# if I was / if I were  [rich; rude, etc.]



## Daywalker

I would like to know if there is a different between if i was and if i were or if they mean exactly the same thing, ex:
If i was rich [...]
If i were rich [...]


----------



## duder

They mean exactly the same thing, although "If I was" + [hypothetical situation] is considered by many to be gramatically incorrect and is not acceptable in more formal (particularly written) contexts.

I personally always say and write "If I were", and would only use "If I was" in phrases like this that capture a different meaning:

_If I was rude on the phone with you yesterday, I apologize._ 

But it really depends on the person, and "If I was" is very common in spoken English. There have a few discussions on this already.


----------



## MrMagoo

Daywalker said:
			
		

> I would like to know if there is a different between if i was and if i were or if they mean exactly the same thing, ex:
> If i was rich [...]
> If i were rich [...]


 
They mean the same.

"_were_" is the conjunctive form of the verb "be".
English has almost lost the conjunctive mood and the forms of the conjunctive fell together with the past tense forms indicative, only "be" still keeps its forms in "I were" and "he were".

"If I were rich..." is a bit more proper, but "If I was..." is not wrong either.


----------



## elroy

Please provide some context...

In the subjunctive sense, "were" is the correct form, "was" the incorrect but common form.

As Duder states, however, there is another scenario - in which "was" is the only correct form.


----------



## modgirl

Daywalker said:
			
		

> I would like to know if there is a different between if i was and if i were or if they mean exactly the same thing, ex:
> If i was rich [...]
> If i were rich [...]


 
Although many English-speaking people use them interchangeably, they do *not* mean the same thing.

If I were your teacher, I'd flunk you. (I am* not* your teacher)

If I were going to Antarctica, I'd go with my best friend. (I am *not* going to Antarctica)



If I was fast in the race, it's because I had competition to push me. (I may have been fast; I may not have. The condition is unclear)

If I was rude, I apologize. (I may have been rude. It depends on a person's point-of-view. The condition is unclear)

_(Someone else used the above example, but it's a good one)_


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

As Modgirl says, "I I were" is used as a conditional.  

If I were your teacher, I'd flunk you. (I am not your teacher)

If I were going to Antarctica, I'd go with my best friend. (I am not going to Antarctica)

It _is_ the correct way to say it, although as Duder states, when speaking some people prefer to say "I was".


----------



## El Estudiante

Modgirl's explanation is correct. They are not the same. Were is in the subjunctive "mood". It is one of the few words in English which still retain a distinct subjunctive form.


----------



## Daywalker

ok thanks


----------



## kapas

I want to add a new question: what about Beyonce song "If I were a boy".
Why did she use "were"? It is he, isn't it?


----------



## Brioche

kapas said:


> I want to add a new question: what about Beyonce song "If I were a boy".
> Why did she use "were"? It is he, isn't it?



The last time I looked, Beyonce was a 28 year-old woman.

She is definitely not a boy.

So when she says "If I were a boy" - she is talking about an unreal, or imaginary situation.


----------



## srta chicken

A lot of US speakers use "was" incorrectly--ex:  If it was up to me ...

But when you don't, you sound more educated, and that would matter in a formal setting such as a business meeting or a term paper.


----------



## chamyto

For me, both could be acceptable, but in terms of hypotethical situations "were" is the best option.

E.g. If I were rich, I´d buy a Palace.


----------



## la_machy

> chamyto;7738988]For me, both could be acceptable, but in terms of hypotethical situations "were" is the best option.


Both are acceptable, chamyto, in the right context.

''If I was rude on the phone, I'm sorry''

But, in despite I am not an english native speaker, I hurt my ears when someone says 'If I was rich, I would buy a new car'.


Saludos


----------



## Saurabh

Yes, even though both are used interchangeably, I guess there is a point where one differs other.
Whenever, impossible situations(hypothetical ones) needed to be expressed, _*were* _would be used. If we rather wanted to express a past situation which could have been possible otherwise, _*was* _might replace _*were* _there.

1.) I could marry her if I *were* Tom cruise. (It seems quite impossible for me to be Tom Cruise)
2.) What would her reply be if he *were *to propose her. (He is in no mood to propose her or is incapable of doing the same)
3.) She might stay there if  Moon *were* found suitable to live for.(We all know, as of now we, can not inhabitate Moon)

1). I would say hi to her if I *was* amongst them. (I wasn't there however could have been there)
2.) Later, she would feel sorry if he *was *treated bad by her.(He could have rather well been treated by her though).
3.) I beg my apologise if I *was* drunk.(I really was)

Hope it helps!
Saurabh.


----------



## Aodhán

modgirl said:


> Although many English-speaking people use them interchangeably, they do *not* mean the same thing.
> 
> If I were your teacher, I'd flunk you. (I am* not* your teacher)
> 
> If I were going to Antarctica, I'd go with my best friend. (I am *not* going to Antarctica)
> 
> 
> 
> If I was fast in the race, it's because I had competition to push me. (I may have been fast; I may not have. The condition is unclear)
> 
> If I was rude, I apologize. (I may have been rude. It depends on a person's point-of-view. The condition is unclear)
> 
> _(Someone else used the above example, but it's a good one)_



Great explanation of the difference. I, too, have only ever really heard people saying "If I was...".  I signed up to this forum though to ask people here two questions:

1) If you use 'If I were' in the subjunctive case what is the name of the case, such as you mentioned, where it is correct to still use 'If I was'?

2) Is 'I wish I were' always more correct than 'I wish I was'? Is there *any* situation where 'I wish I was' would be accurate? For instance, would  'I wish I had been faster' be more correct than saying 'I wish I was faster'?

