# I would do it if money was involved.



## señorgringo

I am trying to say 'I would do it if money was involved.' Normally I would have said something along the lines of:

_Yo lo hiciera si dinero sería involucrado.
_
However on a forum I saw a different expression which I would like to try:

_Yo lo hiciera si habría dinero de por medio.

_Would either of them be correct?

Gracias de antemano!


----------



## Valeria Mesalina

None of them. It would be "yo lo haría si hubiera dinero de por medio".


----------



## vertebrado

señorgringo said:


> I am trying to say 'I would do it if money was involved.' Normally I would have said something along the lines of:
> 
> _Yo lo hiciera si dinero sería involucrado.
> _
> However on a forum I saw a different expression which I would like to try:
> 
> _Yo lo hiciera si habría dinero de por medio__.
> 
> _Would either of them be correct?
> 
> Gracias de antemano!


Yo lo haría si hubiera dinero en juego.


----------



## señorgringo

Muchísimas gracias a ambos.


----------



## señorgringo

Por cierto Valeria - hemos estado a Granada el otoño pasado y nos pasamos muuuy bien! Nos encanta tu ciudad y volveremos!


----------



## gengo

señorgringo said:


> I am trying to say 'I would do it if money were involved.'



Ya te han contestado tu pregunta, pero sólo para el archivo, quiero añadir que se requiere el subjuntivo en el inglés aquí, como he puesto en rojo.


----------



## señorgringo

gengo said:


> Ya te han contestado tu pregunta, pero sólo para el archivo, quiero añadir que se requiere el subjuntivo en el inglés aquí, como he puesto en rojo.



You are absolutely right but having lived in CA myself for 20 years we both know that both forms are in common use. Mine IS grammatically incorrect however. Thanks for pointing it out. Doesn't happen very often that someone gets me in English - so congrats! ;-)


----------



## vertebrado

señorgringo said:


> You are absolutely right but having lived in CA myself for 20 years we both know that both forms are in common use. Mine IS grammatically incorrect however. Thanks for pointing it out. Doesn't happen very often that someone gets me in English - so congrats! ;-)


CA stands for California, Canada,...? Do you mean that in _that place_ have a loose grammar on the subjuntive?


----------



## Valeria Mesalina

señorgringo said:


> Por cierto Valeria - hemos estado a Granada el otoño pasado y nos pasamos muuuy bien! Nos encanta tu ciudad y volveremos!



Muchas gracias, tendríais que volver en primavera. Es cuando más bonitos están los Cármenes. Y los jardines del Generalife, claro .


----------



## gengo

vertebrado said:


> CA stands for California, Canada,...? Do you mean that in _that place_ have a loose grammar on the subjuntive?



He just means that native English speakers usually fail to use the subjunctive correctly, whether here in California, in Canada, or anywhere else.  But since this is a language forum, our standards are higher.


----------



## vertebrado

gengo said:


> He just means that native English speakers usually fail to use the subjunctive correctly, whether here in California, in Canada, or anywhere else.  But since this is a language forum, our standards are higher.


ok, I'll take that as California


----------



## gengo

vertebrado said:


> ok, I'll take that as California



Not sure I get the joke, but just FYI, "CA" will always be California.  Each of the 50 United States has an official postal abbreviation consisting of two capital letters.  CA is California, CO is Colorado, CT is Connecticut, etc.  There is no abbreviation of Canada as far as I know, but if we were to abbreviate it, it would be in the form of "Can.," using a capital only for the first letter and adding a period to denote an abbreviation.


----------



## Bakagaijin

I thought money being a non-count noun falls into the singular category, thus "was".  Thats how American ESL would teach it I think... ?  Also California here.... haha


----------



## gengo

Bakagaijin said:


> I thought money being a non-count noun falls into the singular category, thus "was".  Thats how American ESL would teach it I think... ?



Sorry, but no.  The construction of "would + be verb" always takes the subjunctive "were."  It has nothing to do with plural.

Ex.
I *would* buy an island if I *were* a billionaire.

The fact that I have to explain this to a native speaker, and a teacher at that, confirms what señorgringo and I have said about native English speakers and their lack of knowledge about how to use the subjunctive.  No offense to you, bakagaijin (seriously?!); you are probably in the majority.  Sadly.


----------



## Bakagaijin

Hahaha, I teach as a hobby and help only, not a profession.    More like suggest than teach.    But thank you on the lesson.  If you look up the meaning to my name "bakagaijin" you might have a laugh.


