# Assume you were



## lycen

Hi, 

I do not understand why "assume you/I are/am" is commonly used. "Assume" is always referring to a hypothetical situation, shouldn't it be "assume you/I were"?


----------



## LQZ

Hypothetical situation is not conditional. 

_Hypothetical situations are presented as real situations to give them a sense of immediacy, to put the reader in the moment._ 

Hope it helps.


----------



## lycen

LQZ said:


> Hypothetical situation is not conditional.
> 
> _Hypothetical situations are presented as real situations to give them a sense of immediacy, to put the reader in the moment._
> 
> Hope it helps.


 
Thanks, but what you said still refers to a condition/situation that a person is placed in.

Compare these:

"Assume you were a werewolf, what would you do?"
"If you were a werewolf, what would you do?"

"I'm not studying right now, but assuming I were studying now..."
"I'm not studying right now, but if I were studying now..."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

You seem to be assuming that all hypotheticals take the subjunctive, Lycen.

If something could very possibly be the case and the invitation to make the assumption is for something which is taking place now, we use the present indicative without a qualm.

_Assume that I am giving you this advice in the most disinterested way._


----------



## entangledbank

The irrealis ('subjunctive') is used for _remote_ hypotheticals, not all hypotheticals: it is used for hypotheticals that are known not to be true, or considered unlikely to be true. And even then it's optional, grammatically.

In addition, the logic of assuming is that you suppose _that something is true_. Assuming always frames a situation as a vividly possible hypothetical. So we can say 'Assume I am a vampire', or 'Assume I was a vampire', but not (for me, anyway) 'Assume I were a vampire'. The irrealis 'were' is practically incompatible with the nature of assuming.


----------



## wonderwhy

Thomas Tompion said:


> You seem to be assuming that all hypotheticals take the subjunctive, Lycen.



I think that you're also assuming that some subjunctive "ideal" is needed, Lycen. The subjunctive is just a word to describe a few forms left over from older forms of English. It's certainly not the only way to think and talk of doubtful/contrary to fact situations.

Say/Imagine/Pretend/Suppose/... we are/they are scuba diving/skiing/eating sushi/on top of Mt Everest/... .


----------



## lycen

wonderwhy said:


> I think that you're also assuming that some subjunctive "ideal" is needed, Lycen. The subjunctive is just a word to describe a few forms left over from older forms of English. It's certainly not the only way to think and talk of doubtful/contrary to fact situations.
> 
> Say/Imagine/Pretend/Suppose/... we are/they are scuba diving/skiing/eating sushi/on top of Mt Everest/... .


 
Interesting.

Can I say then "Assume you were", "Imagine we were" etc. are grammatically incorrect then? There's still a substantial number of people using the subjuntive for such and it's confusing me as I normally say "Imagine we are". Can we say "Imagine we are vampires"?

Is the usage of subjunctive only relegated to "wishes" and "if" conditionals as archaic remains of Old English?


----------



## cuchuflete

lycen said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Can I say then "Assume you were", "Imagine we were" etc. are grammatically incorrect then? There's still a substantial number of people using the subjuntive for such and it's confusing me as I normally say "Imagine we are". Can we say "Imagine we are vampires"?



Yes, you may say those things.  They are grammatically correct.  Whether you choose the indicative or the subjunctive should depend on the idea you wish to convey, and whether it is likely, possible, or farfetched.



> Is the usage of subjunctive only relegated to "wishes" and "if" conditionals as archaic remains of Old English?


 The subjunctive is still, despite misguided rumors of its death, in widespread use, at least in AE.  Most AE speakers have little concern for its origin in the "archaic remains of Old English".  It is used because it communicates some ideas with greater precision than the indicative could without adding extra words.

_If you were a native speaker you might use the subjunctive without even knowing that it is called the subjunctive, or one of the other newfangled names some linguists prefer in their own insular jargon.

_Try saying that with _was _in place of_ were. _It would sound awful.


----------



## bhaisahab

cuchuflete said:


> Yes, you may say those things.  They are grammatically correct.  Whether you choose the indicative or the subjunctive should depend on the idea you wish to convey, and whether it is likely, possible, or farfetched.
> 
> The subjunctive is still, despite misguided rumors of its death, in widespread use, at least in AE.  Most AE speakers have little concern for its origin in the "archaic remains of Old English".  It is used because it communicates some ideas with greater precision than the indicative could without adding extra words.
> 
> _If you were a native speaker you might use the subjunctive without even knowing that it is called the subjunctive, or one of the other newfangled names some linguists prefer in their own insular jargon.
> 
> _Try saying that with _was _in place of_ were. _It would sound awful.