Thanks


----------



## ErikaDee

Someone sent me a statement today saying "I wonder how life would be if I were shallow" it sounded a bit off to me. Should it have been "was" instead of were? Or was he correct?


----------



## Saurabh

ErikaDee said:


> Someone sent me a statement today saying "I wonder how life would be if I were shallow" it sounded a bit off to me. Should it have been "was" instead of were? Or was he correct?



Welcome to the Forum, ErikaDee 

I'd say the same that someone did 


It means, he was totally sure he couldn't be shallow and hence was expressing a hypothetical situation, not the real one.

Why do you think it should have been "Was" and not "Were" ?


----------



## Aumont

Aodhán said:


> Great explanation of the difference. I, too, have only ever really heard people saying "If I was...".  I signed up to this forum though to ask people here two questions:
> 
> 1) If you use 'If I were' in the subjunctive case what is the name of the case, such as you mentioned, where it is correct to still use 'If I was'?
> 
> 2) Is 'I wish I were' always more correct than 'I wish I was'? Is there *any* situation where 'I wish I was' would be accurate? For instance, would  'I wish I had been faster' be more correct than saying 'I wish I was faster'?
> 
> Thanks



1) "If I was" (simple past) is often used where "if I were" (past subjunctive) would be grammatically correct. In type 2 if-clauses you use the past subjunctive, which just happens to have the same form as the simple past for most verbs.
I was once told "was" is used for unreal situations that could be possible ("If I was rich" - might happen some day, but at the moment I'm not vs."if I were the King of England/if I were a girl" - I'm not and I'll never be; it's impossible), not sure if that's 100% correct though.

2) There is a huge difference: 
"I wish I was (actually: were) faster" - I'm not fast, but I'd like to be. 
"I wish I had been faster" - I was not fast (in a race for example): the race is over and I regret that I was so slow.

Cheers,

Aumont

€dit:
Some input on the use of "was" vs. "were" depending on the level of possibility would be much appreciated.


----------



## Brioche

Aumont said:


> 1)
> I was once told "was" is used for unreal situations that could be possible ("If I was rich" - might happen some day, but at the moment I'm not vs."if I were the King of England/if I were a girl" - I'm not and I'll never be; it's impossible), not sure if that's 100% correct though.
> .



It's 100% wrong.

Just about everything is theoretically possible.

You could win the lottery and become rich - theoretically possible.
You could have a sex change, and become a girl - theoretically possible.
The United Kingdom could split up, and the new English government could invite you to become King of England- theoretically possible, but rather unlikely.
Incidentally, the last person to have the title "King of England" was William III, who died in 1702.

So use "were" for currently unreal or imagined situations, without playing probability games.

Stick with "If I were rich, [but I am not], I would buy a castle in Spain."  "If I were the King of England [which I am not], I would bring back the stocks and the pillory."  "If I were a girl, [which I am not], I would always wear green stockings."


----------



## LV4-26

El Estudiante said:


> Modgirl's explanation is correct. They are not the same. Were is in the subjunctive "mood". It is one of the few words in English which still retain a distinct subjunctive form.


Or said differently, I think many English speakers who wouldn't use a subjunctive anywhere else, keep using it in this specific case.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Brioche said:


> It's 100% wrong.
> 
> Just about everything is theoretically possible.
> 
> You could win the lottery and become rich - theoretically possible.
> You could have a sex change, and become a girl - theoretically possible.
> The United Kingdom could split up, and the new English government could invite you to become King of England- theoretically possible, but rather unlikely.
> Incidentally, the last person to have the title "King of England" was William III, who died in 1702.
> 
> So use "were" for currently unreal or imagined situations, without playing probability games.
> 
> Stick with "If I were rich, [but I am not], I would buy a castle in Spain." "If I were the King of England [which I am not], I would bring back the stocks and the pillory." "If I were a girl, [which I am not], I would always wear green stockings."




I agree with Modgirl about this. In her examples:

If I was fast in the race, it's because I had competition to push me. (I may have been fast; I may not have. The condition is unclear)
If I was rude, I apologize. (I may have been rude. It depends on a person's point-of-view. The condition is unclear)

We get something very strange if we turn _was_ to _were_ -

If I were fast in the race, it's because I had competition to push me.
 If I were rude, I apologize.

So where the condition may well have been met, I'm tempted to say the subjunctive should not be used.

P.S. It certainly should not be used, I'd say, in a case like this: _In my youth I was fond of betting: sometimes I won and was rich, at others I lost and had not a penny to my name. _*If I was rich*_, I was generous and bought drinks for my friends; if I was poor, I couldn't even buy supper for myself._


----------



## Brioche

Thomas Tompion said:


> So where the condition may well have been met, I'm tempted to say the subjunctive should not be used.
> 
> P.S. It certainly should not be used, I'd say, in a case like this: _In my youth I was fond of betting: sometimes I won and was rich, at others I lost and had not a penny to my name. _*If I was rich*_, I was generous and bought drinks for my friends; if I was poor, I couldn't even buy supper for myself._




If you are talking about conditions which have been met, or which may well have been met, then obviously you are not talking about unreal or imaginary situations.

_I *was* generous _  ....   definitely not imagined, so definitely no _If I were_ 

Look at the whole situation.
Is the main clause describing an actual situation?  If 'yes', then the subordinate if-clause cannot be subjunctive.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I find that some BE speakers, and I count myself among them, occasionally distinguish between situations which couldn't be the case - _if I were you_ - and those which, while not the case, could very well be - _if I was in Paris_ (spoken by someone who often goes to Paris).

I worry that people who talk about counterfactuals fail to distinguish between the two.

Many educated BE speakers would avoid saying _if I was you_, but would happily say_ if I was in Paris_. I've known AE speakers on the forum react to the second as I would to the first, which suggests that AE doesn't make the distinction.

