamarlo subjuntivo como tal, cambiandolo a irrealis


----------



## Cenzontle

Nunca he encontrado diferencia de uso del subjuntivo (en inglés) relacionada con el pronombre sujeto:
* as if he were
* as if she were
* as if it were
...igualmente.
En el lenguaje coloquial de algunos hablantes, tal vez, "was" para todos los tres.
"The party was a mess.  And, as if *that* weren't bad enough, it started to rain."


----------



## gengo

Cenzontle said:


> En el lenguaje coloquial de algunos hablantes, tal vez, "was" para todos los tres.



Coincido.  Me parece que muchos angloparlantes no entienden muy bien cómo se usa el subjuntivo en inglés, así que no es nada raro escuchar cosas como las siguientes.

I wish I was a millionaire.  
He ate it as if it was his first time.
If it was mine, I would take good care of it.

En todos los casos de arriba, "was" debiera ser "were," pero es muy común escucharlos con "was."


----------



## SevenDays

Entiendo la preferencia (y el cariño) por "were" (yo lo uso a menudo), pero, en estas dos frases no hay diferencia:
_I wish I *was* a millionaire
I wish I *had *a million dollars_
"Was" y "had" cumplen la misma función: marcan _modalidad _(es decir, "deseo") y no "tiempo pasado". "Were" es lo que queda del subjuntivo del _Old English,_ donde el subjuntivo se conjugaba. En el inglés moderno, el subjuntivo no es una categoría de inflexión verbal; es una categoría sintáctica, y hoy en día, el indicativo perfectamente puede satisfacer la necesidad sintáctica que se requiere para expresar la modalidad de "deseo". Para algunos (entre los que yo me incluyo) la diferencia es semántica: _If it *was* mine, I would take care of it _expresa mayor certeza/convicción/etc. que _If it *were* mine, I would take of it_, que es ya más hipotética.


----------



## Quiendijo

Gracias a todos 

Entiendo tu punto SevenDays, pero en los exámenes nos exigen el uso del subjuntivo en las frases de condicional 2. If I were... If she were, etc. Si bien 'was' aparece en los libros, cuando llega el momento de usarlo en un examen, nos piden el uso de 'were'. Entonces, yo acostumbro a mis alumnos a que lo usen. Yo personalmente, estoy tan acostumbrada a usarlo, que frases como 'If I was...' me suenan raras


----------



## Forero

SevenDays said:


> Entiendo la preferencia (y el cariño) por "were" (yo lo uso a menudo), pero, en estas dos frases no hay diferencia:
> _I wish I *was* a millionaire
> I wish I *had *a million dollars_
> "Was" y "had" cumplen la misma función: marcan _modalidad _(es decir, "deseo") y no "tiempo pasado". "Were" es lo que queda del subjuntivo del _Old English,_ donde el subjuntivo se conjugaba. En el inglés moderno, el subjuntivo no es una categoría de inflexión verbal; es una categoría sintáctica, y hoy en día, el indicativo perfectamente puede satisfacer la necesidad sintáctica que se requiere para expresar la modalidad de "deseo". Para algunos (entre los que yo me incluyo) la diferencia es semántica: _If it *was* mine, I would take care of it _expresa mayor certeza/convicción/etc. que _If it *were* mine, I would take of it_, que es ya más hipotética.


Parece que usas las reglas del inglés británico.

En el inglés americano:

1. "If it was (= era) mine, I would take care of it" es tiempo pasado de "If it is (= es) mine, I will take care of it", pero "If it were (=fuera) mine, I would take care of it" es modo subjuntivo (irrealis).

2. En la lengua formal "I wish" exige el subjuntivo del pasado (e.g. "I wish I were"): "I wish I was" es coloquial solamente.


----------



## Quiendijo

Sí Forero. Aprendemos inglés británico en la escuela, la universidad y en institutos británicos privados. El inglés americano es una opción que hay que buscar fuera de estos ámbitos. Yo personalmente me manejo con ambos, pero a la hora de preparar alumnos para estos sitios, uso el inglés británico. Muchas gracias por tu aporte


----------



## SevenDays

Forero said:


> Parece que usas las reglas del inglés británico.
> 
> En el inglés americano:
> 
> 1. "If it was (= era) mine, I would take care of it" es tiempo pasado de "If it is (= es) mine, I will take care of it", pero "If it were (=fuera) mine, I would take care of it" es modo subjuntivo (irrealis).
> 
> 2. En la lengua formal "I wish" exige el subjuntivo del pasado (e.g. "I wish I were"): "I wish I was" es coloquial solamente.



