# If it had not been for = If it weren't for



## Thomas1

_If it had not been for the traffic, I wouldn't have been here on time._

The sentence as stands is fine, I believe. When I saw it I wanted to modify it a little bit in the following way:
_If it weren't for the trafic, I wouldn't have been late._
I think I've come across this type of usage; so is the present subjunctive used instead of the past subjunctive? If so what's the difference for the natives?


Tom


----------



## Hockey13

Thomas1 said:


> _If it had not been for the traffic, I would*n't* have been here on time._
> 
> The sentence as stands is fine, I believe. When I saw it I wanted to modify it a little bit in the following way:
> _If it weren't for the trafic, I wouldn't have been late._
> I think I've come across this type of usage; so is the present subjunctive used instead of the past subjunctive? If so what's the difference for the natives?
> 
> 
> Tom


 
With this fix, the sentences convey precisely the same meaning.


----------



## Thomas1

Hockey13 said:


> With this fix, the sentences convey precisely the same meaning.


Out of sheer curiosity, which one is more common (in the world of textbooks the _weren't_ option seems to be completely forgotten)?



Tom

PS: thanks for the correction; in that form it indeed sounded strange.


----------



## JamesM

I would tend to use the "weren't" in everyday conversation.  The only time I would use "hadn't been" would be in the case of discussing something in the past.


----------



## Thomas1

JamesM said:


> I would tend to use the "weren't" in everyday conversation. The only time I would use "hadn't been" would be in the case of discussing something in the past.


But it is indeed in the past
_If it had not been for the traffic, I would have been here on time._


----------



## JamesM

Excuse me, I wasn't very clear...  I meant "distant past", not "immediate past." If I am talking in the present to someone about something that just happened, I would use "weren't". 

If I am talking about something that happened in the past (including the point at which I arrived late), I would say:

"Last week, I had a very important appointment in Hollywood. I left my house in plenty of time but I arrived late, nevertheless. If it hadn't been for the traffic, I would have gotten there on time."

However, if we rewind back to last week, I would say this as I arrived late:

"I'm so sorry I'm late. If it weren't for the traffic, I would have been here on time."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JamesM said:


> I would tend to use the "weren't" in everyday conversation. The only time I would use "hadn't been" would be in the case of discussing something in the past.


 
I'm interested to hear this, James.

I'd always say:

*1. If it hadn't been for the traffic, I wouldn't have been late.*

when everything is over and done - securely in the past. I was late.

*2. If it weren't for the traffic, I wouldn't be late*.

here all is still in progress: I am late.

I couldn't say: 3. *If it weren't for the traffic, I wouldn't have been late.*

I could say: 4. *If it hadn't been for the traffic, I wouldn't be late.*

I'm wondering when I'd say 4 rather than 2: I think in 4 I have arrived and am late, and in 2 I'm still on my journey and am clearly going to be late.


----------



## JamesM

I can see the discrepancy, Thomas, and I agree that it's probably not the best English.    It is what I would say, though.   I was responding to the question of which was more common.  In my speech, and I'd venture to say in many of those around me, "weren't" is more common than "hadn't been" in this construction.  That's just anecdotal evidence.


----------



## JamesM

As usual, I got curious about this use of "weren't for" and "wouldn't have been." I began to wonder if it might be a personal quirk.

Here are a few examples I've found on the internet:

From a Microsoft promotional page:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Fbrr5eqaox0J:download.microsoft.com/documents/customerevidence/21176_Misys_Case_Study.doc+%22weren%27t+for%22+%22wouldn%27t+have+been%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

If it weren’t for Visual Studio 2005, we wouldn’t have been ready for our industry’s largest trade show.


From a discussion board on Harry Potter:
http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=4494887

Voldemort may never have gone after the Potters if it weren't for the prophecy (especially since he seems to have had some reason for wanting Lily alive). 

From an article on Jenny Lee Grace:
http://www.imperfectlynatural.co.uk/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=7

I had reflexology and cranio-sacral therapy during the two most recent births and they wouldn’t have been natural if it weren’t for reflexology.