The distinction can be useful, however. I think the last time we discussed this I mentioned that it can be used to exert superiority: a boss who says _if I were to sack you_ will sound much less threatening than one who says _if I was to sack you_.


----------



## Aumont

Brioche said:


> The United Kingdom could split up, and the new English government could invite you to become King of England- theoretically possible, but rather unlikely.



Hey, no need to get personal about this. ;-)

But seriously, of course you could argue that almost anything could be technically possible, like the sex change you mentioned. But since Thomas would use it the same way ("If I was in Paris" vs. "If I were you" - perfectly possible, mind you - at least in your average American movie...), I think it might be a British phenomenon, after all it was from British native speakers that I heard about this in the first place.


However, I would understand modgirl's sentences a little differently:
If I was fast in the race, it's because I had competition to push me. (I was fast, but only because I had competition)
If I was rude, I apologize. (I was rude (probably unintentionally) and want to apologise)

In Thomas's sentence (or is it "Thomas' sentence"? - but that's a different matter...) *"If I was rich*_, I was generous and bought drinks for my friends; if I was poor, I couldn't even buy supper for myself._", to me the question about was/were does not even arise; I think it should be "when" instead of "if", because it means "every time I was rich/poor".


----------



## LV4-26

If we wanted to split hair, we could say it's not exactly the same _was, _even in those two sentences.
If I was fast = I _was_, that's a fact.
If I was rude = I suspect I may have been rude. *If* that's the case, I apoligize.

Still, none of them is counterfactual.

EDIT: Just wondering if I'm merely repeating what Aumont said. I don't think so: we seem disagree on the _if I was rude_..


----------



## Aumont

LV4-26 said:


> EDIT: Just wondering if I'm merely repeating what Aumont said. I don't think so: we seem disagree on the _if I was rude_..



No, we don't disagree. I think you're right. ;-)

Your definition is closer to the feeling of the sentence. The person did something, that's a fact. And (s)he's unsure whether it was offensive, so in case it was, (s)he aplogises. Spot-on!


----------



## Pertinax

Although it would be an error to use "were" in:
_If I was rude, I apologize._

.. I wouldn't consider it grammatically wrong to say either:
_If I was in Paris (as I often am) ...
    If I was you ..._
See Geoffrey Pullum's Language Log (2008-8-12): http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=476

If the subjunctive is used, then, as Brioche points out, it should be used only for an unreal or imaginary situation set in the present or the future. Yet the speculative mood is I think evident from either the semantics or from the presence of "would" in the main clause, and there is no logical reason to embody the mood in the English verb-form, except perhaps to obviate a mild "garden path" effect.

In my own speech, I use the subjunctive routinely in:
_If I were you ...
    If the moon were made of green cheese ..._

.. but for a supposition which is less obviously counterfactual, I am quite likely to make the distinction articulated by TT.  For example, my wife is on holiday overseas at the moment, yet I might well tell my son:
_If Mum was here you wouldn't let your room get that untidy._


----------



## jqbox

Daywalker said:


> I would like to know if there is a different between if i was and if i were or if they mean exactly the same thing, ex:
> If i was rich [...]
> If i were rich [...]



Contrary to what has been said by some of the other respondents, there is, in fact, a difference between the two. The most obvious difference is that the first clause is inappropriate if you are indeed attempting to express a hypothetical/contrary to fact conditional relationship between the above clause and the eventual independent clause that would make a complete sentence. In such a case, the second clause is correct. One uses the subjunctive mood to express, among other things, hypothetical situations.

The first sentence, which is in the indicative mood, would only be appropriate if the conditional _were not_ hypothetical but actually very likely. The mood in either sentence suggests something of the author's attitude towards the ideas expressed in the dependent clause beginning with "if."

As you can see, the meaning of the two clauses is quite different. One clause expresses that the speaker is not rich, while the other clause expresses a high degree of certainty that he or she is rich; in fact, the first sentence of the second paragraph of my reply employs the subjunctive mood, revealing, among other things, my own feelings on the likelihood of one ever intentionally and correctly saying "if I was rich." 

For an interesting and--if I say so myself--funny article on the subjunctive mood, Google "Clean up your (grammatical) act" and follow the first entry in the results.


----------



## JulesMC

Recently, the language arts teacher (I teach reading) at our school asked me why I was using "were" instead of "was. I was saying, in a critique of some congressional decisions, "If I were running the country..." We argued about who was right/wrong and I continued to stand my ground but couldn't back it up with a grammatical rule. All I knew was it was the way I'd been raised to say it. I'm going to refer her to this post, although she'll probably still insist "were" is incorrect. 

Also, jqbox, I went to the link you sent and found it entertaining. If my students weren't under 18, I could use it to show the difference between literal and figurative language.


----------



## jqbox

JulesMC said:


> Recently, the language arts teacher (I teach reading) at our school asked me why I was using "were" instead of "was. I was saying, in a critique of some congressional decisions, "If I were running the country..." We argued about who was right/wrong and I continued to stand my ground but couldn't back it up with a grammatical rule. All I knew was it was the way I'd been raised to say it. I'm going to refer her to this post, although she'll probably still insist "were" is incorrect.
> 
> Also, jqbox, I went to the link you sent and found it entertaining. If my students weren't under 18, I could use it to show the difference between literal and figurative language.



You were definitely in the right, and I agree--the language arts teacher is so committed to her position that she is unlikely to back down in the face of any evidence.

Thank you for your reply. I am glad that you found my post and my article informative.  Keep fighting the good fight!