The subjunctive mood is very much alive in BrE.


----------



## wonderwhy

lycen said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Can I say then "Assume you were", "Imagine we were" etc. are grammatically incorrect then? There's still a substantial number of people using the subjuntive for such and it's confusing me as I normally say "Imagine we are". Can we say "Imagine we are vampires"?



I don't think it's a matter of grammatical correctness, Lycen. It's semantically unnecessary, but I don't see how a redundancy such as this could be confusing, a bit jarring perhaps, if one isn't accustomed to such a collocation.

I've never found the use of archaic forms of English to cause me or those around me any confusion; 

Fare thee well/ Holier than thou attitude/ ...

Did you read what Entangledbank wrote? I think he/she covered it adequately.



> entangledbank: So we can say 'Assume I am a vampire', or 'Assume I was a vampire', but not (for me, anyway) 'Assume I were a vampire'. The irrealis 'were' is practically incompatible with the nature of assuming.



[Phew, just made it under the four line limit]

Interesting, the use of indicative 'was', to state what is obviously a contrary to fact but, to entangledbank and me, at the least, 'were' sounds what, odd, overblown, excessively redundant? 



lycen said:


> Is the usage of subjunctive only relegated to "wishes" and "if" conditionals as archaic remains of Old English?



It's part of an older system but it's still a modern use. I'm sure there are others better versed in its history if you want more background.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

cuchuflete said:


> [...]
> _If you were a native speaker you might use the subjunctive without even knowing that it is called the subjunctive, or one of the other newfangled names some linguists prefer in their own insular jargon._
> 
> Try saying that with _was _in place of_ were. _It would sound awful.


You've got me worried now, Cuchu.  I agree it would sound awful.  After all there are no circumstances I can think of in which careful speakers say _'you was'_.

If the Bedel was to consider a different example, it might not sound so dreadful, to some ears at least.


----------



## cuchuflete

Fear not, Thomas.  There are places where the indicative works best, however distant the thought may be from reality.

I WISH I WUZ (HI, HO, FIDDLE DEE DEE)
I wish I was a swingin', clingin' vine
...
I wish I was an apple on a tree

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...+"if+i+was+an+apple"&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

If Rosemary Clooney was/were around to sing it, we would not rise up in unison, clamouring for a change of verbs.  As Great Uncle Wilbur used to say, never try to hop aboard that irry alice thing in mid-lyric.


----------



## JamesM

Perhaps there is more of a difference here between BE and AE than we think. I find it perfectly natural to say:

I know you aren't going on the trip, but assume you were; what would you do?

It sounds odd to me to say:

I know you aren't going on the trip, but assume you are; what would (will?) you do?


Depending on the context I would use subjunctive or indicative:

"Assuming I am invited to the party, I would/will be happy to take you there."

(I am not invited yet, but may still be invited before the party happens.  If I am, I would be happy to take you to the party.)

"Assuming I were invited to the party, I would be happy to take you there."

(I am not invited yet and don't expect to be. If the universe shifts and this person invites me to the party unexpectedly, I would be happy to take you to the party.)


----------



## wonderwhy

cuchuflete said:


> Yes, you may say those things.  They are grammatically correct.  Whether you choose the indicative or the subjunctive should depend on the idea you wish to convey, and whether it is likely, possible, or farfetched.



Good point, Cuchuflete, ... I think, up to a point. Does "Imagine we were on Neptune" convey a greater degree of farfetchedness than "Imagine we are on Neptune"?




cuchuflete said:


> The subjunctive is still, despite misguided rumors of its death, in widespread use, at least in AE.  Most AE speakers have little concern for its origin in the "archaic remains of Old English".  It is used because it communicates some ideas with greater precision than the indicative could without adding extra words.



I don't believe anyone has made the case that the particular subjunctive form were' is dead. The issue is that it is part of an older system that is, at present, pretty much dead, [much like the old case system] and it's unlikely to be resurrected. 



cuchuflete said:


> _If you were a native speaker you might use the subjunctive without even knowing that it is called the subjunctive, or one of the other newfangled names some linguists prefer in their own insular jargon.
> 
> _Try saying that with _was _in place of_ were. _It would sound awful.