Here are some results in book searches:

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q="weren't+for"+"wouldn't+have+been"&sa=N&start=20


You were looking for a few examples of this use, Thomas1. I hope this helps. (It puts my mind at ease, at least.  )


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Well, thank you, James. I wasn't so much looking for examples, as saying I couldn't use that construction, and wondering who could. Is it a BE/AE thing? or an old/young thing? or, almost the same thing, a fussy pedantic/careless free-as-air thing? or a social thing? or a matter of education? or something else? 

I know people do pretty often say all sorts of things which offend against my sense of what is acceptable English. I know it sounds priggish and snobbish, but I'm not really frightened of sounding those things if the cost is not saying what I think about something that matters: it's not surprising that people make mistakes in everyday spoken English - many very ignorant and uneducated people are extremely vigorous users of the language, thank God. So, you see, I'm not sure that the fact that one can find examples of people using the form will persuade me that it's acceptable. That's why I was interested in your own feelings about it, because I have a vague idea of where you stand on those divides I mentioned earlier, and have more trust in what you say than in 1000 examples on the web from people I haven't heard of, and have no grounds for trusting in such important matters.

For the second time today I feel obliged to say I can't believe I'm the only person who feels like this about those constructions. I don't believe I'm speaking a private language.


----------



## liliput

This is present conditional:
If it weren't for the traffic, I wouldn't *be* late.
This is past conditional: 
If it hadn't been for the traffic I wouldn't have been late.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

liliput said:


> This is present conditional:
> If it weren't for the traffic, I wouldn't *be* late.
> This is past conditional:
> If it hadn't been for the traffic I wouldn't have been late.


 
Welcome aboard, Liliput. Could you bring yourself to say my example 4? (post 7)


----------



## jennball

I agree with you. The subjunctive 'weren't' doesn't seem or sound logical in the past tense. Once something has happened, there is nothing hypothetical about it any more.  "If it hadn't been for the traffic' seems like the best choice. 'If it weren't for the traffic'  only fits (to my ear) if I am affected right now by the traffic right now: 'If it weren't for the traffic, I wouldn't be stuck at this intersection'. The fact that many people say it doesn't make it sound better. It seems that the subjunctive is disappearing from English, and to bring it back and force it into a place where it doesn't belong is distracting. This is how my favorite usage manual (by Fowler) explains it, if I have understood it correctly.


----------



## liliput

Thomas Tompion said:


> Welcome aboard, Liliput. Could you bring yourself to say my example 4? (post 7)


 
I can see why you might want to say "_If it hadn't been for the traffic, I wouldn't be late_." -the traffic is in the past, but I'm late now. 
Perhaps I've just come out of a traffic jam and am on my way to a meeting and I'm explaining why I am late. However, I think this meaning is covered in the present conditional - "_If it weren't for the traffic, I wouldn't *be* late_."
On the other hand perhaps I've just arrived and I'm explaining why I've arrived late, but in this case the act of arriving is already in the past so the past conditional is appropriate - "_If it hadn't been for the traffic I wouldn't have been late_."
Notwithstanding the above, I am by no means a grammar expert and perhaps the other suggested forms are possible.


----------



## kios_01

liliput said:


> *This is present conditional*:
> If it weren't for the traffic, I wouldn't *be* late.
> 
> *This is past conditional*:
> If it hadn't been for the traffic I wouldn't have been late.


 
Strictly speaking, these are the correct forms, i.e., those that comply with the rules of English grammar.

But of course grammatical rules often escape people in everday conversations. As long as the sentences are comprehensible (especially when the context of the conversation is clear), there's really no problem.

Just my two cents' worth of course.


----------



## JamesM

Thomas Tompion said:


> Well, thank you, James. I wasn't so much looking for examples, as saying I couldn't use that construction, and wondering who could.