----------



## sergeyrais

Aumont said:


> 1)
> I was once told "was" is used for unreal situations that could be possible



Wouldn't it be better to use *should *in the if-clause and the Future Simple in the main sentence for unreal situations that could be possible?

e.g. If I *should *be rich I'*ll* buy a castle.


----------



## sergeyrais

Brioche said:


> Just about everything is theoretically possible.



I  guess the  unreality expressed in the concrete sentences depends not on the abstract theoretical possibility but is opinionated.


----------



## Einstein

Since this thread has come back to life I want to express my two cents on the was-were difference. I don't see the choice as dependent on the degree of impossibility. I see no difference between "if I were to sack you..." and "if I were a dinosaur...". The first is hypothetically possible, the second is not, but neither is true at this moment and that's what counts. "If I was...", in strictly formal terms, refers to a real past, not an unreal present. If sacking were a real possibility, I'd change tense: "If I sack you, what will you do?"

If people don't always say "If I were...", in my opinion it is for two reasons:
1) some limit its use to writing or formal speaking;
2) some limit it further, to set phrases such as "If I were you".

I'm not criticising these choices, I'm only saying that in my experience they don't depend on the degree of possibility but only on the degree of formality.


----------



## tetulio5

Hi,

Then, I can say: " If I bought that book it was because I liked" . <<>>
                       " If I had bought that book I would read it". <<>>



                        " If I were a footballer I would be famous". <<>> Unreal situation
                        " If I was a bad person in the past, I apologize" <<>> Real situation.

                        " If I had a plane I'd travel around the world" " <<>>   Unreal situation.
                        " If I had bad-manners last night, I apologize" <<>>               Real situation.

Is this correct?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Einstein said:


> Since this thread has come back to life I want to express my two cents on the was-were difference. I don't see the choice as dependent on the degree of impossibility. I see no difference between "if I were to sack you..." and "if I were a dinosaur...". The first is hypothetically possible, the second is not, but neither is true at this moment and that's what counts. "If I was...", in strictly formal terms, refers to a real past, not an unreal present. If sacking were a real possibility, I'd change tense: "If I sack you, what will you do?"
> 
> If people don't always say "If I were...", in my opinion it is for two reasons:
> 1) some limit its use to writing or formal speaking;
> 2) some limit it further, to set phrases such as "If I were you".
> 
> I'm not criticising these choices, I'm only saying that in my experience they don't depend on the degree of possibility but only on the degree of formality.



Hello Einstein,

I take it that you are mostly concerned with this form as the if-clause in a 2nd conditional sentence.

I'd just like to say that your experience isn't entirely consistent with that of many others.

As usual, I've no idea, in the sort of context, what 'in strictly formal terms' might mean.  Here are some examples, of many to be found, from literature, of _'if I was_' where we are certainly not dealing with what you call a 'real past'.  
_
If I was rich, I would make it worth the while of the first poor fellow I could find to rid me of Helena by marrying her_. Wilkie Collins, Legacy of Cain, Chapter 56.

_If I was a minister, I'd pick the short, snappy ones._ Lucy Maude Montgomery, Anne of Green Gables.
_
"Everything is lovely," replied the alderman, "and I wouldn't leave it if I was not obliged to._" L.Frank Baum, Mother Goose in Prose.

In choosing I have had to be careful to avoid deliberate uneducated speech.  Dickens, for example, clearly regards misuse of the indicative here as showing poor education, eg. _I wouldn't give another sixpence, if I was to  be boiled for not doing it. _(A Christmas Carol).  He does it in many other instances.  The examples above are from reasonably educated people, talking in the story.

Many - I'm tempted to say most - writers use both indicative and subjunctive forms, for second conditionals.  Here is Wells doing so:

_Yet, if I were left alone, I do not think my personal taste would affect my decision;_ H.G.Wells, The Trouble of Life. - there's no possibility he will be left alone.
_But if I was Elvesham, I should remember where I was on the previous morning,.._.  H.G.Wells, The Story of the Late Mr. Elvesham - this is a wonderful example, because Wells uses the indicative to tell us that the speaker has very possibly been turned into another person (Mr Elvesham).

Here is a great writer using the alternatives in what I regard as the classical way:

_No, you wouldn't find me grousing if I were a male newt._ P.G.Wodehouse, Right Ho, Jeeves - it's not possible for him to be a male newt.
_If I was naughty, you could take me up and shake me till I was good, couldn't you?  _P.G.Wodehouse, The Intrusion of Jimmy, Chapter 16. - it is possible for her to be naughty.


----------



## le Grand Soir

MrMagoo said:


> They mean the same.
> 
> "_were_" is the conjunctive form of the verb "be".
> English has almost lost the conjunctive mood and the forms of the conjunctive fell together with the past tense forms indicative, only "be" still keeps its forms in "I were" and "he were".
> 
> "If I were rich..." is a bit more proper, but "If I was..." is not wrong either.


Good Evening everyone,


This "were/was" choice all seemed pretty clear, I was "getting it" until now.  What is meant by this business about "_*conjunctive mood*", _I have never heard of it before.

le Grand Soir


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hello Le Grand Soir.

I always thought it was another word for what many of us call the subjunctive, used after a conjunction.


----------



## Einstein

"Conjunctive" is a common mistranslation from the Latin languages. The correct word is "subjunctive".

I continue to maintain, as in other threads, that the main characteristic of the subjunctive is the use of a past form to describe a present unreal situation. Any verb used in this manner expresses a subjunctive meaning. Of course, only the verb "be" has different forms for the indicative and subjunctive, but if a person says "If I was rich, I'd travel round the world", then the meaning is subjunctive, despite his choice not to say "were". If it were indicative it would mean that he really was rich at some time in the past; that is surely the meaning of "indicative".