Are you offering "sounding awful", as support for the idea that the subjunctive communicates ideas better than the indicative 'was'?

'If I was you' communicates the fact that I'm not you just as precisely as "If I were you". 

Putting 'was' in your example certainly is nonstandard, and I would agree, uncommon, but it's uncommon for a very good reason, native speakers don't use that particular collocation.


----------



## wonderwhy

JamesM said:


> Perhaps there is more of a difference here between BE and AE than we think.



Maybe the problem is more one of "one context blindness", James. I must admit to that affliction in this thread.




JamesM said:


> I find it perfectly natural to say:
> 
> I know you aren't going on the trip, but assume you were; what would you do?
> 
> It sounds odd to me to say:
> 
> I know you aren't going on the trip, but assume you are; what would (will?) you do?



Could using 'were' rather than 'are' not be just a more polite, more deferential manner of inquiry? Is this a subjunctive use or a "please allow such and such for the sake of this argument", something like, "but assume you actually were"?



JamesM said:


> Depending on the context I would use subjunctive or indicative:
> 
> "Assuming I am invited to the party, I would/will be happy to take you there."
> 
> (I am not invited yet, but may still be invited before the party happens.  If I am, I would be happy to take you to the party.)
> 
> "Assuming I *were *invited to the party, I would be happy to take you there."
> 
> (I am not invited yet and don't expect to be. If the universe shifts and this person invites me to the party unexpectedly, I would be happy to take you to the party.)



Again, is the bolded 'were' actually the subjunctive? What about a 'was', James? How would that strike you?


----------



## cuchuflete

wonderwhy said:


> Good point, Cuchuflete, ... I think, up to a point. Does "Imagine we were on Neptune" convey a greater degree of farfetchedness than "Imagine we are on Neptune"?


 This has the ring of a debater's tactic.  Free from any context, both sound just fine and dandy.  In a given context, either might be superior to the other.  




> I don't believe anyone has made the case that the particular subjunctive form were' is dead. The issue is that it is part of an older system that is, at present, pretty much dead, [much like the old case system] and it's unlikely to be resurrected.


What "older system" might that be, and on what authority have you declared it defunct?



> Are you offering "sounding awful", as support for the idea that the subjunctive communicates ideas better than the indicative 'was'?


  As my post makes obvious to those who are not engaged in setting up straw men, the specific example offered would sound awful with was in place of were.  There are countless other examples in which either might sound good, albeit with the possibility of different meanings for some listeners. 



> 'If I was you' communicates the fact that I'm not you just as precisely as "If I were you".


 It does communicate that you are not me, and does so precisely.
It carries some other baggage as well.



> Putting 'was' in your example certainly is nonstandard, and I would agree, uncommon, but it's uncommon for a very good reason, native speakers don't use that particular collocation.


 That is a fine tautology.  Perhaps you might add that
native speakers don't use it because it is uncommon and non-standard?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Aren't we all agreed that the indicative is

_I was, you were, he was, we were, you were, they were._

And the subjunctive

_I were, you were, he were, we were, you were, they were_?

There is just no place for a _*you was*_ in either system. That's why it sounds awful. I wouldn't call it uncommon or non-standard - that would be to give it some status.

Are we just to assume a different person in the sentence? That's the only way I can see of making many of these remarks work.

It is only in the first and third persons singular that the forms, indicative and subjunctive, differ. Choosing a second person subject pronoun and giving it an inappropriate form of the verb seems a strange way to make a point about the subjunctive/indicative choice.

I'm obviously missing something. You must tell me what it is.


----------



## wonderwhy

cuchuflete said:


> This has the ring of a debater's tactic.  Free from any context, both sound just fine and dandy.  In a given context, either might be superior to the other.



Just a discussion on language, Cuchuflete, that's all. Could you provide such a context?



cuchuflete said:


> What "older system" might that be, and on what authority have you declared it defunct?



The AHD had a fine description but they seem to have been bought out by Yahoo and ready access to that isn't the same. The gist was that older forms of English had a much richer system of subjunctives, but that most of those specific forms have been taken over by other word choices. 

