# If she <were> ill-used...



## thetazuo

I clambered out upon the sill, but I hesitated to jump until I should have heard what passed between my savior and the ruffian who pursued me. If she *were* ill-used, then at any risks I was determined to go back to her assistance. The thought had hardly flashed through my mind before he was at the door, pushing his way past her; but she threw her arms round him and tried to hold him back.

The Adventure of the Engineer’s Thumb
Doyle, Arthur Conan

Hi. Is the underlined sentence an open past conditional where the speaker doubts whether she is ill-used or not and the subjunctive “were” is used to emphasize his uncertainty?
Thank you.


----------



## owlman5

thetazuo said:


> Is the underlined sentence an open past conditional where the speaker doubts whether she is ill-used or not and the subjunctive “were” is used to emphasize his uncertainty?


This makes sense to me, thetazuo.


----------



## thetazuo

Thanks, owlman.


----------



## Uncle Jack

I am not sure that it even emphasises his uncertainty. The subjunctive used to be used all the time with "if"; this was dying out in Conan Doyle's day, but he seems to have preferred older forms of English. Perhaps you should post a thread when you find Conan Doyle _not _using the subjunctive in an if-clause.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, Jack.
So is the “were” in OP used in the same way as that in If that <were> true the murderer must have dropped some part of his dress, ?
If so, then it is probably not old-fashioned, as others said in that thread.


Uncle Jack said:


> Perhaps you should post a thread when you find Conan Doyle _not _using the subjunctive in an if-clause.


Thank you for your suggestion. But I’m afraid I’m not inclined to do so, Jack, because in the book there are a huge amount of conditionals where Conan Doyle didn’t use the subjunctive in the if-clause and I think I understand them!


----------



## kentix

To me, it means that the version of him present at the moment he is referring to, the moment he was on the sill but before the man came in, whose perspective he is speaking from, doesn't know (actually can't know) what's about to happen. He has to wait to find out. When that time comes, he will make his decision whether to jump or return.

Although the outcome is known now, it wasn't known by him at the time he was on the sill. As he narrates the story now he is putting you in that man's (his earlier self's) mind. The outcome is uncertain. There is possibility A and possibility B.

*Inside the thinking of the man on the sill at that moment in time:*
If he abuses her, I will go help her but if he leaves her alone I will jump from the sill and continue to evade him.

"Present" him (him speaking now) is now narrating that thought process. He is putting you into that mind at that moment of uncertainty but narrated from a future time. He is telling you the thought process that existed before the pursuing man's actions were known and therefore before a final decision could be made but he is describing it from now. "If he were to abuse her..." This is a possibility not a certainty. He knows the answer now but he knows his previous self didn't know the answer. Hence the use of "were". It denotes his knowledge of the man on the sill's lack of knowledge of what would happen next.

Added:
There are two different "hims" here and the fundamental difference between the two is that one existed before anything happened and the current one exists after. The former one has nothing to doubt since nothing has happened. He's not uncertain how she has been treated because the pursuing man hasn't even arrived yet and she hasn't been subject to any treatment from him - good, bad or indifferent. He can't be uncertain about something that has never happened. He can only be uncertain about what will happen.

From our current perspective we know that he had resolved to have different reactions to the different possibilities. If she were to be abused, he would react one way, and if not, he would react another way. But all of that is in the future for him.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you so much, kentix.  


kentix said:


> "If he were to abuse her..." This is a possibility not a certainty. He knows the answer now but he knows his previous self didn't know the answer. Hence the use of "were". It denotes his knowledge of the man on the sill's lack of knowledge of what would happen next.


So would “was” work in this context? I think “was” is more suitable since his previous self was uncertain about what would happen. “Were” seems to suggest that the pursuer’s abusing her is unlikely.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

thetazuo said:


> So would “was” work in this context? I think “was” is more suitable since his previous self was uncertain about what would happen.


No, that is precisely why the subjunctive form "were" is more suitable.


> “Were” seems to suggest that the pursuer’s abusing her is unlikely.


No, that is not what it suggests.  The subjunctive can be used with things that are hypothetical, uncertain, or demanded, and not merely with things that are unlikely.


----------



## thetazuo

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> No, that is precisely why the subjunctive form "were" is more suitable.
> 
> No, that is not what it suggests.  The subjunctive can be used with things that are hypothetical, uncertain, or demanded, and not merely with things that are unlikely.