Apologies for not replying to Thomas Tompion (#36) because I'm very busy at the moment and even this short intervention represents a transgression.


----------



## tunaafi

Einstein said:


> that the main characteristic of the subjunctive is the use of a past form to describe a present unreal situation. Any verb used in this manner expresses a subjunctive meaning.


'Subjunctive' is the name of a mood of a verb. In English, it expresses "suggestions, wishes, uncertainty, possibility, etc" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjunctive). I don't think we can say that the verb expresses a 'subjunctive meaning'.


----------



## Einstein

tunaafi said:


> 'Subjunctive' is the name of a mood of a verb. In English, it expresses "suggestions, wishes, uncertainty, possibility, etc" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjunctive). I don't think we can say that the verb expresses a 'subjunctive meaning'.


I may not have used the correct terminology, but you've said very well what the subjunctive meaning (for want of another term) is: "suggestions, wishes, uncertainty, possibility, etc."
My point is that we cannot deduce the mood of the verb only from its form, especially in English, which has very few inflexions. We have to examine the verb's function in the sentence.


----------



## tunaafi

Einstein said:


> My point is that we cannot deduce the mood of the verb only from its form.


Well, we can with the first and third person singular forms of BE. The indicative form is _was_ and the subjunctive form is _were_.


----------



## Einstein

tunaafi said:


> Well, we can with the first and third person singular forms of BE. The indicative form is _was_ and the subjunctive form is _were_.


We seem to be arguing in circles; I said "not only from its form". In the sentence "If I had more money, I'd be happy", is "had" subjunctive or indicative? Is it the same mood as "I had more money last year"? I believe its function is different. In the first case it's subjunctive and in the second case indicative.

If I say "deer", is it singular or plural? You'll answer that we need to see the rest of the sentence. You won't say there's no conceptual difference between singular and plural just because we can't see the difference in the form of the word.

In "If I was rich", the use of "was" simply expresses the decline of the distinct form for the subjunctive and in the end we'll be using only one form for both indicative and subjunctive, in line with all the other verbs. It does not mean the decline of the subjunctive mood.

Some might say that the term _subjunctive_ is out of date and serves no purpose. I accept that, if we also abolish the term _indicative_ and speak simply of the  _past tense_.


----------



## tunaafi

Einstein said:


> Some might say that the term _subjunctive_ is out of date and serves no purpose.


I am one of those., at least as far as BrE is concerned. BE is the only verb in the English language that has a recognisable past-tense  form for the subjunctive, and it is not used by the majority of native speakers, In the present, the only recognisable form is the third person singular and, apart from a few fossilised expressions such as _Long live the Queen,_ it is used only by a tiny minority of native speakers. I see no value in pretending that it is a feature of modern British English.



> I accept that, if we also abolish the term _indicative_ and speak simply of the  _past tense_.


I, personally, think that 'past' is a misnomer for the inflected tense in English, but that is going rather too far off topic.


----------



## Lady Black

Hi there!

Then, could you please tell me what happens in songs such as "If I was your mother" by Bon Jovi and so on?

Is it just to make it sound better when singing? I can't imagine Bon Jovi turning into a mother


----------



## JordyBro

Lady Black said:


> Hi there!
> 
> Then, could you please tell me what happens in songs such as "If I was your mother" by Bon Jovi and so on?
> 
> Is it just to make it sound better when singing? I can't imagine Bon Jovi turning into a mother



"If I was your mother" is a hypothetical, judging from that line. (I haven't listened to the song yet). I would personally say "if I were your mother" though. Are you asking about using "was" instead of "were"?


----------



## Lady Black

JordyBro said:


> "If I was your mother" is a hypothetical, judging from that line. (I haven't listened to the song yet). I would personally say "if I were your mother" though. Are you asking about using "was" instead of "were"?



Yes. The thing is that I was considering it might be because of the sound. I don't know, to make it sound a bit more... musical? Because it doesn't make sense grammatically.

Apparently, it's not the only case. Prince also produced a song called "If I was your girlfriend".


----------



## Einstein

In a song from the 1960s I remember "*If I were a carpenter...*". I don't think anyone protested about stilted, pedantic language.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hello  Einstein.

For what it's worth, I was sorry you never answered my implied question.


----------



## Einstein

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hello  Einstein.
> 
> For what it's worth, I was sorry you never answered my implied question.


Apologies indeed, I'm still in the thick of my work. However, in your examples you quote only two authors who use both forms, allowing comparison:


> _Yet, if I were left alone, I do not think my personal taste would affect my decision;_ H.G.Wells, The Trouble of Life. - there's no possibility he will be left alone.


I have to take your word for it; I haven't read the book.


> _But if I was Elvesham, I should remember where I was on the previous morning,.._. H.G.Wells, The Story of the Late Mr. Elvesham - this is a wonderful example, because Wells uses the indicative to tell us that the speaker has very possibly been turned into another person (Mr Elvesham).


Perhaps you've shot yourself in the foot here. Here's a fuller quote: "Was all life hallucination? Was I indeed Elvesham, and he me? Had I been dreaming of Eden overnight? Was there any Eden? But if I was Elvesham, I should remember where I was on the previous morning..." The narration is in the past. His thoughts, in direct speech, would be "If I am Elvesham, I ought to remember etc." The narration is reporting a first conditional, so the transformation of "am" to "was" is logical.
It's like, "If you're home by 7.30 you'll be in time for dinner", which in reported speech would be "She told me that if I was home by 7.30 I would be in time for dinner". This is not a hypothetical present but a real past.

You still have Wodehouse as an ally, so I can accept that you're not alone.