Notice that we don't have subjunctive forms for most subjunctive mood ideas.  

If I live*d* in ...; If I went to ...; If he had grabbed the rope earlier, ...



cuchuflete said:


> As my post makes obvious to those who are not engaged in setting up straw men, the specific example offered would sound awful with was in place of were.  There are countless other examples in which either might sound good, albeit with the possibility of different meanings for some listeners.



It made it obvious to me too and I agreed with you.



cuchuflete said:


> It [if I was you] does communicate that you are not me, and does so precisely.
> It carries some other baggage as well.



None that can't be easily carried by any competent speaker of the language which is, well, any native speaker.



cuchuflete said:


> That is a fine tautology.  Perhaps you might add that native speakers don't use it because it is uncommon and non-standard?



This has nothing to do with nonstandard. I mentioned 'uncommon' and the reason why. It's simply a collocation that isn't in common usage. 

"if I was you" tells us it certainly could be, [EDIT: I take this rumination back; see my last comment] for that is also nonstandard, but there is just something, perhaps, it's not needed near as much ['he' is much more common than 'she'; 'I' is way more common than either 'he' or 'she'; 'will' is way way more common than 'shall' and much more common than other modals]. 

That's what I was getting at. These things often sound "awful" just because they are uncommon. 

Perhaps, it's because using "if you was ..." doesn't follow the process of regularization like "if I was you" does.


----------



## wonderwhy

Thomas Tompion said:


> Aren't we all agreed that the indicative is
> 
> _I was, you were, he was, we were, you were, they were._
> 
> And the subjunctive
> 
> _I were, you were, he were, we were, you were, they were_?
> 
> There is just no place for a _*you was*_ in either system. That's why it sounds awful. I wouldn't call it uncommon or non-standard - that would be to give it some status.



I missed your post while I was writing mine,Thomas, but I agree. That's why I finished my post with, 

"Perhaps, it's because using "if you was ..." doesn't follow the process of regularization like "if I was you" does."

and edited to show that I believe my other idea faulty.




Thomas Tompion said:


> Are we just to assume a different person in the sentence? That's the only way I can see of making many of these remarks work.
> 
> It is only in the first and third persons singular that the forms, indicative and subjunctive, differ. Choosing a second person subject pronoun and giving it an inappropriate form of the verb seems a strange way to make a point about the subjunctive/indicative choice.
> 
> I fully concur.
> 
> I'm obviously missing something. You must tell me what it is.



At this point, me too. And I would also like to hear what it is. 

But I don't want to move too far off the "assume/pretend/say + subjunctive form". It was very interesting.


----------



## JamesM

wonderwhy said:


> Again, is the bolded 'were' actually the subjunctive? What about a 'was', James? How would that strike you?


 
"I were" can only be the subjunctive, as far as I know. It doesn't fall into any other conjugation of the verb.

"Assuming I was invited to the party" sounds like the assumption is that at some point in the past I was invited to the party. The hypothetical part shifts from the possibility of being invited to the possibility that I was invited in the past. It makes the second part of the sentence sound odd to me. 

I know that "I was" is used this way in British English from experiences here on the forum but it sounds unusual to me. I have heard it in American English, too. "Assuming I was interested in buying your car...", for example, would not be unusual to hear in conversation, but I prefer "were" if I'm talking about a hypothetical present or future.

It sets up a different expectation for me:

"Assuming I was ever interested in buying your car, I'm certainly not interested now after hearing it run." (hypothetical past)
"Assuming I were ever interested in buying your car, what do you think you might ask for it?" (hypothetical future)


----------



## panjandrum

wonderwhy said:


> ...
> 
> But I don't want to move too far off the "assume/pretend/say + subjunctive form". It was very interesting.


Thank you for bringing the discussion back to the specific.

"Assume you are/were ..."
Are relates to present; were, to past.

"Pretend you are/were ..."
Are relates to present; were, to past.

"Say you are/were ..."
Are sounds fine; were sounds fine.
This is equivalent to an "if" clause with a probable (are) or contrary-to-fact or unlikely (were) condition.

_Assume _and _pretend _are very different from _say_.  They are directions.
_Say _introduces a hypothesis.

