# if I was / if I were



## DARINEL

Is it possible to use "was" and "were" with the first personal pronoun, talking about the second conditional?

Thank you!!


----------



## kayokid

Hello. I'm not that familiar with the terminology but in correct English the sentence should read: If I were in the market for a car..., but in colloquial AE you always hear: If I was in the market for a car...
Hope this helps.


----------



## greenheyes

In British English, the informal, spoken version would be WAS, but never use that in an exam, because they´ll be expecting the more formal WERE. Un saludo.


----------



## HelenaJ

I'm with greenheyes, I find "If I was" very distressing ;-)


----------



## DARINEL

*T*hank you, that really helped me.


----------



## cero

Educated people say "If I were you" or "If I were going to go" but we say "I was there yesterday" or "I was the one that hit the jackpot"


----------



## HelenaJ

Ah, that's a little different. "I was there yesterday" is absolutely correct use of the past tense, "If I were you" is conditional...


----------



## gleesoneoin

A query: is it more correct to say 'If I were there now' or 'If I was there now', because the 2nd one is actually talking about the possibility of choosing to be there in a past decision that you decided no, while the 1st one would be more correct as in its hypothetical sense..


----------



## Wandering JJ

gleesoneoin said:


> A query: is it more correct to say 'If I were there now' or 'If I was there now', because the 2nd one is actually talking about the possibility of choosing to be there in a past decision that you decided no, while the 1st one would be more correct as in its hypothetical sense..


In "correct" English it should be "if I *were* there now".


----------



## Masood

DARINEL said:


> Is it possible to use "was" and "were" with the first personal pronoun, talking about the second conditional?
> 
> Thank you!!


Yes, "were" is the correct option for the second conditional.

e.g. If I were rich, I wouldn't work (_si fuera rico, no trabajaria_)


----------



## SkintheGoat

As I understand it, 'I was' is in the indicative mood, 'I were' in the subjunctive.


----------



## ZoIt

[Mod: Thread merged with an existing thread. Please check for existing threads before opening a new thread (Rule 1). -aloofsocialite]

Hi, guys!

While surfing the net I found this picture along with the "explanation" but I'm pretty confused. Shouldn't be used the subjunctive form instead of the indicative in the second case?

The grammar page gives this explanation:

*"If I Was, If It Was*

The lines are smudged in everyday speech, and this is the phrase most likely to be used, but it is only correct in certain references. “Was” is used in situations where the statement might once have been or could be a reality. This verb mood is called “indicative”. These subtle differences once enabled a speaker to “indicate” something without using more words to spell it out.

“If I *was* home, I would be sitting on the couch eating chips.”
The speaker indicates with subtlety that he intends to go home, and potato chips will be involved.

“Frank’s not here yet, but if he *was*, that blueberry pie would be gone.”
Because “was” is used, even if it read, “If Frank was here, that pie would be gone,” readers can assume that Frank will show up eventually, and the pie is in danger.

In an unknown situation, it is admissible to use “was”.

“If Betty *was* smart, she’d go hide that pie.”
Even if there is proof that Betty is NOT smart, it is certainly more polite to indicate she might be!"

What do you think?


----------



## Comrade Momentai

ZoIt said:


> “If I *was* home, I would be sitting on the couch eating chips.”
> The speaker indicates with subtlety that he intends to go home, and potato chips will be involved.
> 
> “Frank’s not here yet, but if he *was*, that blueberry pie would be gone.”
> Because “was” is used, even if it read, “If Frank was here, that pie would be gone,” readers can assume that Frank will show up eventually, and the pie is in danger.
> 
> In an unknown situation, it is admissible to use “was”.
> 
> “If Betty *was* smart, she’d go hide that pie.”
> Even if there is proof that Betty is NOT smart, it is certainly more polite to indicate she might be!"
> 
> What do you think?


The first sentences implies no such thing. It only implies that the speaker may want to be home. More context would be needed.

For the second,it implies that the pie would be in danger. Not that it is in danger at the moment.

The third yes that is correct. If you used *is* instead of *was*, we do imply that Betty may be smart.


----------



## aztlaniano

Yo usaría "were" en los tres ejemplos que citas.


----------



## pachanga7

aztlaniano said:


> Yo usaría "were" en los tres ejemplos que citas.


Me too, but, only because I am a diehard language geek, and I have the Spanish I speak to remind me. 