> _No, you wouldn't find me grousing if I were a male newt._ P.G.Wodehouse, Right Ho, Jeeves - it's not possible for him to be a male newt.
> _If I was naughty, you could take me up and shake me till I was good, couldn't you? _P.G.Wodehouse, The Intrusion of Jimmy, Chapter 16. - it is possible for her to be naughty.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Einstein said:


> Since this thread has come back to life I want to express my two cents on the was-were difference. I don't see the choice as dependent on the degree of impossibility. I see no difference between "if I were to sack you..." and "if I were a dinosaur...". The first is hypothetically possible, the second is not, but neither is true at this moment and that's what counts. "If I was...", in strictly formal terms, refers to a real past, not an unreal present. (underlining added by TT)  If sacking were a real possibility, I'd change tense: "If I sack you, what will you do?"
> 
> If people don't always say "If I were...", in my opinion it is for two reasons:
> 1) some limit its use to writing or formal speaking;
> 2) some limit it further, to set phrases such as "If I were you".
> 
> I'm not criticising these choices, I'm only saying that in my experience they don't depend on the degree of possibility but only on the degree of formality.





Einstein said:


> Apologies indeed, I'm still in the thick of my work. However, in your examples you quote only two authors who use both forms, allowing comparison:
> I have to take your word for it; I haven't read the book.
> Perhaps you've shot yourself in the foot here. Here's a fuller quote: "Was all life hallucination? Was I indeed Elvesham, and he me? Had I been dreaming of Eden overnight? Was there any Eden? But if I was Elvesham, I should remember where I was on the previous morning..." The narration is in the past. His thoughts, in direct speech, would be "If I am Elvesham, I ought to remember etc." The narration is reporting a first conditional, so the transformation of "am" to "was" is logical.
> It's like, "If you're home by 7.30 you'll be in time for dinner", which in reported speech would be "She told me that if I was home by 7.30 I would be in time for dinner". This is not a hypothetical present but a real past.
> 
> You still have Wodehouse as an ally, so I can accept that you're not alone.


Many thanks, Einstein.  I'm sorry to have been inattentive.  I've been driving across Europe in the snow and ice.

Thank you for agreeing with me about Wodehouse.  I could produce many other authors who use both forms in the way I suggest.  We are limited here in the number of quotes per post.  I didn't think you'd doubt that many authors distinguish in this way.

The thing which concerns me most is the suggestion that_ if I was + something which is not the case_ is not commonly used by BE speakers and writers to introduce a hypothetical present.  You may not have been suggesting that, but if you were, I am afraid I must disagree: it is something I hear very commonly on the lips of natives, and actually listen out for - you are not the first WR member to make the suggestion that it is 'incorrect'.  The last case I heard recently was a university graduate saying _If I was in Paris now, I'd feel distinctly uneasy_ - she was talking about the Charlie Hebdo attack.  This cannot be a case of a real past.

In the upper post I've quoted, you appear to be saying in the passage I underlined (forgive that intrusion, please) that you could not use_ if I was_ in that way.  I'm not suggesting that you change your verbal habits, but I feel you must admit, if you've not already done so, that this usage is common and idiomatic.  My friend who was talking about Charlie Hebdo would never say things like _If I was you_ or _If I was three hundred years old_.  The difference seems clear to me: it lies in the degree of possibility that the condition be ever fulfilled - another point on which you strike me as sceptical, if not fully disavowing.

My reason for quoting my literature database is that it is relatively set in stone.  You have to take my word that my friend said what I say she said; you can check the quotes I cite online easily enough.

The other point which concerns me, of course - I've already more than hinted at it - is the expression 'in strictly formal terms'; the phrase is to be found in the middle of the underlined sentence in the upper post quoted above.

Members here, it seems to me, use various means to establish authority over learners.  Some talk _ex cathedra_, as though they had a hot line to the deity.  Some talk, as another member put it to me recently, as though they were members of the Supreme Court of English Usage, and had descended from some distant and august chamber to give us all a final ruling on a point of difference.  I have never put you in either of these opprobrious categories.  Nevertheless, those words, 'in strictly formal terms', suggest that there is, indeed some higher court, over and above educated usage, which has always been my own touchstone for correct educated speech, where what is correct or otherwise is determined.  As you can see, I am not happy with the idea of privileged access to formal correctness here.

Particularly, perhaps, in a case like this, where a heterodox principle is being presented as orthodox.  Here is a presentation of the orthodoxy on the point from the Britsh Council, who have great experience of presenting English grammar in a way most helpful for learners and foreigners.

We use the past tense forms to talk about the *future *in clauses with _*if*_:


         for something that we believe or know *will not happen*: 
 



                 We would go by train if it *wasn’t *so expensive                  =                 We won’t go by train because it is too expensive.                  I would look after the children for you at the weekend if I *was *at home                  =                 I can’t look after the children because I will not be at home.

 
 - See more at: http://learnenglish.britishcouncil....e-clauses-and-if-clauses#sthash.hDkYBBBW.dpuf

This seems to me at odds with the advice you've been giving. In the first example "If I was...", clearly evokes a unreal present, not a real past.

Please forgive the long post.


----------



## Einstein

Well, I haven't got time for a long reply now.


> The thing which concerns me most is the suggestion that_ if I was + something which is not the case_ is not commonly used by BE speakers and writers to introduce a hypothetical present.


No, I'm not suggesting that! I'm sure it's very common. Let me just restate my opinion that the choice between "was" and "were" depends more on the degree of formality than on the degree of probability. If someone wants to use always "was" I've no objection, just as I've no objection to their using "was" in less formal situations and "were" in more formal ones. That's my experience... which you may say is limited given that I've lived abroad too long.
In my last post I simply pointed out that your H.G. Wells quote was inappropriate.