 
I was actually directing my comments Thomas*1*, the original poster, not Thomas Tompion. Sorry for any confusion. As for who could, though, I do think the examples show that a wide range of people use that construction.



> So, you see, I'm not sure that the fact that one can find examples of people using the form will persuade me that it's acceptable. That's why I was interested in your own feelings about it, because I have a vague idea of where you stand on those divides I mentioned earlier, and have more trust in what you say than in 1000 examples on the web from people I haven't heard of, and have no grounds for trusting in such important matters.


 
Thanks for the trust! I hope it's not misplaced.

I think that it is sloppy English, technically speaking. I'm not beyond speaking sloppy English at times.  If I were to use "had been", I think it would be considered a little stuffy. I already have a reputation for speaking like I come from somewhere other than California. (Honestly, I often get asked where I came from _originally. _  One person who spoke with me after many months of written correspondence said in a shocked voice, "But you have a California accent!")

There are some battles I don't think are worth fighting. I'm fine with "were not/would've have been". It doesn't strike me as a serious breach. I think we all have our pet peeves about certain misuses of the language, so I can certainly sympathize with your feelings. This just doesn't happen to be one of mine. 

It may be that it's more common in U.S English than in British English. I did notice that many of the writers that showed up on the book search were American.


----------



## Dance

Allow me to make a few comments as grammatical instructor as this problem has been plagueing most  EFL learners.

Grammar says that previous tense is used to make hypothetical assumption against a fact.  We can actually deal with "if-clause" and the main clause separately in terms of tenses.

*If it hadn't been for the traffic, I wouldn't have been late.*
fact-->  The traffic* was* awful, so I *was *late.
*If it hadn't been for the traffic, I wouldn't be late.*
fact-->  The traffic *was* awful, so I *am *late.

From a strict grammatical point of view, "if it hadn't been for" certainly doesn't equal to "if it weren't for".  But then again, as JamesM says it, that's simply not the case in numerous native speakers' daily language, which is exactly why teaching  language is no easy task.  It changes as people do.


----------



## Retailmonica

This is definitely a BE/AE thing.  In AE, this is totally acceptable... and I think that we really don't care at all about tense agreement that much, as compared to BE.  BE is much closer to the original German, which is still much stricter.

There's sorta a difference for me, I guess... basically the former sounding more formal, and the second less, but that's partially because of the contraction...


----------



## liliput

kios_01 said:


> Strictly speaking, these are the correct forms, i.e., those that comply with the rules of English grammar.
> 
> But of course grammatical rules often escape people in everday conversations. As long as the sentences are comprehensible (especially when the context of the conversation is clear), there's really no problem.
> 
> Just my two cents' worth of course.


 
Yes, communication is the most important thing, if we can understand each other then you can make as many grammatical errors as you like. A non-native speaker who is prepared to butcher the language is a more effective communicator than one who is afraid to make mistakes. On the other hand, it's not fair for native speakers to pass on their own grammatical errors to people who are trying to learn the language.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

liliput said:


> A non-native speaker who is prepared to butcher the language is a more effective communicator than one who is afraid to make mistakes. On the other hand, it's not fair for native speakers to pass on their own grammatical errors to people who are trying to learn the language.


So should these 'effective communicators' who make mistakes keep quiet in the presence of foreigners? or are you referring to something in the forum which I've missed?


----------



## liliput

Thomas Tompion said:


> So should these 'effective communicators' who make mistakes keep quiet in the presence of foreigners? or are you referring to something in the forum which I've missed?


 
Not at all. The "effective communicators" I was referring to are non-natives who make grammatical errors but have the confidence to speak and make themselves understood. The more they speak the better they will become, and they should take every opportunity to do so.
I was suggesting that *native* speakers who know they are saying something grammatically incorrect should not encourage non-natives who are trying to learn correct English to use the same constructions. By all means we should make non-natives aware of common errors, but we shouldn't suggest that they use these erroneous constructions.


----------



## Terry Morti

_"If it weren't"_ is quite correct, _but_ most English people don't actually speak correctly very often! 

