# I would have if I wasn't...



## thedeadlymino

Hola amigos,

En esta oración, no sé cuál tiempo del verbo ¨ser¨ debo usar:
¨Habría hecho mi tarea ayer si *no sea *tan perezoso.¨

¡Gracias!


----------



## donbill

thedeadlymino said:


> Hola amigos,
> 
> En esta oración, no sé cuál tiempo del verbo ¨ser¨ debo usar:
> ¨Habría hecho mi tarea ayer si *no sea *tan perezoso.¨
> 
> ¡Gracias!
> 
> También, sé que el título debe decir ¨del¨



Hello deadlymino:

Tell us what you want to say in English, then we'll be able to help you better. The only thing we can say for sure is that you wouldn't use present subjunctive. Let us hear from you soon!

Thanks,

donbill
moderator


----------



## thedeadlymino

¨I would have done my homework yesterday if *I wasn't* so lazy.¨
I thought ¨no fui¨ or ¨no era¨, but I had a feeling it was a different tense. 

Are either of those correct or is it something else?


----------



## nijota429

...si no fuera tan perezoso.


----------



## gengo

thedeadlymino said:


> ¨I would have done my homework yesterday if *I wasn't* so lazy.¨
> I thought ¨no fui¨ or ¨no era¨, but I had a feeling it was a different tense.
> 
> Are either of those correct or is it something else?



Both the English and the Spanish are incorrect.

I would have done my homework yesterday if I *weren't* so lazy.
Habría hecho mi tarea ayer si no *fuera* tan perezoso.

The conditional always goes with the past subjunctive in such constructions, in both languages.


----------



## aztlaniano

gengo said:


> Both the English and the Spanish are incorrect.


Arguably, incorrrect English should be translated into incorrect Spanish, but I'd use the indicative imperfect, "era".


----------



## thedeadlymino

gengo said:


> Both the English and the Spanish are incorrect.
> 
> I would have done my homework yesterday if I *weren't* so lazy.
> Habría hecho mi tarea ayer si no *fuera* tan perezoso.
> 
> The conditional always goes with the past subjunctive in such constructions, in both languages.



We haven't learned past subjunctive in class yet so that would explain it.

And thanks I guess for correcting my English haha


----------



## gengo

thedeadlymino said:


> We haven't learned past subjunctive in class yet so that would explain it.
> 
> And thanks I guess for correcting my English haha



I think you'll find that studying Spanish will greatly improve your understanding of English, even though you are a native speaker of the latter.  I never truly and completely understood the subjunctive in English until I learned to use it in Spanish.  That is one of the many benefits of learning a foreign language.


----------



## thedeadlymino

gengo said:


> I think you'll find that studying Spanish will greatly improve your understanding of English, even though you are a native speaker of the latter.  I never truly and completely understood the subjunctive in English until I learned to use it in Spanish.  That is one of the many benefits of learning a foreign language.



I couldn't agree more! I could never remember what all of the tenses in English were called because, quite frankly, we never really learned about perfect or subjunctive or anything in grammar. Now that I know them in Spanish though, it has certainly made it a lot easier.


----------



## mexerica feliz

gengo said:


> Both the English and the Spanish are incorrect.
> 
> I would have done my homework yesterday if I *weren't* so lazy.
> Habría hecho mi tarea ayer si no *fuera* tan perezoso.
> 
> The conditional always goes with the past subjunctive in such constructions, in both languages.



_IELTS_ (International English Language Testing System) accepts both_ If I was _and _If I were, I wish I was,_ and_ I wish I were,
_


> _We would go by train if it *wasn’t *so expensive.
> I would look after the children for you at the weekend if I *was *at home._
> _If Jack *was *playing they would probably win._


https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/verbs/verbs-time-clauses-and-if-clauses

TOEFL does not.

It seems that UK-based tests are more tolerant toward modern use, and less conservative than the American ones.


----------



## gengo

mexerica feliz said:


> _IELTS_ (International English Language Testing System) accepts both_ If I was _and _If I were, I wish I was,_ and_ I wish I were,_



I certainly agree that "was" is very common in speech, and even in some writing, but "were" is still considered the correct form, and especially in formal or edited writing.  In certain contexts, using "was" can make you sound uneducated.  As this is a language forum, I think we should learn the correct way to say things.  I hear native Spanish speakers make mistakes all the time, but I don't want to imitate those mistakes.  I prefer to speak Spanish as correctly as I can.  And I hope that learners of English feel the same way.


----------



## Cenzontle

> Arguably, incorrrect English should be translated into incorrect Spanish, but I'd use the indicative imperfect, "era".