Thank you, GWB.
So if I say “If I were rich, I would buy a large house”, can the sentence mean I am uncertain if I am going to be rich?


----------



## se16teddy

My impression (for what it is worth) is that in Early Modern English the current "type 1-2-3" structure of conditional sentences did not exist, and you could just freely use the subjunctive, or modal verbs, to indicate a hypothetical or unlikely scenario, with no grammatical requirement to harmonize the protasis with the apodosis. Conan-Doyle seems to me to hark back to this system.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, teddy.
So is the use of subjunctive “were” to indicate the speaker’s uncertainty old-fashioned? I assume subjunctive “were” is no longer used the same way as in the op example in modern English.


----------



## se16teddy

I think everybody has said that this sentence sounds old-fashioned.


----------



## Uncle Jack

As I said in another thread, the speaker is using the past tense to refer to a situation in the past. While this may seem quite ordinary in most contexts, it is very revealing in the context of a conditional sentence. If you want to express something unreal or hypothetical, or even very unlikely, you don't do so merely by using the subjunctive, but also by backshifting the verb:
Future possibility: I think that if it rains tomorrow, we will play indoors.​Future unlikelihood: I think that if it were to rain tomorrow, we would play indoors.​Past possibility: I thought that if it rained the following day, we would play indoors.​Past unlikelihood: I thought that if it had rained the following day, we would have played indoors.​​We can reasonably assume that If he or she (I have forgotten who the speaker is) were to have stated their actual thoughts at the time, they would have used the present tense: 
If she *be *ill-used, then at any risks I *am *determined to go back to her assistance.​Here I have used the present subjunctive, but I have no idea what Conan Doyle would have chosen. In ordinary modern English, of course, you would say "If she is...".

Regardless of whether or not the subjunctive is used, using the past tense (as opposed to the past perfect) for a situation in the past shows that the speaker considered her being ill-used to be a real possibility at the time, and I don't think anything can be inferred from the use of the subjunctive apart from it being the way Conan Doyle wrote.


----------



## tunaafi

Uncle Jack said:


> Future possibility: I think that if it rains tomorrow, we will play indoors.​Future unlikelihood: I think that if it were to rain tomorrow, we would play indoors.​Past possibility: I thought that if it rained the following day, we would play indoors.​Past unlikelihood: I thought that if it had rained the following day, we would have played indoors.​​


I think we are on tricky ground here,

I'd put the original thoughts as:

1. (Future possibility) If it rains tomorrow, we will play indoors.
2. (Future less likely possibility) If it rained/were to rain tomorrow, we would play indoors.
3. (Past counterfactual) If it had rained yesterday, we would have played indoors.

These are reported (for example, a week later) as
1a. I thought that if it rained the following day, we would play indoors.
2a. I thought that if it rained/were to rain the following day, we would play indoors.
3a. I thought that if it had rained the previous day, we would have played indoors.

In reported speech, we cannot backshift a second conditional form, because this would transform it into a third conditional which would transform an unlikely situation into a counterfactual situation, something different. Unfortunately this means that we cannot tell the difference between reported first and second conditionals. One way round this problem is to re-word the unlikely condition, for example,_ I thought that in the unlikely event of rain the following day, we would play indoors_.
We cannot backshift a third conditional, because we have to 'past-er' tenses.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, teddy, Jack and tuna.


se16teddy said:


> I think everybody has said that this sentence sounds old-fashioned.


Sorry, I didn’t mean this (op) sentence. I mean if the general usage of subjunctive “were” to indicate the speaker’s uncertainty is common in modern English? I think kentix and GWB suggest this kind of usage (of subjunctive were) was OK and common in modern English.


Uncle Jack said:


> If you want to express something unreal or hypothetical, or even very unlikely, you don't do so merely by using the subjunctive, but also by backshifting the verb:


But the topic sentence doesn’t express something unreal or hypothetical, or even very unlikely, does it? 


Uncle Jack said:


> shows that the speaker considered her being ill-used to be a real possibility at the time


So do you agree that the the subjunctive “were” in op expresses speaker’s uncertainty?


Uncle Jack said:


> Regardless of whether or not the subjunctive is used,


So do you mean we can just substitute indicative “was” for the subjunctive “were” in op sentence without changing the meaning?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> But the topic sentence doesn’t express something unreal or hypothetical, or even very unlikely, does it?