I put it to you that nine times out of ten, English people would say, _"If it wasn't for the traffic, I wouldn't have been late"_. 

To add insult to injury half of those people would probably say _wouldn't *of*_ too!


----------



## cheshire

TT said:
			
		

> I couldn't say: 3. *If it weren't for the traffic, I wouldn't have been late.*
> 
> I could say: 4. *If it hadn't been for the traffic, I wouldn't be late.*


Wow interesting. But I can't see the logic of why one is right, the other is wrong.


----------



## bibliolept

Another example: "If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college."


----------



## Forero

*Let's consider a very short story -*

_I think:  "If I am late, it is because of the traffic."

So I say (because this amounts to the same thing): "If it is not because of the traffic, I am not late."

Suppose I am late.  This does not discredit what I have said, but now I will use subjunctive and conditional: "If it were not for the traffic, I would not be late."_

*I have no problem with starting the whole story anew, changing the aspect (as opposed to the tense) of my being late -*

_I am thinking: "If I have been late, it is because of the traffic."
I say (equivalently): "If it is not because of the traffic, I have not been late."

Now suppose I check the record and find that I have been late.  I can still be correct in my assertion and say in good conscience: "If it were not for the traffic, I would not have been late."_

*This is not incorrect tense sequencing to me.*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

> Originally Posted by *TT*
> I couldn't say: 3. *If it weren't for the traffic, I wouldn't have been late.*
> 
> I could say: 4. *If it hadn't been for the traffic, I wouldn't be late.*





cheshire said:


> Wow interesting. But I can't see the logic of why one is right, the other is wrong.


 
It seems like a long time ago I wrote this, but I stand by it completely. I'll try to explain:

If it weren't for is a condition which applies directly to the present:

If it weren't for the traffic, we'd be driving faster.
If it weren't for the traffic, we'd be able to see the church in the village.

One might think we could say if it weren't for the traffic, I wouldn't be late, and indeed one could as one was driving along thinking about how late one was. But when you arrive it's strange to say: if it weren't for the traffic, I wouldn't be late, because one is no longer driving along; the traffic is no longer a constraint of any kind.

When one arrives, and apologises to the people who were expecting you earlier, you would say: if it hadn't been for the traffic, I wouldn't be late.

Talking about it later, you'd say: if it hadn't been for the traffic, I wouldn't have been late.

So I couldn't use Forero's:_"If it were not for the traffic, I would not be late."_ after I arrived, only as I am driving along in a state of irritation_._ Once I had arrived and I was explaining why I was late, it would have to be_:__ Had it not been for the traffic, I would not be late._


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> *I have no problem with starting the whole story anew, changing the aspect (as opposed to the tense) of my being late -*
> 
> _I am thinking: "If I have been late, it is because of the traffic."_
> _I say (equivalently): "If it is not because of the traffic, I have not been late."_
> 
> _Now suppose I check the record and find that I have been late. I can still be correct in my assertion and say in good conscience: "If it were not for the traffic, I would not have been late."_
> 
> *This is not incorrect tense sequencing to me.*


 
This troubles me, because in BE I can't see how we could say some of these sentences.
_1.) "If I have been late, it is because of the traffic."_

I can't think of circumstances in which one could say this.  If I have been late suggests you are looking back over a longish period, perhaps even the whole of your life - if I've been thoughtless, ungenerous, late, or whatever.  The appropriate main clause would have to be 'it has been because of the traffic'.
If I've been late, it has been because of the traffic is fine to explain your behaviour over a long period, to explain the reasons for your occasional lateness.

2.) _"If it is not because of the traffic, I have not been late."_

Here again I can think of no circumstances in which someone could say this.  I can see you could say if it's not because of the traffic, then why do you think I am late?, but that's a very different sort of construction.

Is it AE for if it had not been for the traffic, I would not have been late, or if it were not for the traffic, I would not be late?  I've no means of knowing.