The problem I see with this is that "if I wasn't" is a common "error" for native-speakers of English, 
but I wonder whether "si no era" is an error that Spanish-speakers often make, or if it is just a mistranslation from English.


----------



## ZSThomp

> _IELTS_ (International English Language Testing System) accepts both_ If I was _and _If I were, I wish I was,_ and_ I wish I were,_



If I were, as opposed to if I was, is one of the few subjunctive uses still existing in English.  We as speakers of English must strive to hold on to the subjunctive in English as long as possible!!  That being saved, British English has done away with the subjunctive in many instances.

Z


----------



## gengo

ZSThomp said:


> If I were, as opposed to if I was, is one of the few subjunctive uses still existing in English.  We as speakers of English must strive to hold on to the subjunctive in English as long as possible!!  That being saved, British English has done away with the subjunctive in many instances.



Yes, American English, too.  In fact, many Americans, even those with a good education, do not know what the subjunctive mood is.  The subjunctive appears to have one foot in the grave, and the other on a banana peel.  But as long as it yet breathes, we who care about language must use it correctly.

And this remaining subjunctive does serve a useful purpose.  Consider the following examples.

1. If John was rich, why didn't he send his son to the best doctor?
2. If John were rich, he would send his son to the best doctor.

In 1, the indicative is used because John really is/was rich, and we are merely posing a question based on that premise.  In 2, John is not in fact rich, and we are hypothesizing about what he would do if he were (subjunctive).


----------



## aztlaniano

Cenzontle said:


> The problem I see with this is that "if I wasn't" is a common "error" for native-speakers of English,
> but I wonder whether "si no era" is an error that Spanish-speakers often make, or if it is just a mistranslation from English.


Fair point.
Here's a thread on that:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1601088&langid=6


----------



## aleCcowaN

No native is gonna use "si no era" in that context -talking about him or herself and assuming to have a permanent flaw-. They may say "si no es de/por vago, hacía la tarea" and a hundred of similar expressions.


----------



## mexerica feliz

gengo said:


> I certainly agree that "was" is very common in speech, and even in some writing, but "were" is still considered the correct form, and especially in formal or edited writing.  In certain contexts, using "was" can make you sound uneducated.  As this is a language forum, I think we should learn the correct way to say things.  I hear native Spanish speakers make mistakes all the time, but I don't want to imitate those mistakes.  I prefer to speak Spanish as correctly as I can.  And I hope that learners of English feel the same way.



90% of ESL books are printed in the UK,
and they don't consider things like  If I was, I wish I was mistakes at all,
,instead, they are promoted as the only variants (for consistency I guess,
since the rule is:  If + subject + past simple -> + would;  I wish + pronoun + past simple,
subjunctive is never introduced; long live the Oxford University Press  )

When I learnt English we used the Headway series (published by OUP)
and never ever were things like_ I wish I was _considered mistakes
to be ''corrected''.

To say_ I wish I were_ is the only acceptable form is the same thing as to say
_I shall_ is the only acceptable form for futurity, and_ I will _is the only acceptable form for volition.
Languages change, like all things in the world. I thought USA was more progressive than the UK,
but I guess not, linguistically it seems more conservative.


----------



## SevenDays

1. _If I was rich, I would buy a car_
2. _If I had money, I would buy a car_

"Was" in (1) has exactly the same _*form *_and _*meaning *_as "had" in (2): they are preterites that mark modality rather than "past" grammatical time. "Were" is a remnant of the old English subjunctive inflection that survives to this day, apparently more so in AE than in BrE. Being that we are in a grammatical forum, it should be pointed out that the use of "was" or "were" in sentences such as the above has to do with_ usage, tradition_, rather than grammar/syntax (or, to be more precise, as grammar/syntax is understood today). That said, it's useful information to tell learners of English that "were" is preferred in (1), at least in formal contexts (more so, perhaps, in AE). If you are taking a test, it also helps to know what form those giving the test are looking for (for example, IELTS vs. TOEFL), and adjust your answer accordingly. But calling the use of "was" _incorrect_ is problematic: we'd establish that the past indicative is used in subjunctive contexts, such as the example above, _except when the verb "to be" is involved_, and that has no justification in grammar or syntax. 

Cheers


----------



## iribela

mexerica feliz said:


> 90% of ESL books are printed in the UK,



I'm very surprised by this statement. Is it a fact?


----------



## donbill

Good point, SevenDays.

_If I had money, I would buy a car_ can be correctly said to mean _Si tuviera dinero, compraría un coche_ and _Si tenía dinero, compraba un coche._

The explanation gets complicated because 'had' can be interpreted both as subjunctive (condition contrary to fact) or simply past indicative. _Would_ can be interpreted as conditional or as pretérito imperfecto (_When we were young, we would always stay out late on Saturday night.)_


----------



## Takano

To make further corrections, so that everything is 100% strictly grammatically correct both in English and Spanish.