Bueno, tendrás que explicar por qué el _simple past indicative_ "had" no es "coloquial" en "I wish I had a million dollars" pero el _simple past indicative _"was" sí es "coloquial" en "I wish I was a millionaire." Que "were" se usa en condicionales con "if", sí, en eso estamos todos de acuerdo; pero de ahí a estipular que "was" es _incorrecto_ o _coloquial_ es una aseveración sin fundamento sintáctico. No hay ninguna regla, en el inglés Americano o Británico, que pida o exija "was" o "were" en construcciones con "if", más alla de la actitud/perspectiva del hablante. Será incoherente (y absurdo) establecer que el pasado de indicativo cumple la función de _modalidad_ con _todos_ los verbos _excepto_ el verbo "be". Estas dos formas cumplen la misma función (indicar una "hipótesis"), pero tienen orígenes distintos: "were" viene del inglés antiguo, y "was" es el uso moderno del pasado de indicativo para expresar _modalidad _(igual que "had" en _If I had_).  Que la lengua formal en el inglés Americano exija "I wish I were" es cuestión de_ estilo, _de_ subjetividad_ (o, si quieres, de _prescriptivismo_) pero no de sintaxis. El verbo "wish" te lleva al campo de la modalidad (porque expresa un deseo), pero el verbo "wish" no determina la forma de esa modalidad, ya que acepta "was" y "were" (como lo atestan los muchísimos ejemplos que se encuentran en el uso diario y en la literatura, por ejemplo).

Los tiempos verbales son relativos (y no absolutos). Si me dices que "If it was mine, I would take care of it" es el pasado de "If it is mine, I will take care of it," bueno, no hay más vuelta que darle, pues ya has introducido el contexto temporal; es decir, tú estableces de un principio lo que es "pasado." Pero si quitas ese contexto temporal, y sólo dejas "If it was mine, I would take care of it", las cosas cambian (precisamente porque los tiempos verbales son relativos). La segunda parte ("I would take care of it") tiene sólo una lectura: presente-futuro. Para que esta segunda parte se refiera al "pasado" tiene que aparecer la forma compuesta: _If it was mine, I would have taken care of it._


----------



## Forero

SevenDays said:


> Bueno, tendrás que explicar por qué el _simple past indicative_ "had" no es "coloquial" en "I wish I had a million dollars" pero el _simple past indicative _"was" sí es "coloquial" en "I wish I was a millionaire." Que "were" se usa en condicionales con "if", sí, en eso estamos todos de acuerdo; pero de ahí a estipular que "was" es _incorrecto_ o _coloquial_ es una aseveración sin fundamento sintáctico. No hay ninguna regla, en el inglés Americano o Británico, que pida o exija "was" o "were" en construcciones con "if", más alla de la actitud/perspectiva del hablante. Será incoherente (y absurdo) establecer que el pasado de indicativo cumple la función de _modalidad_ con _todos_ los verbos _excepto_ el verbo "be". Estas dos formas cumplen la misma función (indicar una "hipótesis"), pero tienen orígenes distintos: "were" viene del inglés antiguo, y "was" es el uso moderno del pasado de indicativo para expresar _modalidad _(igual que "had" en _If I had_).  Que la lengua formal en el inglés Americano exija "I wish I were" es cuestión de_ estilo, _de_ subjetividad_ (o, si quieres, de _prescriptivismo_) pero no de sintaxis. El verbo "wish" te lleva al campo de la modalidad (porque expresa un deseo), pero el verbo "wish" no determina la forma de esa modalidad, ya que acepta "was" y "were" (como lo atestan los muchísimos ejemplos que se encuentran en el uso diario y en la literatura, por ejemplo).


To me, "I wish I was ..." sounds strange, just as "Was I you, I would ..." sounds strange. "I wish I were ..." and "Were I you, I would ..." sound natural.

As an adult, I have learned that people from other places will say "I wish I was ..." where I would say "I wish I were ...", but as far as I know they don't say "Was I you, I would ...." I don't know why.

And as far as I know no one says "I wish I am ..." or "I wish I be ...", but, again, I don't know why.

I have also learned as an adult that "I wish I was ..." is actually natural speech in some places, most notably Britain, and I have heard it in songs by such people as Simon and Garfunkel.