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> This troubles me, because in BE I can't see how we could say some of these sentences.
> _1.) "If I have been late, it is because of the traffic."_
> 
> I can't think of circumstances in which one could say this.  If I have been late suggests you are looking back over a longish period, perhaps even the whole of your life - if I've been thoughtless, ungenerous, late, or whatever.  The appropriate main clause would have to be 'it has been because of the traffic'.



Hi, Tom.

Not everybody says things the way I do, but I don't think I am alone or even nearly alone in that I am prone to saying things like:

"The reason for the delay yesterday is the traffic that was clogging the freeway."

"The reason I was late is that there was a huge truck (lorry) that had overturned and was blocking all eight lanes."

"That the traffic got in my way is the reason for what happened."

To me, the reason is still the reason and still exists because the facts about reasons have not changed (and will never change).  Similarly, since the world is still round, I would say:

"Columbus knew that the world is round."

I could say he knew the world was round, but is also works for me.

How do these sentences sound to you?

Going just a step beyond what is being asked in this thread, I must say it bothers me for people to use extraneous auxiliaries as in the following:

"If it hadn't have been for the traffic, I wouldn't have had to have called in late."

"If it wouldn't have been for the traffic, I would have been on time."

I expect you would agree that these underlined expressions are overdoing the auxiliaries.  Right?

These are actual constructions that college students commonly use in conversation where I live.  It seems that as the subjunctive wanes, people want to replace it with something, and extra auxiliaries is what some prefer for this purpose.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> Going just a step beyond what is being asked in this thread, I must say it bothers me for people to use extraneous auxiliaries as in the following:
> 
> "If it hadn't have been for the traffic, I wouldn't have had to have called in late."
> 
> "If it wouldn't have been for the traffic, I would have been on time."
> 
> I expect you would agree that these underlined expressions are overdoing the auxiliaries. Right?


 
Hi Forero,

To answer your questions:


"If it hadn't have been for the traffic, I wouldn't have had to have called in late."

is, I think, a botched attempt at saying if it hadn't been for the traffic, I wouldn't have had to call in late.

There are people here who make the mistake of saying 'if it hadn't have' or 'if it hadn't've' for 'if it hadn't', saying things like 'if it hadn't've rained I wouldn't've got wet'. . I've scored it through lest any casual reader gets the impression it's correct.


I'm pleased to say I've never heard: "If it wouldn't have been for the traffic, I would have been on time."

Did I misread you then? In your earlier post (25), I thought you were saying that those sentences were correct, in your view.


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> ... I've scored it through lest any casual reader gets the impression it's correct.
> ...
> Did I misread you then? In your earlier post (25), I thought you were saying that those sentences were correct, in your view.



I'm glad we agree on the two really overdone sentences. 

Interesting that "hadn't 've"+p.p. is heard in both AE and BE.  In AE, this is even more common with just a vowel for the "'ve" (sounding like "hadn't a been ...", "wouldn't a been").

I made a guess as to why people utter such sentences because I feel something similar may come into play for some people looking at "if it weren't" vs. "if it hadn't been".

Yes, I was saying that all the sentences in post #25 are correct in my view, in the context I mentioned.  Also I have a feeling that other less context-dependent sentences of the same construction may exist that are actually more acceptable with simple "past subjunctive" than with "pluperfect subjunctive".

I am curious what you have to say about the part of post #28 before "Going just a step beyond ...".  I would like to know at what point or points my arguments may be breaking down in your view.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> I'm glad we agree on the two really overdone sentences.
> 
> Interesting that "hadn't 've"+p.p. is heard in both AE and BE. In AE, this is even more common with just a vowel for the "'ve" (sounding like "hadn't a been ...", "wouldn't a been").
> 
> I made a guess as to why people utter such sentences because I feel something similar may come into play for some people looking at "if it weren't" vs. "if it hadn't been".
> 
> Yes, I was saying that all the sentences in post #25 are correct in my view, in the context I mentioned. Also I have a feeling that other less context-dependent sentences of the same construction may exist that are actually more acceptable with simple "past subjunctive" than with "pluperfect subjunctive".
> 
> I am curious what you have to say about the part of post #28 before "Going just a step beyond ...". I would like to know at what point or points my arguments may be breaking down in your view.