I would have done my homework yesterday if I *hadn't been* so lazy.
Habría hecho mi tarea ayer si no *hubiera sido *tan perezoso.

The reason for "hadn't been" and "hubiera sido" is that the whole thing is referring to the past (to put it simply).   

For comparison, consider the same sentences in the present:

I would do my homework today if I *weren't* so lazy.
Haría mi tarea hoy si no *fuera* tan perezoso.  

So perhaps you got those mixed up?  (Which is OK, because frankly who wouldn't?)

I do realize that not everyone may be so grammatically strict (especially in everyday speech), but the above is the official correct grammar in both languages regardless of whether you follow it or not.  Now if you do insist that you don't speak like that because it sounds stiff or whatever other reason, have at it, that totally happens...  Rules are made to be broken


----------



## Takano

gengo said:


> Both the English and the Spanish are incorrect.
> 
> I would have done my homework yesterday if I *weren't* so lazy.
> Habría hecho mi tarea ayer si no *fuera* tan perezoso.
> 
> The conditional always goes with the past subjunctive in such constructions, in both languages.



To make further corrections, so that everything is 100% strictly grammatically correct both in English and Spanish.

I would have done my homework yesterday if I *hadn't been* so lazy.
Habría hecho mi tarea ayer si no *hubiera sido *tan perezoso.

The reason for "hadn't been" and "hubiera sido" is that the whole thing is referring to the past (to put it simply).   

For comparison, consider the same sentences in the present:

I would do my homework today if I *weren't* so lazy.
Haría mi tarea hoy si no *fuera* tan perezoso.  

So perhaps you got those mixed up?  (Which is OK, because frankly who wouldn't?)

I do realize that not everyone may be so grammatically strict (especially in everyday speech), but the above is the official correct grammar in both languages regardless of whether you follow it or not.  Now if you do insist that you don't speak like that because it sounds stiff or whatever other reason, have at it, that totally happens...  Rules are made to be broken


----------



## Lurrezko

Takano said:


> I do realize that not everyone may be so grammatically strict (especially in everyday speech), but the above is the official correct grammar in both languages regardless of whether you follow it or not.



Debes de estar muy seguro de una lengua que no es tu lengua materna para decirle a un nativo con el historial de gengo que se equivoca, Takano. En cuanto al español, te equivocas.

Un saludo


----------



## aleCcowaN

Takano said:


> To make further corrections, so that everything is 100% strictly grammatically correct both in English and Spanish.



In:

(Hubiera hecho/habría hecho) mi tarea ayer si no fuera tan perezoso 

_fuera_ means I was lazy, I am lazy and I will hopefully continue to be lazy.

"...no hubiera sido tan perezoso" conveys the notion of feeling lazy, which is better with "... no hubiera tenido tanta pereza/flojera"


----------



## SevenDays

Takano said:


> To make further corrections, so that everything is 100% strictly grammatically correct both in English and Spanish.
> 
> I would have done my homework yesterday if I *hadn't been* so lazy.
> Habría hecho mi tarea ayer si no *hubiera sido *tan perezoso.
> 
> The reason for "hadn't been" and "hubiera sido" is that the whole thing is referring to the past (to put it simply).
> 
> For comparison, consider the same sentences in the present:
> 
> I would do my homework today if I *weren't* so lazy.
> Haría mi tarea hoy si no *fuera* tan perezoso.
> 
> So perhaps you got those mixed up?  (Which is OK, because frankly who wouldn't?)
> 
> I do realize that not everyone may be so grammatically strict (especially in everyday speech), but the above is the official correct grammar in both languages regardless of whether you follow it or not.  Now if you do insist that you don't speak like that because it sounds stiff or whatever other reason, have at it, that totally happens...  Rules are made to be broken



That it gets complicated, it does. In "I would have done my homework *yesterday* if I weren't so lazy," the implication is that you are "lazy." In other words, "weren't" is timeless, so "weren't lazy" applies, for all practical purposes, to the past, present and future. By contrast, "hadn't been" is strictly past, and has no connection to the present/future. Both forms are valid; the choice depends on the intended meaning.


----------



## donbill

I would have done my homework yesterday if I weren't so lazy. (Laziness is one of my traits; it's always with me.)
I would have done my homework yesterday if I had not been so lazy. (If I had not been so lazy = If I had not felt so lazy at the time)


----------



## ZSThomp

"I insist that he _be there."  "_I suggest that she _study_ hard."