Unfortunately, the subjunctive is falling by the wayside in American English. I disagree with the subtleties that website is teaching. Saying "If I was" means no such thing--it's just bad grammar that has become widespread usage. Perhaps for some, they like to think it means something when they ignore what used to be the rules of good grammar. I think it's merely a case of language changing and shifting over time, and the _ad hoc_ attempts of some to justify the changes.


----------



## SevenDays

The "was" in "if I was home" is past indicative in form, just like "had" in "if I had money." It's hard to argue that the past indicative "had" is right and the past indicative "was" is wrong, given that both refer to the same thing: something contrary to fact at the time of speaking. "Were" is a remnant of the Old English subjunctive. What the site means by "could be a reality" is that "was", in the mind of the speaker, is _closer to reality_ than "were," precisely because "was" has its roots in the indicative mood. This only happens with "to be." With other verbs, the past indicative conveys full subjunctive meaning. Still, "were" can be used with other verbs as well to introduce a particular nuance; that is, compared to "if I had money," "if I were to have money" suggests _intent _because "were" takes a to-infinitive.

Cheers


----------



## aztlaniano

SevenDays said:


> . Still, "were" can be used with other verbs as well to introduce a particular nuance; that is, compared to "if I had money," "if I were to have money" suggests _intent _because "were" takes a to-infinitive.


Para mi gusto "if I had" = Si en este momento tuviera
"if I were to have" = Si algún día llegara a tener


----------



## pachanga7

SevenDays said:


> It's hard to argue that the past indicative "had" is right and the past indicative "was" is wrong, given that both refer to the same thing: something contrary to fact at the time of speaking.



It might seem hard to you, but I am going to do it just the same. 

I think you have your moods mixed up. The indicative mood is for stating facts. The subjunctive mood is reserved precisely for that, "something contrary to fact at the time of speaking." However at times, as in Spanish, the subjunctive is also used with certain verbs of emotion or desire: I recommend he go immediately (instead of he goes), he orders her to stay (no change): recomiendo que se vaya de inmediato, él manda que se quede.

Starting off in English with the word "if" is a reliable indicator that the subjunctive may be in order. I say "may" because we could also say things like: "If you want any blueberries you'd best come quickly."  Here the wanting is not counterfactual, rather, "if" sets up a condition for action. Even in the past, "if" may indicate uncertainty or lack of knowledge, rather than something counterfactual: "If you went to the movies without me, I'm going to be really mad." The speaker doesn't know whether her friend went to the movies without her or not. However, "If I were a camel" is clearly counterfactual. "If I were at home I'd be eating potato chips" is also counterfactual, because the speaker is not at home.

Following along with these examples, when we say "If I was at home" it means the speaker doesn't know whether he/she was at home. For example: "If I was at home when you called I must have been asleep." Or "If I was rude to you I don't remember it." (a convenient dodge!)

The subjunctive mood as a discrete variation has disappeared for some, but not all, verb forms of Modern English. It's understandable, with the English speakers' penchant for simplicity, that rare and complex forms are disappearing. Since "to be" is literally the only verb in English that preserves two forms in the simple past tense, also useful for distinguishing the subjective in the "If she were" type statements, it's no big surprise that present-day English speakers are rejecting that nicety in droves.

In similar fashion, for words for which the preterite and/or past participle tenses may be expressed by two variations, the standardized variation is now usually preferred by newspapers: The paintings were burned in the fire. vs. burnt. Or, The defendant pleaded guilty. vs. plead guilty. Other verbs with two options in the preterite are dreamed/dreamt, learned/learnt, smelled/smelt, heaved/hove and spelled/spelt. Where there is a choice, the second, irregular forms are disappearing.

Where I live in the Southeastern U.S., many speakers go even further than the newspapers and say things like "He throwed me the ball" but other English speakers are going to consider that very wrong, in preference to "He threw me the ball."

Getting back to the subjunctive in English, it does exist. Here's another example already mentioned above:

He goes immediately. (indicative)
He is going immediately. (indicative)
We recommend he go immediately. (the subjunctive)

More details here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive



SevenDays said:


> What the site means by "could be a reality" is that "was", in the mind of the speaker, is _closer to reality_ than "were," precisely because "was" has its roots in the indicative mood. This only happens with "to be." With other verbs, the past indicative conveys full subjunctive meaning.