----------



## tunaafi

Einstein said:


> Let me just restate my opinion that the choice between "was" and "were" depends more on the degree of formality than on the degree of probability.



I don't agree about the degree of formality. In fact, I don't think most speakers consciously choose. I (69) always use _were_ when talking about hypothetical situations, probably mainly because of my age. My son (35) always uses _was_. This Ngram shows a marked decline in the use of _were_ in British English from about the mid 1950s on.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I don't know anyone whose use in confined to only one of the alternatives. 

Even the people I know who might say '*It I was to fly to the Moon*', would say *'If I were you*'.


----------



## tunaafi

Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't know anyone whose use in confined to only one of the alternatives. [/QUte
> 
> Even the people I know who might say '*It I was to fly to the Moon*', would say *'If I were you*'.



Well, apart from my own family, I know several. This Ngram suggests that my son and some of the other people I know are not the only ones to say "If I was you".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

tunaafi said:


> Well, apart from my own family, I know several. This Ngram suggests that my son and some of the other people I know are not the only ones to say "If I was you".


That's interesting.  It's almost the only form like that which I regard as uneducated.

The AE members sometimes go on about the need for _were_ rather than _was_ in hypotheticals of this kind, not just in impossibilities, yet the comparative ngrams suggest there's not much difference in AE and BE practice over this impossibility at least.


----------



## tunaafi

Thomas Tompion said:


> That's interesting.  It's almost the only form like that which I regard as uneducated.



My age, background and schooling tell me it's uneducated. My knowledge of the real world and my interest in descriptive, rather than prescriptive, grammar tell me that 'If I was you' is used by many fairly well-educated people.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

If I had a pupil going for an interview for a job in which general education and intelligent presentation were important, I wouldn't expect him to get the job if he used the expression, *if I was you*.


----------



## Loob

Thomas Tompion said:


> If I had a pupil going for an interview for a job in which general education and intelligent presentation were important, I wouldn't expect him to get the job if he used the expression, *if I was you*.


It's interesting, isn't it, that this is such a shibboleth.  I don't think anyone would hold up their hands in horror at "if I was in your position" or  "if I was John".

I have the feeling that "if I were you" has become a set phrase - a sort of idiom.

---------

Ooops, I've just realised that Einstein suggested that back in post 34


Einstein said:


> Since this thread has come back to life I want  to express my two cents on the was-were difference. I don't see the  choice as dependent on the degree of impossibility.
> [...]
> If people don't always say "If I were...", in my opinion it is for two reasons:
> 1) some limit its use to writing or formal speaking;
> 2) some limit it further, to set phrases such as "If I were you".


PS I should add that I agree with Einstein as far as my own usage is concerned.  In everyday speech, I use "if X was" except in the phrase "if I were you"; when writing formally, I'd probably replace at least some of those "was"s with "were"s.


----------



## tunaafi

Thomas Tompion said:


> If I had a pupil going for an interview for a job in which general education and intelligent presentation were important, I wouldn't expect him to get the job if he used the expression, *if I was you*.



If the academic achievements and overall abilities of a pupil of mine held to be less important than his use of a subjunctive, I would think he was better off not trying to work for people whose priorities were so expletive deleted


----------



## Loob

Just checking, tunaafi: your son definitely wouldn't use "were" even in what Einstein and I called a set phrase: _If I were you_?

If he wouldn't, then I'd say that's proof that it's been a set phrase only temporarily, as part of the inexorable - and nearly complete - erosion of the the past subjunctive.

Which I'd find (a) interesting and (b) not at all surprising.


----------



## tunaafi

Loob said:


> Just checking, tunaafi: your son definitely wouldn't use "were" even in what Einstein and I called a set phrase: _If I were you_
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't swear on oath that he'd never said it in his life.  I always use _were_ in hypothetical situations and his mother does in the fixed phrase_ if I were you; _thissuggests that he almost certainly did when he was younger. However, I doubt if he's said it since he started school in the mid 1980s. His sister says both _if I were_ and _if I was_.
> 
> By the time I left teaching in comprehensive schools at the end of the 1990s to return to TEFL, I was vaguely aware that a lot of pupils, and some of my colleagues (especially the younger ones) said 'if I was'.
> 
> I have long felt that the past subjunctive survives in British English only in some who will have shuffled off their mortal coils within the next twenty-five or so years. The last trace of the subjunctive, _if I were you_, may linger another couple of decades.
Click to expand...


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm interested that belief in the decline of the subjunctive has survived current academic opinion that the mandative subjunctive has been undergoing something of a revival in BE over the last thirty years.


----------



## Loob

For me, the decline of the past subjunctive and the revival of the present subjunctive are two quite separate phenomena, TT. But yes, it _is_ interesting that they're happening simultaneously.


----------



## e2efour

In about 1952 the novelist Evelyn Waugh said as follows to a fellow novelist (Graham Greene):
"I wouldn't give up writing about God at this stage, if I was you. It would be like P. G. Wodehouse dropping Jeeves halfway through the Wooster series."

Draw what conclusions you like.


----------



## CharlesLee

_<-----Off-topic comment removed by moderator (Florentia52)----->_

 Hypothetical and conditional forms are different. The past tense of the sentence starting as in "If I'm" , would change into "If I was".

Ind, Subjunctive are different even if it would seem similar. *If I'm rich, I will buy a new car.* = Young as they are, still able to do that.

*If I were rich, I could buy a new car.* = He's broke at the moment so it's impossible.

If you change first conditional form as the past form, it turns from "is" into "was" as remaing indicative one.

In order to distinguish between Subjunctive and indicative forms , we are using be verb as Were.

It's also used to be obviously different  in French as Sois, or soit, etc from Suis, es, est etc.

_ But if I was Elvesham, I should remember where I was on the previous morning,.._.