I agree, which is precisely why I don't think the subjunctive in this sentence has got anything to do with uncertainty. I think it merely reflects Conan Doyle's style of writing.


thetazuo said:


> So do you mean we can just substitute indicative “was” for the subjunctive “were” in op sentence without changing the meaning?


I am not sure we would use this construction at all in modern English. Perhaps it might be rendered something like this:
I clambered out upon the sill, but I hesitated to jump until I* had heard* what passed between my savior and the ruffian who pursued me. If *he ill-used her*, then at any risk I was determined to go back to her assistance.​"Pursued" could use the past perfect as well.

I think the real problem with using "ill-used" in the passive voice is that it looks very much as if "ill-used" is an adjective, which in the context does not make sense (the speaker is certainly describing an action that may or may not take place, rather than a state that may or may not exist). However, although it does not make sense, I find that "ill-used" being an adjective is the interpretation I automatically try to place on it. Partly, I think, this is down to the use of "were". While we are familiar with the subjunctive "were" as a linking verb ("If I were you...", for example), it is far less familiar as an auxiliary verb. However, as soon as you start to think about what the sentence actually means, and that "ill-used" can only be a verb, there seems to be no justification for using the passive voice at all, since the potential perpetrator is known.

Perhaps the passive voice was used more in Victorian English; it is not something I have thought about before.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you for the response.


Uncle Jack said:


> I agree, which is precisely why I don't think the subjunctive in this sentence has got anything to do with uncertainty. I think it merely reflects Conan Doyle's style of writing.


Oh, so you don’t agree with kentix and GWB, do you?


Uncle Jack said:


> Regardless of whether or not the subjunctive is used, using the past tense (as opposed to the past perfect) for a situation in the past shows that the speaker considered her being ill-used to be a *real possibility* at the time,


I thought you meant either “was” or “were” could be used in the topic sentence. And doesn’t “real possibility” suggest “(I was) uncertain about what would happen”?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> I thought you meant either “was” or “were” could be used in the topic sentence.


In Conan Doyle's time, possibly, but I would not use the subjunctive in modern English.


thetazuo said:


> And doesn’t “real possibility” suggest “(I was) uncertain about what would happen”?


Exactly. The person was uncertain, which is why the verb tense is the same as you would find in an ordinary sentence, rather than being backshifted to denote a hypothetical, counterfactual or unlikely event.

Note that, while I disagree with tunaafi, he does make a good point about whether you would report a type 2 conditional using the past tense or the past perfect; personally I think using the past perfect to report a type 2 conditional is fine, but I can understand why other people may be reluctant to do so. However I don't see how this particular sentence could ever be a type 2 conditional.


----------



## kentix

_If she *were* ill-used, then at any risks I was determined to go back to her assistance. _

In this sentence, I don't have that problem of ill-used seeming to be an adjective. For me it always meant "If she were subjected to bad treatment..."

I agree the overall sentence (and the one before) are old-fashioned (for more than one reason) and Uncle Jack's rewrite seems much closer to a modern version that you'd expect to read.

I don't know from first hand experience but I've definitely heard that the subjunctive is much more common in American English. The way it's used here in the U.S. seems to be personal choice as often as not, with both forms being heard.

_1) If she were ever in trouble, I would definitely help her.
2) If she was ever in trouble, I would definitely help her._

In the U.S. you will find both of those sentences used. 1) might be the version your English teacher tells you is correct and 2) might be the way that a lot of your friends say it. My guess is that the people who are more highly educated and care about that sort of thing would tend to use 1) more often than the people who aren't in that group.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

se16teddy said:


> My impression (for what it is worth) is that in Early Modern English the current "type 1-2-3" structure of conditional sentences did not exist[...]


It doesn't 'exist' now.

It's simply a useful tool for learners, to teach them the sequence of tenses in certain common sorts of conditional sentence.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you all.


Uncle Jack said:


> I agree, which is precisely why I don't think the subjunctive in this sentence has got anything to do with uncertainty.





Uncle Jack said:


> Exactly. The person was uncertain, which is why the verb tense is the same as you would find in an ordinary sentence, rather than being backshifted to denote a hypothetical, counterfactual or unlikely event.


If it isn’t the subjunctive “were” that expresses uncertainty, then what part of the sentence expresses uncertainty?