I agree with you that only the verb "to be" allows us to distinguish clearly the subjunctive of the "if he were" variety. But once again, my guess is that all the rest is _ad hoc_ reasoning. Many people have stopped saying "If I were" in _all _cases, even when presenting counterfactual statements that could not be true, and would like to justify that change by giving "If I was" some special meaning to dignify it.



SevenDays said:


> Still, "were" can be used with other verbs as well to introduce a particular nuance; that is, compared to "if I had money," "if I were to have money" suggests _intent _because "were" takes a to-infinitive.



Sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that "If I were to die tomorrow, you would cry" is a threat to commit suicide, but "If I died tomorrow" is not?


----------



## SevenDays

pachanga7 said:


> It might seem hard to you, but I am going to do it just the same.
> 
> I think you have your moods mixed up. The indicative mood is for stating facts. The subjunctive mood is reserved precisely for that, "something contrary to fact at the time of speaking." However at times, as in Spanish, the subjunctive is also used with certain verbs of emotion or desire: I recommend he go immediately (instead of he goes), he orders her to stay (no change): recomiendo que se vaya de inmediato, él manda que se quede.
> 
> Starting off in English with the word "if" is a reliable indicator that the subjunctive may be in order. I say "may" because we could also say things like: "If you want any blueberries you'd best come quickly."  Here the wanting is not counterfactual, rather, "if" sets up a condition for action. Even in the past, "if" may indicate uncertainty or lack of knowledge, rather than something counterfactual: "If you went to the movies without me, I'm going to be really mad." The speaker doesn't know whether her friend went to the movies without her or not. However, "If I were a camel" is clearly counterfactual. "If I were at home I'd be eating potato chips" is also counterfactual, because the speaker is not at home.
> 
> Following along with these examples, when we say "If I was at home" it means the speaker doesn't know whether he/she was at home. For example: "If I was at home when you called I must have been asleep." Or "If I was rude to you I don't remember it." (a convenient dodge!)
> 
> The subjunctive mood as a discrete variation has disappeared for some, but not all, verb forms of Modern English. It's understandable, with the English speakers' penchant for simplicity, that rare and complex forms are disappearing. Since "to be" is literally the only verb in English that preserves two forms in the simple past tense, also useful for distinguishing the subjective in the "If she were" type statements, it's no big surprise that present-day English speakers are rejecting that nicety in droves.
> 
> In similar fashion, for words for which the preterite and/or past participle tenses may be expressed by two variations, the standardized variation is now usually preferred by newspapers: The paintings were burned in the fire. vs. burnt. Or, The defendant pleaded guilty. vs. plead guilty. Other verbs with two options in the preterite are dreamed/dreamt, learned/learnt, smelled/smelt, heaved/hove and spelled/spelt. Where there is a choice, the second, irregular forms are disappearing.
> 
> Where I live in the Southeastern U.S., many speakers go even further than the newspapers and say things like "He throwed me the ball" but other English speakers are going to consider that very wrong, in preference to "He threw me the ball."
> 
> Getting back to the subjunctive in English, it does exist. Here's another example already mentioned above:
> 
> He goes immediately. (indicative)
> He is going immediately. (indicative)
> We recommend he go immediately. (the subjunctive)
> 
> More details here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you that only the verb "to be" allows us to distinguish clearly the subjunctive of the "if he were" variety. But once again, my guess is that all the rest is _ad hoc_ reasoning. Many people have stopped saying "If I were" in _all _cases, even when presenting counterfactual statements that could not be true, and would like to justify that change by giving "If I was" some special meaning to dignify it.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that "If I were to die tomorrow, you would cry" is a threat to commit suicide, but "If I died tomorrow" is not?