I'm unsure of Einstein's example because the example still emphasizes unreality....

But  his only explanations make sense  along mine, but not example.

We can see one of Saurabh's examples

 I would say hi to her if I *was* amongst them. (I wasn't there however could have been there) - this example must be a had PP form.

because the explanation sounds as if they describe a past event, which means the sentence is clear while the explanation isn't coincident.

but still possible way to use was if the nuance of meaning would be slightly changed.

I'd be sorry, if I was wrong


----------



## Thomas Tompion

CharlesLee said:


> [...]I'd be sorry, if I was wrong


I wonder if you would, Charles.


< Response to now-deleted comment removed.  Cagey, moderator >


----------



## CharlesLee

Thomas Tompion said:


> I wonder if you would, Charles.
> 
> 
> We use the past tense forms to talk about the *future *in clauses with _*if*_:
> 
> 
> for something that we believe or know *will not happen*:
> 
> We would go by train if it *wasn’t *so expensive = We won’t go by train because it is too expensive.
> I would look after the children for you at the weekend if I *was *at home = I can’t look after the children because I will not be at home.


I have to say this is what I was talking about but this isn't a hypothetical form but a conditional future form

, which means Thomas and Einstein know the form of indicative forms but they are similar when the future indicative form turns in to the past form

just like above you mentioned. It doesn't mean we can use hypothetical forms as a current tense.

If speakers focus on current status, the were form would be hypothetical.

for example, "*If it's not so expensive, we won't go by train." = present form of indicative as the first conditional form.

"If it weren't so expensive, we would go by train." = We use past tense for current situation as subjuctive form and the 2nd conditional form.

Now that you've seen both of them, if you change both forms as past tenses, the 2nd hypothetical form won't be changed 

while first form would go with " was" , and "Would".* So we should be careful on that.


----------



## Einstein

Going back nearly a year! I've just noticed this comment:


tunaafi said:


> I don't agree about the degree of formality. In fact, I don't think most speakers consciously choose. I (69) always use _were_ when talking about hypothetical situations, probably mainly because of my age. My son (35) always uses _was_.


I was wrong to use the expression "degree of formality". What I really meant was that it depends on how "modern"/"old-fashioned" we are and this is in line with what tunaafi says about himself and his son. My point remains that the use of "was" or "were" for a hypothetical present or future depends on our cultural training and not, in my experience, on how probable or improbable the event may be.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Einstein said:


> Going back nearly a year! I've just noticed this comment:
> I was wrong to use the expression "degree of formality". What I really meant was that it depends on how "modern"/"old-fashioned" we are and this is in line with what tunaafi says about himself and his son. My point remains that the use of "was" or "were" for a hypothetical present or future depends on our cultural training and not, in my experience, on how probable or improbable the event may be.


What's to prevent someone with a given cultural training using *was* for some hypothetical present cases, and *were* for other less probable and for impossible ones?

I think this is my present practice.

Looking back at the thread, I'm pleased to see that I've been arguing this all along and trying to find examples in literature to support the view.

My view hasn't changed since last year.

Note I'm not saying that cultural training is for nothing in this, just that I don't think you should discount probability either.


----------



## DonnyB

Einstein said:


> My point remains that the use of "was" or "were" for a hypothetical present or future depends on our cultural training and not, in my experience, on how probable or improbable the event may be.


That's certainly the way I look at it, too.  I consistently use the subjunctive, partly because that's the way I was always taught/brought up do it from my schooldays, and it still _sounds right_ to me.

But also, in my case, I'm being heavily influenced now by learning Italian where my tutor says that a similar situation exists in that language - the subjunctive tenses are used by speakers of "good" Italian _(her words, not mine)_, while in everyday colloquial speech, native Italians will often nowadays use the indicative.  



Thomas Tompion said:


> What's to prevent someone with a given cultural training using *was* for some hypothetical present cases, and *were* for other less probable and impossible ones?
> 
> I think this is my present practice.


Absolutely nothing prevents that, and I don't think _I've_ ever said that it does or did.  Just don't expect me to do likewise, though.


----------



## e2efour

tunaafi said:


> 'Subjunctive' is the name of a mood of a verb. In English, it expresses "suggestions, wishes, uncertainty, possibility, etc" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjunctive.



If this definition were helpful, we might expect to find the following odd sentences:

uncertainty: I am really not sure that he play the violin well.

wish: I wish that she live with her parents.

possibility: I don't know where she is. Perhaps she be in Hong Kong.

suggestion: I suggest that brown lentils be healthier than green lentils.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2efour said:


> [...]
> 
> suggestion: I suggest that brown lentils be healthier than green lentils.


That's the wrong sort of suggestion.

You mean: I suggest that parsley butter be added to the green lentils just before serving.


----------



## CharlesLee

Now I've realised how many native English speakers have been speaking just like that so far for long. Thanks for all your meaningful discussion.

I thought 'Was-use' was considered only acceptable in the indicative mood, but it doesn't yet.

As a non English speaker, an English teacher in my country, the most important thing is whether or not I should say it's correct.

Now I think I can answer learners in my country in the cultural and linguistic context.

   This is what I found on BBC.  BBC World Service | Learning English | Ask about English


> *'If I was you ...*' is incorrect, at least in formal speech and writing.
> 
> *Unfortunately, it is quite common to hear native speakers say it, and it might be that the subjunctive form is gradually disappearing from English.*
> 
> < ---- >



It has made me shocked since I thought subjunctive form was settled down enough to distinguish between them, or distance.

What worries me is how non English speakers could identify difference between them, if they do so.




< Edited to add formatting to indicate quotation and to remove excessive quotation. 
Cagey, moderator >


----------