----------



## gengo

Bakagaijin said:


> If you look up the meaning to my name "bakagaijin" you might have a laugh.



No need to look it up.  I'm a Japanese speaker and translator.  I can't say that would have been my first choice for a username that other foreros would call me.

(Just for the rest of you, baka gaijin means "tonto extranjero" in Japanese.  But baka is stronger than tonto, and can also mean pendejo, etc.)


----------



## vertebrado

The _joke _was not strictly a joke but rather letting you know that I was infering from your comment that CA means California. By the way, you never correct my mistakes! I'm strongly believe this sentence is not correct: Do you mean that in _that place have a loose grammar on the subjuntive?_


----------



## gengo

vertebrado said:


> By the way, you never correct my mistakes! I strongly believe this sentence is not correct: Do you mean that in _that place have a loose grammar on the subjuntive?_



¡Ándale, pues!  No, no está muy bien.

_Do you mean that the people who live in that place have a loose grasp of grammar when it comes to the subjunctive?_

Hay otras posibilidades también, claro.


----------



## vertebrado

gengo said:


> *¡Ándale, pues!*  No, no está muy bien.
> 
> _Do you mean that the people who live in that place have a loose grasp of grammar when it comes to the subjunctive?_
> 
> Hay otras posibilidades también, claro.


 If you ever come to Spain don't use that expresion unless you want to look funny by impersonating a mexican.

Thank you for the correction.


----------



## gengo

vertebrado said:


> If you ever come to Spain don't use that expression unless you want to look funny by impersonating a Mexican.



Donde vivo era, anteriormente, un estado de México, y por eso tiene sentido que el español que hablo (bueno, que trato de hablar) es el que se habla en ese país.  A lo contrario, si hablara como un español la gente me vería con malos ojos.  Estoy tan acostumbrado al español mexicano que las otras formas me suenan mal.


----------



## señorgringo

Valeria Mesalina said:


> Muchas gracias, tendríais que volver en primavera. Es cuando más bonitos están los Cármenes. Y los jardines del Generalife, claro .



Sí - por supuesto - hemos estado en Albaicin! Y durante nuestro primero día en Granada hicimos una amiga nueva. Qué más acogedora es la gente allí!!


----------



## señorgringo

gengo said:


> Donde vivo era, anteriormente, un estado de México, y por eso tiene sentido que el español que hablo (bueno, que trato de hablar) es el que se habla en ese país.  A lo contrario, si hablara como un español la gente me vería con malos ojos.  Estoy tan acostumbrado al español mexicano que las otras formas me suenan mal.



BTW, not sure if anyone ever mentioned this but I also happen to be a huge fan of Toshiro Mifune - one of my favorite actors. Sword of doom!!!


----------



## gengo

señorgringo said:


> BTW, not sure if anyone ever mentioned this but I also happen to be a huge fan of Toshiro Mifune - one of my favorite actors. Sword of doom!!!



Yes, he is the epitome of the Japanese adjective shibui, which is nearly impossible to translate.


----------



## Bakagaijin

gengo said:


> Yes, he is the epitome of the Japanese adjective shibui, which is nearly impossible to translate.



Do you work as a translater?  Translating manuals and such for major manufacterers based in Mex? My interest is peaked as you can see Im trying to move towards Eng-Span-Jap work in the future for a feeling of accomplishment.  Your stringent focus on grammar is what made me think some sort of translating work.  It seems like perfect grammar seems necessary in whatever work you are doing...


----------



## SydLexia

Bakagaijin said:


> Do you work as a translater?  Translating manuals and such for major manufacterers based in Mex? My interest is peaked as you can see Im trying to move towards Eng-Span-Jap work in the future for a feeling of accomplishment.  Your stringent focus on grammar is what made me think some sort of translating work.  It seems like perfect grammar seems necessary in whatever work you are doing...




That's "to pique someone's interest", not "to peak". 


syd


----------



## Bakagaijin

SydLexia said:


> That's "to pique someone's interest", not "to peak".
> 
> 
> syd



Hahaha  *golf clap*


----------



## vertebrado

Bakagaijin said:


> Do you work as a *translater*?  Translating manuals and such for major manufacterers based in Mex? My interest is peaked as you can see Im trying to move towards Eng-Span-Jap work in the future for a feeling of accomplishment.  Your stringent focus on grammar is what made me think some sort of translating work.  It seems like perfect grammar seems necessary in whatever work you are doing...


translat*o*r. Your not stringent focus on spelling makes you look like a real _american _


----------



## FromPA

gengo said:


> Ya te han contestado tu pregunta, pero sólo para el archivo, quiero añadir que se requiere el subjuntivo en el inglés aquí, como he puesto en rojo.