I can't get all worked up about this whole _were vs was_ debate, because I use both, though I'm quite fond of "were" (and use it quite a lot for its expressiveness). What I just don't follow is the logic that calls "was" wrong. I hear that "were" is subjunctive (yes), therefore "was" is incorrect (well, no). _Mood_ is an expression of _modality_, and _modality_, simply stated, has to do with _meaning_: whether propositions are presented as factual, as a possibility, as a question, as a command, etc., all from the perspective of the speaker. In Spanish, we can readily see the subjunctive because our subjunctive is inflected. Morphemes (such as the *-ra* in _comiera_) tell us that we are dealing with a subjunctive conjugation of the verb "comer." Modern English doesn't inflect for the subjunctive. To express what we call "subjuntivo," English relies a wide range of linguistic resources: _the bare infinitive, the past tense indicative, modal verbs, subjunctive conjunctions, adverbs, the present tense indicative, etc._ These are all resources that are at the disposal of the speaker, and he'll use them based on how he "sees" the world. Grammar/syntax can't force you to say "if I was home," "if I were home" or "If I were to be home;" it's the _modality_ imposed by the speaker that determines a particular use. In an hypothetical scenario established by "if," "was" expresses something that the speaker considers closer to reality; "were," farther from reality; while "were to" introduces other nuances (what I earlier called "intent", and what aztlaniano sees, quite properly, as "prospectivy"). To say that "were" is subjunctive while "was" isn't _misses the point_ as to how English approaches the whole notion of "subjunctive." My guess (and this part is a guess) is that the prescriptive use of "were" in contrary to fact statements originated back in the 17-18 centuries, along with other rules (_don't split the infinitive, never end a sentence with a preposition_, etc.), but I'll leave that to a historical linguist. Of course, that doesn't mean that "were" and "was" are automatically interchangeable; sometimes context will naturally invite one form or the other. What can be said is quite the opposite: the use of "were" doesn't automatically _rule out_ "was." All this said, I'm not about to tell people how to express themselves; I'd leave it up to them (whether to use "was" or "were"), though I might tell  English learners that, at least in American English, there might be a tendency by some people to see "was" as uneducated, and to take that into account (though the aversion toward "was" has to do with personal bias rather than syntax). By the way, I can't tell the meaning behind "If I were to die tomorrow, you would cry" or "if I died tomorrow;" in both cases, what's missing is the intent/perspective of the speaker. If what's lurking in the background is a "by suicide," then, yes, that just might be a threat (unless he's just making a "just saying" statement).

Cheers


----------



## pachanga7

SevenDays said:


> I can't get all worked up about this whole _were vs was_ debate


Well, you and whole a lot of other folks--obviously, many people couldn't care less! Although it sounds as though you perhaps for other reasons. 

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. The irregular forms of I was, you were, he was, we were, they were...come from old traditions of usage, and the subjunctive marker in "If I were you" likewise. You're saying this is not an inflection, granted. What I am saying is that the explanations for why "If I was at home I would be eating potato chips" could be correct in the poster we were shown, are very modern in origin.


----------



## srb62

This is just another example (of which there are many) of how quickly language is changing.
As recently as ten years ago, the use of 'were' as the subjunctive sounded educated and correct.  Personally, I feel this is no longer the case - it has started to sound a little forced and artificial. Sometimes I don't even mention it to students or simply say that both are possible - one sounds okay in writing and the other okay in everyday speech.
My guess is that it will soon be found only in set archaic phrases similar to 'be that as it may' and 'long live the revolution'.  One that springs to mind is 'If I were you......' or 'If I were a rich man.....'


----------



## Forero

_If I was_ = "Si fui"/"Si era"/"Si estuve"/"Si estaba".
_If I were_ = "Si fuese"/"Si estuviese".
_If I had_ = "Si tuve/tenía/hube/había/tuviese/hubiese".


----------



## pachanga7

Interesting, srb62. I would be curious to know what kind of students you teach? 

As a result of this discussion, personally I've become more aware of the ways the subjunctive does live on in English. For instance, when we say things like "If you went to Thailand you would love it!" As SevenDays alludes, here "went" is the past tense indicative, being used to express the subjunctive mood. Yet language stays in flux and there are always some forms--"He bids her go" e.g.--that are clearly archaic and not just because of the outdated verb. Now we would say "He urges her to go" or "He recommends she go." 

There are numerous ways in which correct grammar that was once taught in schools, now sounds forced to some, to the point that folks question whether it is even "correct." Even the president of the United States can be heard saying things like "_There is many ways _to skin a cat..." (instead of "there are") but in consideration of animal rights how about we make that "There is many ways to peel an apple..."