_Assuming _is very different from _assume_.
_Assuming _is equivalent to _If you assume ...,_ or even_ If ..._, and follows all the normal patterns of conditional sentences.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JamesM said:


> [...]
> I know that "I was" is used this way in British English from experiences here on the forum but it sounds unusual to me. I have heard it in American English, too. "Assuming I was interested in buying your car...", for example, would not be unusual to hear in conversation, but I prefer "were" if I'm talking about a hypothetical present or future.
> 
> It sets up a different expectation for me:
> 
> "Assuming I was ever interested in buying your car, I'm certainly not interested now after hearing it run." (hypothetical past)
> "Assuming I were ever interested in buying your car, what do you think you might ask for it?" (hypothetical future)


 
I'm familiar with the AE/BE division of opinion on the was/were choice, mentioned by James, but I think that in BE the expressions have a very similar force to those which he describes here.



panjandrum said:


> Thank you for bringing the discussion back to the specific.
> 
> "Assume you are/were ..."
> Are relates to present; were, to past.
> [...]


If we change this to _Assume I am/were/was_, to allow us to distinguish between the subjunctive and the indicative, I think we can see at once that an important possibility has been omitted, the distinction between _were_ and _was_ drawn by James in his post.

_If I were_ does often refer to a hypothetical future, and also to a hypothetical present, I think. I'm having trouble imagining a context in which it can transmit any past sense.


----------



## lycen

Sorry to bring this up again, but what about "as if" and "like"?

_She commanded me as if she is/were my mum._
_She commanded me like she is/were my mum._

_He threw the ball at me as if I was/were ready._
_He threw the ball at me like I was/were ready._

I have seen "as if" with both indicative as in "as if he has the flu" and "as if she is pretty" and subjunctive.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Hello Lycen,

Some people cannot accept _like_ used as a conjunction, as in your second and fourth examples. I would correct any student who used it like that in an essay, or even in speech.

I wasn't sure what those obliques meant. Are you saying that people might say_ she commanded me as if she is my mum_? I would regard that as sub-standard English.

I'm also surprised at the expression _to have a 'flu_, though I know the expression_ to have the 'flu_.

I'm sorry to raise so many objectcions.


----------



## lycen

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hello Lycen,
> 
> Some people cannot accept _like_ used as a conjunction, as in your second and fourth examples. I would correct any student who used it like that in an essay, or even in speech. (Are you certain about this? It is commonly used e.g. "It is a small colony of pennate diatoms that moves *like* it is one of the latest technology..")
> 
> I wasn't sure what those obliques meant. Are you saying that people might say_ she commanded me as if she is my mum_? I would regard that as sub-standard English.
> 
> I'm also surprised at the expression _to have a 'flu_, though I know the expression_ to have the 'flu_. (a typo error corrected; overlooked it as it wasn't the main purpose of my post)
> 
> I'm sorry to raise so many objectcions.


 
Perhaps these examples would be better:

He talks as if he has been to New York. 
He talks as if he had been to New York.

But I think I've found the answer. Thanks.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

lycen said:


> Perhaps these examples would be better:
> 
> He talks as if he has been to New York.
> He talks as if he had been to New York.
> 
> But I think I've found the answer. Thanks.


That's much more interesting, Lycen.  I think in both cases it's not at all certain whether has actually been there.


----------



## Forero

In sentences where either can occur, the difference between "... he were in New York" and "... he is in New York" is in our level of doubt or revulsion. But even more doubt does not necessarily mean we are sure he is not in New York. Neither does less doubt necessarily mean we are sure that he is in New York. And I don't mean utter revulsion either: a slight feeling of "dubiousness" can be enough to elicit the subjunctive.

In the same sentences, "... he was in New York" could be past indicative or could mean the same as a subjunctive if the idea of doubt or dubiousness is otherwise already expressed:

_I'd be surprised were you to tell me he was in New York as we speak._

I would say "... as though he were in New York" but not "... as though he is in New York"; I would say "... like he is in New York" (except around those who object to _like_ as a conjunction) but not "... like he were in New York"; and I would say either "... as if he were in New York" or "... as if he is in New York", depending on my level of doubt or on how dubious I feel it is that he could be in New York.

To me _assuming_ is just another form of _assume_, which means something like "take as fact". So normally I would use indicative with _assume_/_assuming_, but I can imagine doubt creeping in sometimes, and the subjunctive with it.