GreenWhiteBlue said:


> No, that is precisely why the subjunctive form "were" is more suitable.


It seems that GWB thinks it’s the subjunctive “were” that expresses uncertainty.  Or maybe I misunderstand him.


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> If it isn’t the subjunctive “were” that expresses uncertainty, then what part of the sentence expresses uncertainty?


The word "if".


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you.


kentix said:


> "If he were to abuse her..." This is a possibility not a certainty. He knows the answer now but he knows his previous self didn't know the answer. Hence the use of "were". It denotes his knowledge of the man on the sill's lack of knowledge of what would happen next.





GreenWhiteBlue said:


> No, that is precisely why the subjunctive form "were" is more suitable.
> 
> No, that is not what it suggests.  The subjunctive can be used with things that are hypothetical, *uncertain*, or demanded, and not merely with things that are unlikely.


Then how would you make of the above two comments? Do they mean the subjunctive “were” can express “uncertainty”?

PS: As a matter of fact, I learned from this thread that subjunctive “were” can indicate uncertainty in certain context, even in modern English. But that usage doesn’t seem to bear on the topic sentence in this thread.
If that <were> true the murderer must have dropped some part of his dress,


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

thetazuo said:


> I think kentix and GWB suggest this kind of usage (of subjunctive were) was OK and common in modern English.


While the subjunctive "were" is certainly used in modern American English, even though it is uncommon in British English, I never made any statement of the kind you attribute to me.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, GWB.


GreenWhiteBlue said:


> While the subjunctive "were" is certainly used in modern American English, even though it is uncommon in British English, I never made any statement of the kind you attribute to me.


I see. Sorry for having done that. So do you really think the subjunctive “were” can express “uncertainty”, as I asked in post #23?


----------



## kentix

What does everyone think of this sentence?

_Were he to get in trouble, I would certainly help him._


----------



## Uncle Jack

kentix said:


> What does everyone think of this sentence?
> 
> _Were he to get in trouble, I would certainly help him._


In isolation, it is absolutely fine, but what time are you talking about here?

I read that the possibility of his getting into trouble is something that exists in the present or may occur in the future. You think this unlikely and so have used the past tense rather than the present tense:
If he gets into trouble, I will certainly help him.​
As soon as you change the present tense to the past tense in this way, the subjunctive can be used, even in BrE. However, I don't see that this is the case with the original sentence in this thread, where the past tense is used to describe something in the past, not something in the present/future.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

thetazuo said:


> So do you really think the subjunctive “were” can express “uncertainty”, as I asked in post #23?


Since I already gave you the answer to this in post #8, I do not understand why you are asking me this question now.


----------



## thetazuo

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> Since I already gave you the answer to this in post #8, I do not understand why you are asking me this question now.


Sorry, my English is not very good so I don’t always completely understand your explanations. For example, I wrongly thought you were suggesting this use of “were” was common in modern English. So I ask for clarification.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

thetazuo said:


> For example, I wrongly thought you were suggesting this use of “were” was common in modern English. So I ask for clarification.


I don't know why you would have thought that, since I never mentioned the words "common" or "modern English", which is why I wrote what I wrote in post #24.  As it so happens, the use of the subjunctive "were" is very common in modern American English, and I would never dream of suggesting anything to the contrary.  On the other hand, I believe it is uncommon in modern British English.  I do not understand why it is necessary for me to keep repeating this, as I think my statements here have been very clear.

However, that is not what you asked.  What you said was "So do you really think the subjunctive “were” can express “uncertainty”, as I asked in post #23?"  I had already answered that question in post #8 above, and my answer has not changed.


----------



## kentix

kentix said:


> What does everyone think of this sentence?
> 
> _Were he to get in trouble, I would certainly help him._


To me this seems like an example of uncertainty/hypothetical-ness that is fully expressed without an explicit "if".


----------



## thetazuo

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> However, that is not what you asked. What you said was "So do you really think the subjunctive “were” can express “uncertainty”, as I asked in post #23?" I had already answered that question in post #8 above, and my answer has not changed.


I apologize if my repeating my questions annoy you, GWB. But this is what I have inferred from your answer in post #8:
You think subjunctive “were” can suggest uncertainty, so you don’t agree with others except kentix.


kentix said:


> To me this seems like an example of uncertainty/hypothetical-ness that is fully expressed without an explicit "if".