 
Right at the start, I fear, unless I misunderstood you:

"If it hadn't have been for the traffic, I wouldn't have had to have called in late."

I can't think of a context in which you can say if it hadn't have been. It must surely be if it hadn't been.


"If it wouldn't have been for the traffic, I would have been on time."


Liliput said earlier that one must never use conditionals in if clauses, and I can't think of a case where that would be possible: if he would only come to see us is actually an imperfect isn't it? In the sentence above the correct form of the if clause is if it hadn't been for the traffic.


----------



## LV4-26

1. If it weren't for the traffic, I wouldn't have been late
2. If it hadn't been for the traffic, I wouldn't have been late.

I'm perfectly happy with both sentences. Only, they do not mean exactly the same to me.

As I understand it, #2 means that the traffic was particularly terrible on that occasion, whereas #1 means that the traffic is always dreadful. (i.e. if it weren't for that damned traffic we're having each and every day in this area).

Or am I having my usual fit of delirium?


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> Right at the start, I fear, unless I misunderstood you:
> ...


 
I meant to be asking about the other part of #28.  Did I say it wrong?


----------



## Forero

LV4-26 said:


> 1. If it weren't for the traffic, I wouldn't have been late
> 2. If it hadn't been for the traffic, I wouldn't have been late.
> 
> I'm perfectly happy with both sentences. Only, they do not mean exactly the same to me.
> 
> As I understand it, #2 means that the traffic was particularly terrible on that occasion, whereas #1 means that the traffic is always dreadful. (i.e. if it weren't for that damned traffic we're having each and every day in this area).
> 
> Or am I having my usual fit of delirium?


 
I can see it that way too.


----------



## rojavida

Is it just me? I would have thought that since 'traffic' is treated as a singular, it should be:

If it _*wasn't*_ for the traffic, I wouldn't be late.

This is of course the present tense version.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

rojavida said:


> Is it just me? I would have thought that since 'traffic' is treated as a singular, it should be:
> 
> If it _*wasn't*_ for the traffic, I wouldn't be late.
> 
> This is of course the present tense version.


 
I think the form I'm objecting to is the subjuntive. I fear I wouldn't accept if it wasn't for the traffic I wouldn't have been late either.

The correct sequence of tenses in English, at its most simple, is surely:

Present -> Future
Imperfect -> Conditional

This applies to auxiliaries too:

If the main clause is contains the conditional of the auxiliary (I wouldn't have) then the conditional clause should contain the imperfect of the auxiliary (If it hadn't) thus:

If it hadn't been for the traffic, I wouldn't have been late.

You could, of course say if it weren't (or wasn't) for the traffic, I wouldn't be late - that follows the elementary rule I outlined above.


----------



## rojavida

> I think the form I'm objecting to in the subjuntive. I fear I wouldn't accept if it wasn't for the traffic I wouldn't have been late either.


 
I wouldn't disagree with this but that wasn't the point I was making.




> You could, of course say if it weren't (or wasn't) for the traffic, I wouldn't be late - that follows the elementary rule I outlined above.


 
My contention is that you should use "wasn't" rather than "weren't" here.

I am, of course willing to be proved incorrect on this point.


----------



## Forero

rojavida said:


> Is it just me? I would have thought that since 'traffic' is treated as a singular, it should be:
> 
> If it _*wasn't*_ for the traffic, I wouldn't be late.
> 
> This is of course the present tense version.


 
Welcome to the forum, rojavida.

We use the form _were_ (called "Subjunctive II" or "past subjunctive") for both singular and plural in hypothetical assumptions contrary to fact, conditional clauses that are similar to past tense in form but have the meaning of a "pretend" (hypothetical contrary-to-fact) present tense. For example:

"If they were not able to do it themselves, they could have somebody else do it for them." [Subjunctive II (contrary-to-fact present)] (They are able to do it themselves, but we can pretend they aren't, for purposes of argument.)