----------



## lycen

Another interesting thing to note is:

_He always follows her around as if/ like he *were* her pet._

But if you take "pet" metaphorically ie. he's like a pet, an indicative sounds fine even though it's unreal:

_He always follows her around as if/ like he* is* her pet._


----------



## Forero

Hi, Lycen.

To me:


 They are both metaphorical.
 I would not say "like he were her pet".
_Were_ is more doubtful than _is_.


----------



## lycen

Forero said:


> Hi, Lycen.
> 
> To me:
> 
> 
> They are both metaphorical. (not exactly)
> I would not say "like he were her pet". (what about "as if"?)
> _Were_ is more doubtful than _is_. (agreed)


 
In a metaphor, as I have learned in literature, you would say something *is* something else. E.g. "John *is* a pig" as in John is like a pig (simile). You wouldn't say "John *were* a pig".

_He always follows her around as if he *were* her pet. ("Pet" here is *literal* that's why "were" is used; he isn't a pet- unreal)_

_He always follows her around as if he* is* her pet. ("Pet" here is a *figure of speech* that's why "is" is used; he is a figurative pet)_


----------



## Cagey

I agree with forero; I would not say "_like he were_", though I might say, "_as if he were"_  and possibly I would say "like he _is_ her pet".

(Actually, instead of the last, I would probably say "like a pet".  I am one of those people who do not much like "like" as a conjunction.)

The point is that _as if_ introduces a condition; _like_ used as a conjunction does not.


----------



## owlman5

On Lycen's statement in post #30: This was indeed a simile rather than a metaphor, but both similes and metaphors are metaphorical language.  Forero's use of the term sounds right to me.


----------



## lycen

owlman5 said:


> On Lycen's statement in post #30: This was indeed a simile rather than a metaphor, but both similes and metaphors are metaphorical language. (you are refering to the second example and not comparing the 2 examples given) Forero's use of the term sounds right to me. (he is referring to both examples)


 
The metaphor (and the corresponding simile "he is like her pet) is used only in my second example with indicative "is". Forero refers both "pet" in the examples as metaphorical. Nobody uses for e.g. "He were a pig" or "He were like a pig" because "were" is not needed to show irreality - "pig" here does the job, meaning a figurative pig instead of a literal one. That's why in the first example "pet" is literal and the usage of subjunctive "were" is to highlight the irreality of a man being a literal pet. 

Sorry, I don't know what are you getting at.


----------



## owlman5

lycen said:


> In a metaphor, as I have learned in literature, you would say something *is* something else. E.g. "John *is* a pig" as in John is like a pig (simile). You wouldn't say "John *were* a pig".
> 
> _He always follows her around as if he *were* her pet. ("Pet" here is *literal* that's why "were" is used; he isn't a pet- unreal)_
> 
> _He always follows her around as if he* is* her pet. ("Pet" here is a *figure of speech* that's why "is" is used; he is a figurative pet)_





Forero said:


> Hi, Lycen.
> 
> To me:
> 
> 
> They are both metaphorical.
> I would not say "like he were her pet".
> _Were_ is more doubtful than _is_.





lycen said:


> The metaphor (and the corresponding simile "he is like her pet) is used only in my second example with indicative "is". Forero refers both "pet" in the examples as metaphorical. Nobody uses for e.g. "He were a pig" or "He were like a pig" because "were" is not needed to show irreality - "pig" here does the job, meaning a figurative pig instead of a literal one. That's why in the first example "pet" is literal and the usage of subjunctive "were" is to highlight the irreality of a man being a literal pet.
> 
> Sorry, I don't know what are you getting at.


I thought you had some disagreement with Forero's statement that "they are both metaphorical".  If you didn't, then I misunderstood your first remark in this statement: In a metaphor, as I have learned in literature, you would say something *is* something else. 

I was just remarking that both similes and metaphors can be called "metaphorical language".


----------



## Forero

In "... as if he is her pet" ("... as if he were her pet"), the way he follows her around is being compared to the way a pet follows (would/might follow) its owner around. In reality he is neither really hers nor really a pet, so "her pet" may be two metaphors.

He follows her around ...