Those two are prime examples of using the subjunctive in American English.

The British would most likely say "I insist that he is there." and "I suggest that she studies hard", not conserving the subjunctive.

Z


----------



## donbill

*I insist that he is here *means something totally different from *I insist that he be here*, and I'd hate to see that distinction go by the wayside. In the first, I'm simply stating emphatically that he is here; in the second I'm trying to make sure that that he is going to be here.

¡Viva el subjuntivo inglés!


----------



## gengo

What Donbill said.

Not being British, I hesitate to comment on what a Brit would or would not say, but I find it hard to believe that the following dialog would happen.

-Is he at the meeting already?
-No, he said he is too busy to attend.
-I insist that he is there!

ZSThomp, are you really going to tell me that you would say that?  As Donbill has said, that last line means that the speaker is insisting that the man is indeed at the meeting, despite what the other person has said.  The subjunctive is absolutely necessary here to convey the intended meaning (without changing the wording).


----------



## ZSThomp

> ZSThomp, are you really going to tell me that you would say that?  As  Donbill has said, that last line means that the speaker is insisting  that the man is indeed at the meeting, despite what the other person has  said.  The subjunctive is absolutely necessary here to convey the  intended meaning (without changing the wording).



No I'm one of the biggest supporters of the subjunctive!  If you look at my post, I said that the British would say "is."  I am American, and thus use the common construction that preserves the subjunctive: "I insist he be there."

Z


----------



## gengo

ZSThomp said:


> I am American



OK, you hadn't updated your profile yet when I posted.  I'm glad to see you have done so, and we can now see which flavor of English you speak.

To paraphrase the British:  The subjunctive is dead.  Long live the subjunctive!


----------



## inib

gengo said:


> What Donbill said.
> 
> Not being British, I hesitate to comment on what a Brit would or would not say, but I find it hard to believe that the following dialog would happen.
> 
> -Is he at the meeting already?
> -No, he said he is too busy to attend.
> -I insist that he is there!
> 
> ZSThomp, are you really going to tell me that you would say that?  As Donbill has said, that last line means that the speaker is insisting that the man is indeed at the meeting, despite what the other person has said.  The subjunctive is absolutely necessary here to convey the intended meaning (without changing the wording).


Of course there are Brits who know how to use the subjunctive (even* I* am learning, thanks to WR), but I think there are a lot of us who still prefer to avoid it. I agree that "I insist that he *IS *there" does not transmit the desired message in the dialogue above, but I wouldn't naturally come out with "I insist that he *BE* there" in everyday conversation. (Same problem with "suggest", which I've recently commented on.)
Many of us prefer to go out of our way to express it differently: eg: "I insist on *his *being there" (and because I like to consider myself reasonably "well-spoken", I frown on the very common rendering "I insist on *him *being there")
I'm not trying to say what's right or wrong here, I'm just speaking up for what I think a lot of people who are not always highly represented on WR might say. (Those of you who know how to find reliable statistics, get working!)
Saludos a todos.


----------



## donbill

And I consider you more than reasonably well spoken, inib! I would probably use "I insist on his being here" as often as I would "I insist that he be here." I think I consistently say "I suggest that he/she be here."

But I think this thread has wandered a bit from the OP's question, hasn't it? I suggest that he read selectively, and I insist that he continue to post in WR.


----------



## Takano

Lurrezko said:


> Debes de estar muy seguro de una lengua que no es tu lengua materna para decirle a un nativo con el historial de gengo que se equivoca, Takano. En cuanto al español, te equivocas.
> 
> Un saludo




No según mi profesora de España...   Espero que sepas que no sólo fue mi respuesta, sino la de ella también.  Así que ésa si que es una respuesta de una nativa...!  

(Info: Aprendí mi gramática en Granada y discutimos mucho sobre este tema.)


----------



## Lurrezko

Takano said:


> No según mi profesora de España...   Espero que sepas que no sólo fue mi respuesta, sino la de ella también.  Así que ésa si que es una respuesta de una nativa...!
> 
> (Info: Aprendí mi gramática en Granada y discutimos mucho sobre este tema.)



Seguro que tu profesora granadina se despistó o tenía un mal día. El matiz es obvio en ambos idiomas, tal como dicen los compañeros:
_
Habría hecho la tarea si no hubiera sido tan perezoso. _(fui perezoso en ese momento, pero no sabemos si siempre lo soy)
_Habría hecho la tarea si no fuera tan perezoso._ (fui, soy y probablemente seré perezoso, está en mi naturaleza)

Te dieron una información errónea, Takano. Aprende este uso, ese matiz es muy útil.

Un saludo


----------