If we can drop the "if" and put the verb in front, we have a subjunctive:

"Were they not able to do it themselves, they could have somebody else do it for them." [Subjunctive]

With _he_, we still use _were_:

"Were he not able to do it himself, he could have someone else do it for him." [Subjunctive] (I don't think "Was" would work here.)

Same with "if" present:

"If he were not able to do it himself, he could have someone else do it for him." [Subjunctive]

Compare this to the following:

"If he is not able to do it himself, he can have someone else do it for him." [Assertion in the Present]

"If he was not able to do it himself, he could have someone else do it for him." [Assertion in the Past]

Now the sentences with "If it weren't" or "If it hadn't been" are subjunctive, since we can put the verb first and leave out "if": "Were it not for the traffic, ..." or "Had it not been for the traffic, ...".

So if we don't use "had ... been", we use "were" - not "was".


----------



## VicNicSor

Hello.
The speaker says that some scientists believe that when our solar system was young, the Sun was potentially surrounded by super-Earth rocky planets. Then he says:
_But then our good friend Jupiter moved inward, whose gravitational pull changed the orbits of these planets, causing them to collide with one another and, ya know, smashed them into pieces, some of which were hurtled into the sun. However, as Jupiter later retreated, being pulled away from the Sun by the formation of Saturn, any leftover debris eventually formed into the rocky planets we know today: Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. And this does a good job of explaining why the inner planets are younger than the outer gas giants. So, essentially, if this is actually what happened, *if it weren’t for *Jupiter, life on Earth would not exist._
What If Jupiter Never Existed?, YouTube video

I think that in this particular case, the past subjunctive woud be more correct. What do you think? Thank you.


----------



## Forero

VicNicSor said:


> Hello.
> The speaker says that some scientists believe that when our solar system was young, the Sun was potentially surrounded by super-Earth rocky planets. Then he says:
> _But then our good friend Jupiter moved inward, whose gravitational pull changed the orbits of these planets, causing them to collide with one another and, ya know, smashed them into pieces, some of which were hurtled into the sun. However, as Jupiter later retreated, being pulled away from the Sun by the formation of Saturn, any leftover debris eventually formed into the rocky planets we know today: Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. And this does a good job of explaining why the inner planets are younger than the outer gas giants. So, essentially, if this is actually what happened, *if it weren’t for *Jupiter, life on Earth would not exist._
> What If Jupiter Never Existed?, YouTube video
> 
> I think that in this particular case, the past subjunctive woud be more correct. What do you think? Thank you.


"If it weren't" is past subjunctive. I would not say this with "wasn't" instead of "weren't".

(I would have said "were hurled", not "were hurtled".)


----------



## VicNicSor

Sorry, I was thinking of "if it hadn't been for", that is, "pluperfect subjunctive".


----------



## velisarius

VicNicSor said:


> Sorry, I was thinking of "if it hadn't been for", that is, "pluperfect subjunctive".



That's what I would use. Pluperfect/past perfect.


----------



## Forero

VicNicSor said:


> Sorry, I was thinking of "if it hadn't been for", that is, "pluperfect subjunctive".


It means that life on Earth exists because of Jupiter.

So the reference is to the present, in a way. The issue is not that life on Earth has existed, but that it does exist, and all because of Jupiter.

I might say "... if it hadn't been for Jupiter, life on Earth would not have come to exist" since to exist it must first come to exist, but the way the sentence is written is cleaner and more to the point, as I see it.

And the name of the video is "What if Jupiter never existed?", not "What if Jupiter hadn't ever existed" or "What if Jupiter hadn't done what it has done?".


----------



## velisarius

_If it hadn't been for (the actions of) Jupiter...
If it weren't for (the existence of) Jupiter..._


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you for the answers


----------