Is it a comparable example of the op example?

And is the topic sentence free indirect speech? Or just reported speech?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> And is the topic sentence free indirect speech? Or just reported speech?


The quote in the OP forms part of direct speech (which is a form of reported speech), which carries on for several paragraphs as you can tell from the quotation marks at the beginning of each paragraph in the original text (none of these quotation marks fall within the short extract you have quoted). What the speaker is talking about concerns the past, and although I have sometimes mentioned what the speaker must have thought at the time they were out on the window sill, this has been more to show what the person meant by the sentence in your quote. I have compared this reporting of the person's thoughts at the time to indirect and direct speech, to try to make this shifting of viewpoint understandable, but there is not really such a thing as direct and indirect thought.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

thetazuo said:


> Is the underlined sentence an open past conditional where the speaker doubts whether she is ill-used or not and the subjunctive “were” is used to emphasize his uncertainty?


It's not an open past conditional, because the speaker isn't talking about the past, but about potential future action, as he hangs from the sill.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, Jack and TT.


Thomas Tompion said:


> It's not an open past conditional, because the speaker isn't talking about the past, but about potential future action, as he hangs from the sill.


After reading through all the comments, now I know that it isn’t. It is an open future-in-the-past conditional, right?


----------



## boozer

thetazuo said:


> Thank you, Jack and TT.
> 
> After reading through all the comments, now I know that it isn’t. It is an open future-in-the-past conditional, right?


It is some sort of open conditional narrated in the past tense. Just like the whole book, I presume.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, boozer.


----------



## thetazuo

kentix said:


> To me this seems like an example of uncertainty/hypothetical-ness that is fully expressed without an explicit "if".


Hi, kentix. Do you think both “_*Were he to get* in trouble, I would certainly help him.” _and “_*Were* he in trouble, I would certainly help him._” can mean the same by expressing uncertainty about future?


----------



## thetazuo

And is it OK to say “If she *were to be* ill-used, then at any risks I was determined to go back to her assistance.” in the original context? If it is, would it express the uncertainty better?

Thank you.


----------



## PaulQ

thetazuo said:


> is it OK to say “If she *were to be* ill-used, then ...


That was my first thought when I read it. It would however, restrict the meaning to the future.

The subjunctive can be seen as tenseless as we are talking about a hypothetical time. I don't know the context, but one assumes that if he had seen that she had been abused, he still would have been determined to go back to her assistance.”


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> And is it OK to say “If she *were to be* ill-used, then at any risks I was determined to go back to her assistance.” in the original context? If it is, would it express the uncertainty better?
> 
> Thank you.


You could write (or rather, Conan Doyle could have written in the English of the nineteenth century), "If she were to be ill-used, then at any risks I was determined to go back to her assistance", but I don't see this expressing any different level of certainty from the original; what it might do is make the potential sequence of events a little clearer.

The speaker is not expressing uncertainty and they are not discussing a hypothetical situation. What the speaker is describing is a very real and present danger (to use a modern expression) that existed in the past. The key to this is not the subjunctive "were", but the ordinary past tense "was" in the next clause:

If she is ill-used, then I am determined to go back to her assistance. [Her possible ill-use is in the immediate future]
If she is to be ill-used, then I am determined to back to her assistance. [Her possible ill-use is in the future]
If she was ill-used, then I was determined to go back to her assistance. [Her possible ill-use is in the past, about the time being described]
If she was to be ill-used, then I was determined to go back to her assistance. [Her possible ill-use is in the future relative to the time being described.
Having written this, I am not sure that (2) - and by extension (4) - work. It makes more sense to me to use "will be" rather than "am" in sentence (2), and so "would be" rather than "was" should be used in sentence (4).


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, Paul and Jack.


Uncle Jack said:


> The speaker is not expressing uncertainty and they are not discussing a hypothetical situation.


Do you mean the subjunctive “were (to be)” expresses a real future possibility here? I’m a bit surprised. 
(And I was previously told by kentix and GWB that the original sentence is about the speaker’s uncertainty about whether she was going to be ill-used or not. So you don’t agree with them?)


----------



## Uncle Jack

Of course the sentence expresses uncertainty - the speaker did not know what was going to happen, which is why he waited on the window-sill, but expressing uncertainty does not require the subjunctive; all my sentences in post #41 express uncertainty.