Based on what I've read on this topic, the subjunctive would only be required if the statement was contrary to fact.  If there is no possibility of money being involved, and you are simply wishing that there could be money involved, then the subjunctive would be the correct choice.  However, if there's no reason why money couldn't be involved and you are simply stating the conditions for your participation, then the indicative mood would be appropriate.


----------



## señorgringo

gengo said:


> Yes, he is the epitome of the Japanese adjective shibui, which is nearly impossible to translate.



Here's a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibui


----------



## señorgringo

FromPA said:


> Based on what I've read on this topic, the subjunctive would only be required if the statement was contrary to fact.  If there is no possibility of money being involved, and you are simply wishing that there could be money involved, then the subjunctive would be the correct choice.  However, if there's no reason why money couldn't be involved and you are simply stating the conditions for your participation, then the indicative mood would be appropriate.



Interesting point but this is beyond my current pay grade. Any natives want to touch this?


----------



## mokane

To be fair, the subjunctive has been dying in English for a long time.


----------



## gengo

Bakagaijin said:


> Do you work as a translat*o*r?  Translating manuals and such for major manufact*u*rers based in Mex? My interest is p*iqu*ed as you can see I*'*m trying to move towards Eng-Span-Jap work in the future for a feeling of accomplishment.  Your stringent focus on grammar is what made me think some sort of translating work.  It seems like perfect grammar seems necessary in whatever work you are doing.



Professional translation does require good grammar (and spelling).  Clients are particular about that.  I translate nothing but Japanese patents, so I need to be fluent in 1) Japanese, 2) English (grammar, etc.), 3) patent (legal) language in both Japanese and English, 4) the technical jargon of the field in question, in both English and Japanese.



FromPA said:


> Based on what I've read on this topic, the subjunctive would only be required if the statement was contrary to fact.



Putting aside for the moment the question of whether the subjunctive is dying,* the sentence you wrote above is never correct.  "Was" must be "were."  All the time.  I'm not at all interested in convincing you of this, so if you refuse to believe me, let's just leave it at that.  But if you are interested, you can find many grammar websites that will explain this.

* I agree that the subjunctive has been on the decline for many years, but as of 2014, the above usage is still considered correct by educated writers of English, and until that situation changes, I will continue to use the subjunctive when required in the modern version of English.

Cheers


----------



## FromPA

gengo said:


> Putting aside for the moment the question of whether the subjunctive is dying,* the sentence you wrote above is never correct.  "Was" must be "were."  All the time.  I'm not at all interested in convincing you of this, so if you refuse to believe me, let's just leave it at that.  But if you are interested, you can find many grammar websites that will explain this.
> 
> * I agree that the subjunctive has been on the decline for many years, but as of 2014, the above usage is still considered correct by educated writers of English, and until that situation changes, I will continue to use the subjunctive when required in the modern version of English.
> 
> Cheers



I personally believe that the death of the subjunctive is greatly exaggerated.  Like you. I also insist on using the subjunctive where required.  We just have a difference of opinion on when it is required.  A statement contrary to fact requires the subjunctive.  Not every "if" clause constitutes a statement contrary to fact.  Enough said.


----------



## roxcyn

Te doy otra traducción:

(Yo) lo haría si ganara dinero.  Está bien dicho, ¿verdad?


----------



## vertebrado

Given these two opposite opinions on the same matter:



gengo said:


> [...] the sentence you wrote above is never correct. "Was" must be "were." All the time. I'm not at all interested in convincing you of this, so if you refuse to believe me, let's just leave it at that. But if you are interested, you can find many grammar websites that will explain this.


Vs.


FromPA said:


> [...] We just have a difference of opinion on when it is required. A statement contrary to fact requires the subjunctive. Not every "if" clause constitutes a statement contrary to fact [...]


I'd like to know which one is correct. 

For me, instinctivly, and probably biased by Spanish, Gengo would be right, however he is not giving any argument, we have to make an act of faith. On the other side, although FromPA perspective seemed incorrect to me in the begining, it makes sense after reading his argument. Now I don't know who is right and I wish Gengo could explain why the argument given by FromPA doesn't apply here. Or a third English native speaker could throw some light here.