----------



## srb62

pachanga7 said:


> Interesting, srb62. I would be curious to know what kind of students you teach?
> 
> Hi, I teach all sorts - quite often business English to adults.
> 
> As a result of this discussion, personally I've become more aware of the ways the subjunctive does live on in English. For instance, when we say things like "If you went to Thailand you would love it!" As SevenDays alludes, here "went" is the past tense indicative, being used to express the subjunctive mood. Yet language stays in flux and there are always some forms--"He bids her go" e.g.--that are clearly archaic and not just because of the outdated verb. Now we would say "He urges her to go" or "He recommends she go."
> 
> I'm not really sure if we can think of 'If you went to Thailand.......' in terms of the subjunctive, perhaps it's easier to simply think of it as the construction for the second conditional?  It could be that if we wanted to make it 'more' subjunctive we might actually say 'If he were to go to Thailand......' - what do others think?
> 
> There are numerous ways in which correct grammar that was once taught in schools, now sounds forced to some, to the point that folks question whether it is even "correct." Even the president of the United States can be heard saying things like "_There is many ways _to skin a cat..." (instead of "there are") but in consideration of animal rights how about we make that "There is many ways to peel an apple..."


----------



## Forero

Think of "have" in "I have". It is first person singular because of context, not plural because "have" belongs with "they" rather than "she". And "put" in "he put" is not present tense or plural but third person singular past tense, indicative or subjunctive.

Like "I put", which is both present tense and past tense, "if I had" is both indicative and subjunctive. When "I put" is past tense, it is not present tense; and when "if I had" is subjunctive, it is not indicative. The same goes for "if I went": it is indicative or subjunctive, depending on context.

Only one verb has a different form in past subjunctive than in past indicative, and only in first and third persons singular _(were_ instead of _was)_. In poetry we might see "if thou wast" or "if thou wert", so I have add that these second person singular forms do exist, but they tend to be used rarely and inconsistently.

Still we have other devices for making something subjunctive besides distinctive verb endings. Just as we might say "I did put", "I used to put", or "I was putting" instead of past tense "I put", just to be clear we are talking about the past, we sometimes say "if I were to go" instead of subjunctive "if I went", just to make the subjunctive more distinctive.

Normally "if I were to go" is about the future. (It is rather ambiguous, but it never indicates intent on the part of the subject. It might indicate a choice to be made, but it is about the choice before it is made, not after the choice becomes an intention.) But sometimes "if I were to go" is just a substitute for "if I went" that makes clear that the subjunctive meaning is intended, as "I used to put" sometimes substitutes for "I put" to make clear the past tense is meant.

Another device is to invert subject and verb when there is no adverb preceding. For example, "Had I known then what I know now, I would not have taken that medicine." Here "Had I known" is obviously subjunctive and means "if I had known". Sometimes "had I known" means "whether I had known", but it usually means "if I had known", subjunctive.

And past subjunctive is not strictly for things contrary to known reality. It can also be used as in the three examples in #12, for hypotheses we are discussing without prejudice and for things that are doubtful, dubious, or "unthinkable". As another example, the sentence "If I were to die before my wife, she would inherit my belongings" does not say I am not to die before my wife but that I find the possibility of my death unpleasant to think about. Even a person who is doomed to die tonight, for example from untreatable illness, can say "if I were to die tonight" despite knowing in fact that they are to die tonight.

Suppose I know something is happening right now but I know you think it can't happen. I would still say "If this were happening right now" and draw some conclusion for your benefit. In fact, "If this were happening then ..., but if it weren't then ..." makes sense even though one or the other of the subjunctive clauses must represent fact.


----------



## srb62

This is just my own feeling, but I think the most important thing in sentences like 'If + past.......... would + infinitive' is that they are second conditional sentences (This fact is more important than anything to do with the subjunctive).


----------



## pachanga7

Even if it weren't a surprise I still think he would like a cake. 
Even if it wasn't a surprise I still think he would like a cake. 

They recommend she go immediately. 
They recommend that she go immediately. 
They recommend she goes immediately. 
She goes immediately. 
They recommend her to go immediately. 

Thinking about the protestations that it's not really incorrect to use "If I was" for counterfactual statements, and the comment "it has started to sound a little forced and artificial" about saying "If I were" for the same, it occurs to me that I'm hoping for perhaps is a bit of leniency on the part of New Millennium speakers. That is, if I can allow that  "If I was" is okay, I am hoping you also will try to understand that "If I were" feels natural and comfortable to some of us, not artificial. We are not pretending to be learned. It's simply that, based on such factors as age and educational backgrounds, this really is what we prefer to use. Peace out.


----------