Formal (prescriptivist, if you will) teaching in my country has a few "rules" that still seem bizarre to me, but it agrees with the language I grew up with on this particular issue. The dialect I learned before any mention of "subjunctive" in school is still with me, and I have learned that on this particular issue I do not have to watch myself when writing formally, or when editing for an American reader.

For what it's worth, I can explain my usage with the terms I learned in school. "I wish that" creates an environment of _irrealis_. The clause that follows is timeless really, but the tense is always past and the grammatical mode is always subjunctive: "I wish she had", not "I wish she has" or "I wish she have", and "I wish I were", not "I wish I am" or "I wish I was".





> Los tiempos verbales son relativos (y no absolutos). Si me dices que "If it was mine, I would take care of it" es el pasado de "If it is mine, I will take care of it," bueno, no hay más vuelta que darle, pues ya has introducido el contexto temporal; es decir, tú estableces de un principio lo que es "pasado." Pero si quitas ese contexto temporal, y sólo dejas "If it was mine, I would take care of it", las cosas cambian (precisamente porque los tiempos verbales son relativos). La segunda parte ("I would take care of it") tiene sólo una lectura: presente-futuro. Para que esta segunda parte se refiera al "pasado" tiene que aparecer la forma compuesta: _If it was mine, I would have taken care of it._


In my native dialect, "If it is mine, I will have taken care of it" is present - future.with.perfect.aspect, "If it was mine, I would have taken care of it" is most likely past - future.in.the.past.with.perfect.aspect, and "If it were mine [or "Were it mine"], I would have taken care of it" is most likely unreal.time - unreal.time.with.perfect.aspect.

My understanding of British usage is that "If it was mine" and "If it were mine" are both used for unreal time, with a difference in degree of probability.


----------



## gengo

SevenDays said:


> Será incoherente (y absurdo) establecer que el pasado de indicativo cumple la función de _modalidad_ con _todos_ los verbos _excepto_ el verbo "be".



And yet, that is the case.  And that is probably the reason why so many native English speakers don't know how to use the subjunctive, because it is not a consistent, logical system in English.

Compare the following.

1. If I were rich, she would marry me.
2. If I was rich, why did I always take the bus to work?

#1 is a hypothetical statement about something that is untrue.  I in fact am not rich, and I am hypothesizing what would happen if this situation were (not _was_) not true.

#2 is an if-then type of statement.  If we grant that A is true, then B.  Perhaps the other person in the conversation said that I used to be rich, and I am disputing that statement by asking this question.

As has already been said, "I wish I was" is extremely common among native speakers, and maybe someday it will even be considered the grammatically correct form.  I don't know.  But until that day, I will continue to use the subjunctive form, as that is what is currently considered correct.


----------



## SevenDays

gengo said:


> And yet, that is the case.  And that is probably the reason why so many native English speakers don't know how to use the subjunctive, because it is not a consistent, logical system in English.
> 
> Compare the following.
> 
> 1. If I were rich, she would marry me.
> 2. If I was rich, why did I always take the bus to work?
> 
> #1 is a hypothetical statement about something that is untrue.  I in fact am not rich, and I am hypothesizing what would happen if this situation were (not _was_) not true.
> 
> #2 is an if-then type of statement.  If we grant that A is true, then B.  Perhaps the other person in the conversation said that I used to be rich, and I am disputing that statement by asking this question.
> 
> As has already been said, "I wish I was" is extremely common among native speakers, and maybe someday it will even be considered the grammatically correct form.  I don't know.  But until that day, I will continue to use the subjunctive form, as that is what is currently considered correct.



What (2) shows is that "was" is not always "subjunctive;" sometimes it marks grammatical past time, but that's true of any other past indicative verb: _If I *had* a million dollars, why did I always take the bus to work? _As in your example, someone is claiming that I had a million dollars, and I'm disputing that statement with my question. "Had" (in my example) and "was" (in yours) are in the simple past to agree with the main verb, which is also past tense. It is the structure of the main clause that tells us the non-subjunctive nature of "was" and "had." The point is not that "was" is always "subjunctive," but rather that it _can _be "subjunctive," given the overall meaning of the sentence. And that's also true of "were;" I say _I wondered if she *was *a millionaire_ and not "I wondered if she were a millionaire" because what's called for is "was" to mark past time (in agreement with the past "wondered") and not subjunctive "were." In the present, the sentence becomes _I wonder if she *is* a millionaire_. There's nothing wrong with prescriptivism (and I would never say "don't use subjunctive-were" or "always use subjunctive-was"), but we can't rely on prescriptivism to tag things as _correct_ or_ incorrect_, because there's no syntactic basis for it; by any yardstick (_usage, literature, syntax_) other than prescriptive grammar, "was" and "were" are two sides of the same subjunctive coin.