----------



## roxcyn

Buenas, vertebrado.  Opto por "were", pero como dijo señorgringo "was" es muy común.  Por ejemplo, recuerdo la canción de Gwen Stefani "Rich Girl": "If I *was* a rich girl [...] See, I'd have all the money in the world, if I *was* a wealthy girl".


----------



## señorgringo

gengo said:


> I agree that the subjunctive has been on the decline for many years, but as of 2014, the above usage is still considered correct by educated writers of English, and until that situation changes, I will continue to use the subjunctive when required in the modern version of English.



Whether or not it is on the decline is negligible IMO - this is only a reflection of our failing educational systems. It is simply incorrect to omit the subjunctive and I'm myself a stickler when it comes to proper grammar. The problem is that the subjunctive is very subtle in English and I would bet that 90% of native speakers are completely unaware of it throughout their life. As a matter of fact even Spanish speakers are unaware of it until you start showing them the rules and some examples - then they suddenly realize it (my gym buddies are good test subjects). Unlike us guiris natives do not have to think about it as it comes natural to (most) of them. However many will still make mistakes. Unfortunately I my my Spanish skills are still rudimentary but I'll try to offer an example:

Si lo hubiera sabido, te habría llamado.

I have seen some debate on this expression and there are many Spanish speakers who would reverse habría and hubiera, some would even use hubiera twice. So even natives screw up the subjunctive rules all the time. In English it may be more forgivable as it's so subtle but I think more of an effort should be made to teach it. Otherwise we lose what I deem to be an important construct of expression. And what's next then? 

As a matter of fact the subjunctive is one of my favorite forms in Spanish and it's one of the reasons I enjoy Spanish more and more as I learn it.


----------



## señorgringo

vertebrado said:


> I'd like to know which one is correct.
> 
> For me, instinctivly, and probably biased by Spanish, Gengo would be right, however he is not giving any argument, we have to make an act of faith. On the other side, although FromPA perspective seemed incorrect to me in the begining, it makes sense after reading his argument. Now I don't know who is right and I wish Gengo could explain why the argument given by FromPA doesn't apply here. Or a third English native speaker could throw some light here.



I'm semi-native as I am originally German but used to live in the U.S. for over 20 years and professionally write in English every single day. As a matter of fact my English is better than my German these days and I correct native English speakers all the time (much to their chagrin). That said - take my view with a grain of salt but I am pretty certain that _most_ natives would agree with me: 

In a nutshell:

I would do it if money _was_ involved.
I would do it if money _were_ involved.

The first (wrong) version 'feels' like subjunctive, yes - and that's why many use it without realizing it. But the proper use is 'were' in this case and not 'was' which should only be used for the past tense. I don't believe there is much of a middle ground here or much room for misinterpretation. FWIW - if you use 'were' in this case nobody will ever tell you that it's incorrect! So how about that?

By the way, this version would be correct:

I did it because money _was_ involved.

In this case it's all done and over with and there is no subjunctive context. Frankly I am rather embarrassed about posting it incorrectly in the first place but will be the one forced to live with the consequences of my erroneous ways ;-)


----------



## señorgringo

roxcyn said:


> Buenas, vertebrado.  Opto por "were", pero como dijo señorgringo "was" es muy común.  Por ejemplo, recuerdo la canción de Gwen Stefani "Rich Girl": "If I *was* a rich girl [...] See, I'd have all the money in the world, if I *was* a wealthy girl".



Why am I not surprised - she's a bottle blond after all ;-)


----------



## Valeria Mesalina

roxcyn said:


> Opto por "were", pero como dijo señorgringo "was" es muy común.  Por ejemplo, recuerdo la canción de Gwen Stefani "Rich Girl": "If I *was* a rich girl [...] See, I'd have all the money in the world, if I *was* a wealthy girl".



Oh, well. I don't think anyone should put much faith on song lyrics when studying a language. But if songs are to be mentioned, I remember another: "If I were a rich man... I wouldn't have to work hard".

"Would it spoil some vast eternal plan?
If I were a wealthy man".

Maybe he uses the subjunctive because he's neither American nor bottle blond .


----------



## aztlaniano

Valeria Mesalina said:


> "yo lo haría si hubiera dinero de por medio".


Mi primera opción, sin contar con el contexto.


vertebrado said:


> Yo lo haría si hubiera dinero en juego.


Mi segunda opción, sin contar con el contexto.

La frase en inglés muchas veces es una forma eufemística de decir "Lo haría si me pagaras", por eso pongo la variante con "de por medio" primero.


----------