The subjunctive may be used to express unlikelihood, but that is clearly not the case here. I don't think the context has yet been laid out in this thread, so I will do so here.

This part of the book is a long narration, in direct speech, by a Mr. Victor Hatherley, recounting to Holmes and Watson his recent experiences. Here he is is telling of his escape from certain death, assisted by a woman. She has just pointed out to him the way of escape, through a window on the other side of the room, but the sudden appearance of his erstwhile captor, Colonel Lysander Stark "rushing forward with a lantern in one hand and a weapon like a butcher’s cleaver in the other", made the speaker rush towards the window, being the only way of saving himself. Nevertheless, he waited on the window-sill, before jumping, to make sure that the woman would come to no harm herself.

The Colonel knew that the woman had helped Hatherley escape and, having seen the Colonel in a rage and carrying a meat cleaver come rushing towards them, I imagine that Hatherley thought the woman was in very real danger, not that he thought it unlikely.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

thetazuo said:


> [...]
> Do you mean the subjunctive “were (to be)” expresses a real future possibility here? I’m a bit surprised.
> (And I was previously told by kentix and GWB that the original sentence is about the speaker’s uncertainty about whether she was going to be ill-used or not. So you don’t agree with them?)


It's not a question of uncertainty, but of the speaker's presentation of a choice of action in the face of alternative outcomes.

In the outcome he considered here Fritz attacks Elise and he climbs back into the room to protect here.  In the event, of course, Fritz struck Mr Hatherley's fingers and he fell into the garden.

So it's misleading to say that the subjunctive represents uncertainty in Mr Hatherley's mind, when it is the way he presents to himself a possible outcome and how he would respond to it.  He's not saying he didn't know what would happen next - of course he didn't - but that if X happened next he would do Y.

When you say 'If it were fine the following day, I would take the dog for a walk', certainly you were unsure about the weather the following day, but the key point is that you were considering how you would react in the event of a particular possible outcome.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you very much, Jack and TT.
So do you think it’s the usage of the subjunctive “were (to be)” to refer to a real future possibility that is old-fashioned?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

thetazuo said:


> Thank you very much, Jack and TT.
> So do you think it’s the usage of the subjunctive “were (to be)” to refer to a real future possibility that is old-fashioned?


The possibility is a future-in-the-past.  Hatherley thought Fritz might attack Elise; this was a very real fear and that's why he didn't jump into the garden immediately.

The subjunctive is no more expressive of uncertainty than is the present tense (comes) in 'If she comes, we will see her'.


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> Thank you very much, Jack and TT.
> So do you think it’s the usage of the subjunctive “were (to be)” to refer to a real future possibility that is old-fashioned?


No. It is a real *past *possibility. The entire narration is in the past tense, and the speaker does not break out of using the past tense to describe this possibility which was, at the time, actually in the immediate future. It has the meaning of my sentence (3) in post #41, which has the same sense in the past as sentence (1) has in the present.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

thetazuo said:


> So do you think it’s the usage of the subjunctive “were (to be)” to refer to a real future possibility that is old-fashioned?


Who said it was 'old fashioned'?  I wouldn't agree with that view.

Some people might prefer to use the indicative now, but many would stick with the subjunctive.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you again, Jack and TT.


Thomas Tompion said:


> Who said it was 'old fashioned'?  I wouldn't agree with that view.
> 
> Some people might prefer to use the indicative now, but many would stick with the subjunctive.





se16teddy said:


> I think everybody has said that this sentence sounds old-fashioned.


I also think everybody has said that this sentence sounds old-fashioned.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

thetazuo said:


> I also think everybody has said that this sentence sounds old-fashioned.


Then it shouldn't be hard to find instances.  Why haven't you given us any?

Teddy, without saying it himself, said that everybody had said it, at a time when I think only Kentix had done so.  It's rather a splendid technique that, trying to get consensus by just saying it exists.  Politicians do it much of the time.

'Everybody' includes me and several other members who haven't said this, though you have yourself repeatedly asked about it.  We should have given you a more emphatic answer earlier.

Insofar as you are asking if the use of the subjunctive here is old-fashioned, I certainly wouldn't say it was.  Certainly not in British English and I'm not qualified to comment on American.

The expression 'at any risks' is not usual today (cf ngram) - there are no uses of it in the British Corpus  - and that may add a period flavour to the sentence.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you again for your confirmation, TT.