----------



## gengo

There is no subjunctive _was._  In English, "I wondered if..." does not require the subjunctive, and that is why we use the indicative _was._  I agree that it is strange that only the _be_ verb takes a subjunctive form that is spelled differently from the indicative past tense, and furthermore only for certain conjugations (persons), but that is what we have.

You say that "What (2) shows is that _was_ is not always subjunctive," but I say that _was_ is never subjunctive.  In modern English, most native speakers use "was" where a subjunctive form is called for, but that does not make it the subjunctive form.  It just means that English may be evolving toward the use of the indicative form where the subjunctive is currently required.

Ex.
If he was taller, he could reach it.

This is grammatically incorrect (because it refers to a hypothetical situation and therefore requires the subjunctive), but is how many or most native speakers say it.


----------



## Forero

gengo said:


> There is no subjunctive _was_.


In our usage, this is true; but from what I can tell British English really does have subjunctive _was_ contrasted with subjunctive _were_, and this creates a lot of issues for us in the English Only forums.





> In English, "I wondered if..." does not require the subjunctive, and that is why we use the indicative _was._  I agree that it is strange that only the _be_ verb takes a subjunctive form that is spelled differently from the indicative past tense, and furthermore only for certain conjugations (persons), but that is what we have.
> 
> You say that "What (2) shows is that _was_ is not always subjunctive," but I say that _was_ is never subjunctive.  In modern English, most native speakers use "was" where a subjunctive form is called for, but that does not make it the subjunctive form.  It just means that English may be evolving toward the use of the indicative form where the subjunctive is currently required.
> 
> Ex.
> If he was taller, he could reach it.
> 
> This is grammatically incorrect (because it refers to a hypothetical situation and therefore requires the subjunctive), but is how many or most native speakers say it.


I don't mean to sound like a devil's advocate, but for me this last sentence is perfectly grammatical, albeit with a different meaning (Si era más alto, lo podía alcanzar.).

Change this _was_ to _were_, and the sentence pertains to what you are calling a hypothetical situation (Si fuese/fuera más alto, podría alcanzarlo.).

Still, "I wish I was" sounds odd to me because I never heard it until after I grew up. (In contrast "Say it like you mean it" sounds natural to me, though we learn in school that we "should" say instead "Say it as though you mean it.")

I also know now that British English allows "I insisted he was there" to mean "I insisted he be there." In American English, these two sentences have very different meanings.


----------



## Quiendijo

Thanks to all of you. As I have already told SevenDays, I got used to using the subjuntive for hypothetical situations since the very moment I learnt it. I don't think I would get used to using 'was' instead of 'were'. However, I'm open to changes that a language usually has, and hear 'was' without feeling that my ears blow up 

By the way, in Spanish there's no chance to say 'Si _era_ más alto, lo podía alcanzar'. You must say 'Si _fuera_ más alto, lo _podría_ alcanzar'.

Saludos a todos


----------



## Forero

Quiendijo said:


> Thanks to all of you. As I have already told SevenDays, I got used to using the subjuntive for hypothetical situations since the very moment I learnt it. I don't think I would get used to using 'was' instead of 'were'. However, I'm open to changes that a language usually has, and hear 'was' without feeling that my ears blow up
> 
> By the way, in Spanish there's no chance to say 'Si _era_ más alto, lo podía alcanzar'. You must say 'Si _fuera_ más alto, lo _podría_ alcanzar'.
> 
> Saludos a todos


That's interesting. I thought that with subjunctive forms all recognizable, the same distinction was possible in Spanish.

Is there no chance to say "Si es más alto, lo puede alcanzar"?


----------



## gengo

Forero said:


> Is there no chance to say "Si es más alto, lo puede alcanzar"?



Sure, given the right context.  Say, if we are comparing the height of two boys, and are saying that if one of them is taller than the other, then he will be able to reach the thing.  In that case, it is not a hypothetical situation which takes the subjunctive, but rather a simple if-then situation which takes the indicative.

Compare:
If I had the money, I'd go = Si tuviera el dinero, iría (I definitely don't have the money)
If I have the money, I'll go = Si tengo el dinero, iré (I may or may not have the money in the future)
If I have the money, I go = Si tengo el dinero, voy (whenever I have the money)


----------



## S.V.

If it is a BR-US difference, there are some in Spanish too. In LA Spanish, the present subjunctive can be used after _si_: _No sé si vayan_ (_I don't know if they're going_). A classical use of the _pluscuamperfecto_ is common in LA Spanish: _¡Hubieras ido!_ (_You should have gone!_). In Spain, there is a difference between_ haya ido _y_ fuera_, just as between _ha ido_ and _fue_, etc.

However, it does seem to me _was_ is more common. I would expect to _only_ hear Gengo's sentences in #4, if I'm speaking to a 20 year old.


----------



## Forero

gengo said:


> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there no chance to say "Si es más alto, lo puede alcanzar"?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, given the right context.  Say, if we are comparing the height of two boys, and are saying that if one of them is taller than the other, then he will be able to reach the thing.  In that case, it is not a hypothetical situation which takes the subjunctive, but rather a simple if-then situation which takes the indicative.
Click to expand...

So would it not then follow that ""Si era más alto, lo podía alcanzar" is also possible for the same situation, in the past?


----------



## gengo

Forero said:


> So would it not then follow that ""Si era más alto, lo podía alcanzar" is also possible for the same situation, in the past?



Yes, I believe it's possible, although it would be an unusual situation.

Example in English:
-John said that when he and Peter were little, they couldn't reach the cookie jar.
-Really?  Peter said he could reach it.
-No, I don't believe that, because John was taller than Peter.
-Well, if he was taller, he could reach it.

I think that would translate to your sentence, but again, it's a rather unusual situation.  This is an if-then construction in which there is no hypothesis about what would happen in an unreal situation, so the indicative is used.

Let's wait for a native to confirm or refute what I've said.


----------



## SevenDays

Sure, that's how it works; it's your basic sequence of tenses, where tenses agree:
_Si es más alto_ (como tú dices), _lo puede alcanzar_  (present)
_Si *era* más alto_ (como tú *decías*), _lo *podía *alcanzar_ (past)

It follows that that "si" is not the conditional that appears in "Si fuera más alto, lo alcanzaría."


----------



## Peterdg

Forero said:


> So would it not then follow that ""Si era más alto, lo podía alcanzar" is also possible for the same situation, in the past?





gengo said:


> Yes, I believe it's possible, although it would be an unusual situation.


It is totally possible. It is nothing more than your example in the present that is told in the past, just as SevenDays pointed out. It is a conditional I in the past.


----------



## gengo

Just to be clear, when I said it would be unusual, I was referring to the exact sentence Forero used, not to the structure itself.


----------



## Peterdg

I was also referring to Forero's sentence where I said "your example". The fact that I said "your example" just after I quoted you, may be misleading. Sorry about that.


----------



## Quiendijo

In my opinion, there's no possible context to say 'Si era más alto, lo podía alcanzar'. And I don't think it has to do with differences of countries. It's just grammatically incorrect. It's hypothetical situation. We may say 'Si fuera más alto, podría haberlo alcanzado' (If he were taller, he could have reached it - mixed conditional). Anyway, it continues being hypothetical because he will not be taller for now, or at the moment the element needs to be reached. We're just speculating with what would happen if he were taller. Maybe it's difficult to explain, because in Spanish the subjunctive has its own conjugation; in English we use the past simple to make the subjunctive, but it doesn't mean that we're talking about past events.
Thanks to you all and I hope my input helps


----------



## gengo

Quiendijo said:


> In my opinion, there's no possible context to say 'Si era más alto, lo podía alcanzar'. And I don't think it has to do with differences of countries. It's just grammatically incorrect. It's hypothetical situation.



It is not hypothetical if you have already stipulated that he was taller, as in the example dialog I gave above.  There, we aren't saying "if he _were_ taller," we are just saying, "OK, if it is true that he was taller,..."


----------



## Quiendijo

It's stipulated, but it hasn't been tested. So, it continues being hypothetical because he hasn't reached it. If you want to put this context in the past, you can say 'Si él hubiera/ hubiese sido más alto, lo podría haber alcanzado. Also, 'De haber sido más alto, lo podría haber alcanzado' (Had it been taller, he could have reached it). But it's still hypothetical.


----------