Thomas Tompion said:


> Then it shouldn't be hard to find instances. Why haven't you given us any?


For instance, Jack said it was old-fashioned, though he didn’t use this word.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

thetazuo said:


> Thank you again for your confirmation, TT.
> 
> For instance, Jack said it was old-fashioned, though he didn’t use this word.


I didn't say that nobody said this, just that it's not true that that everybody has said it.

You seemed to wish the usage to be old-fashioned; I don't know why.


----------



## Uncle Jack

I cannot imagine the sentence being said at all like this in modern English.

Using the past indicative is possible, as I have mentioned earlier, but the whole of this pair of sentences sounds very Victorian to me. "Until I should have heard" instead of "until I had heard" and the passive voice in "If she were ill-used" I have mentioned before in post #16. If a modern speaker were to retain the passive voice, then I think they would at least use a form of future in the past, rather than the simple past tense:
I hesitated to jump until I had heard what passed between my saviour and the ruffian who pursued me. If she was going to be ill-used, then at any risk I was determined to go back to her assistance.​
Perhaps people might use "were going" instead of "was going" here; personally I don't think it makes a lot of difference, and I don't think that use of the subjunctive "were" in the original has any significance other than Conan Doyle's using the subjunctive in such situations.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

thetazuo said:


> [...]
> So do you think it’s the usage of the subjunctive “were (to be)” to refer to a real future possibility that is old-fashioned?


The question is based on a false premise.  That usage is not at all old-fashioned.

The British Corpus is full of examples of it.  Here's one from Doris Lessing:

_Besides, if she were caught, it would be bad for the Cause._  The Good Terrorist, Grafton Books, London, 1986.

Look for yourself, Thetazuo.  You'll soon see that the form is extremely usual in good modern British writing.

I've deliberately chosen an example using the passive voice, to stay close to the original.  There are many other excellent examples of that form.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Thomas Tompion said:


> _Besides, if she were caught, it would be bad for the Cause._ The Good Terrorist, Grafton Books, London, 1986.


But surely this sentence concerns the present/future (or is timeless) and is an ordinary type 2 conditional.

The original sentence is set in the past.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Uncle Jack said:


> But surely this sentence concerns the present/future (or is timeless) and is an ordinary type 2 conditional.
> 
> The original sentence is set in the past.


As I remember it, this is also set in the past.  She is describing her feelings in the past, about the dangers of becoming a terrorist.

And, anyway, if she isn't, she might be, surely?


----------



## Uncle Jack

Thomas Tompion said:


> And, anyway, if she isn't, she might be, surely?


It is the "it would be bad" that leads me to think it is set in the present (the historical present, perhaps, if the events are in the past). I don't know the book, and a web search did not produce an online text.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Uncle Jack said:


> It is the "it would be bad" that leads me to think it is set in the present (the historical present, perhaps, if the events are in the past). I don't know the book, and a web search did not produce an online text.


I must say I think the sentence could easily come in a past-tense narration, like the Conan Doyle.

However, if you don't like it, let's try another example, slightly longer, to show that we are unequivocally in the past; there is no shortage:

_The wrong he had proposed weighed in Cati's stomach like undigested food; Rosalba couldn't possibly do what he asked, it would be madness, if she were found out, God knows what would happen. _The Lost Father. Marina Warner, London: Picador, 1989.

_It was then he saw the approaching gendarme. For a moment he thought the gendarme had seen the incident and he instinctively gripped the holdall tighter. He would have a lot of explaining to do if he were asked to open it._ Death train. Alastair MacNeill, London: Fontana Press, 1989.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you for your responses and examples.


Thomas Tompion said:


> You seemed to wish the usage to be old-fashioned; I don't know why.


Why would I?  
In fact, I’m glad to learn that this usage of “were” is not old-fashioned. How frustrated would I be if I was told an expression I kept asking about was old-fashioned (or even obsolete) and that using it in modern English would sound odd?


Thomas Tompion said:


> When you say 'If it were fine the following day, I would take the dog for a walk', certainly you were unsure about the weather the following day, but the key point is that you were considering how you would react in the event of a particular possible outcome.


By the way, does “If it was fine the following day, I would take the dog for a walk” work?
If it does, is it the same as the “were” version?
Are both “If it was fine the following day” and “If it were fine the following day” real conditions?


----------