... as her pet. [metaphor(s)]
... as a pet follows its owner. [simile]
... as her pet does. [simile]
... as her pet would/might (if she had a pet). [simile with conditional (and subjunctive)]
... seeming to be her pet. [simile with infinitive containing metaphor(s)]
 ... as if to be her pet. [simile with infinitive containing metaphor(s)]
... as if he is her pet. [simile with comparison clause containing metaphor(s)]
... as (he would) if he were her pet. [simile with (conditional) comparison clause in subjunctive containing metaphor(s)]

The use of subjunctive in this context adds little to the meaning. I might use subjunctive to show that I feel the way he follows her around is silly or disgusting or illogical, and I might use indicative to show that I think she has a loyal friend or that I think his following her around is cute.


----------



## lycen

Forero said:


> In "... as if he is her pet" ("... as if he were her pet"), the way he follows her around is being compared to the way a pet follows (would/might follow) its owner around. In reality he is neither really hers nor really a pet, so "her pet" may be two metaphors.
> 
> He follows her around ...
> 
> ... as her pet. [metaphor(s)]
> ... as a pet follows its owner. [simile]
> ... as her pet does. [simile]
> ... as her pet would/might (if she had a pet). [simile with conditional (and subjunctive)]
> ... seeming to be her pet. [simile with infinitive containing metaphor(s)]
> ... as if to be her pet. [simile with infinitive containing metaphor(s)]
> ... as if he is her pet. [simile with comparison clause containing metaphor(s)]
> ... as (he would) if he were her pet. [simile with (conditional) comparison clause in subjunctive containing* metaphor*(s)] I'm having difficulty in seeing any metaphor here. The "pet" is very literal to me, as literal as in "If I were really a vampire (literally a vampire)"
> 
> The use of subjunctive in this context adds little to the meaning. I might use subjunctive to show that I feel the way he follows her around is silly or disgusting or illogical, and I might use indicative to show that I think she has a loyal friend or that I think his following her around is cute.


 
Well, I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Forero

A pet is not usually human but some other species, for example a little dog.


----------



## lycen

Forero said:


> A pet is not usually human but some other species, for example a little dog. Not to be crude, but are you insulting my intelligence? A vampire is not usually human but a type of undead present in fiction.


 
Hence the use of subjunctive "were" to describe the irreality. If it were a metaphor, there wouldn't be a need to use "were" because the metaphor per se has already expressed irreality(as in telling you it is a figure of speech and not to be taken literally). An indicative is used instead.


----------



## Forero

No insult intended. My dictionary lists two other definitions of _pet_ before the one that applies to other species, but I don't interpret this sentence, with _is_ or with _were_, with either of the other definitions. To me, _pet_ used for a person is a metaphor.

_As if_ is a phrase that can make a simile out of a metaphor, but the use of the subjunctive does not. I don't know whether subjunctive makes a metaphor into something else, but in my view it does not turn it into a simile.

There is very little difference between _is_ and _were_ in this context.


----------



## lycen

Forero said:


> No insult intended. My dictionary lists two other definitions of _pet_ before the one that applies to other species, but I don't interpret this sentence, with _is_ or with _were_, with either of the other definitions. To me, _pet_ used for a person is a metaphor.
> 
> _As if_ is a phrase that can make a simile out of a metaphor, but the use of the subjunctive does not. I don't know whether subjunctive makes a metaphor into something else, but in my view it does not turn it into a simile. I was not talking anything about turning a simile to metaphor and vice versa. I was simply asking whether the indicative "is" can be used in the example too because "pet" in "..he is her pet" can be seen as a metaphorical one. The "pet" in "..he were her pet" I understand it as literal but a human cannot really be a pet. Thus, subjunctive is used to express unreality of a human truly and literally being a pet.
> 
> There is very little difference between _is_ and _were_ in this context.


 Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

_He *followed* her as if he *was*_ (or _*were*_) _her pet_ - I can't see a problem here, Lycen.  You'd use _was_ or _were_ to shade a meaning of how probable it is that he is her pet.

_He *followed* her as if he *is* her pet_ - I couldn't say this in BE.

_He *follows* her as if he *is* her pet_ - no problem.


----------



## velisarius

Not that this has anything to do with the question, but I hate to see this false argument being used justify the use of the unreal past tense in an if-clause. 



cuchuflete said:


> _If you were a native speaker you might use the subjunctive without even knowing that it is called the subjunctive, or one of the other newfangled names some linguists prefer in their own insular jargon._
> 
> *Try saying that with was in place of were. It would sound awful.*



Oh dear, it would indeed sound awful - because the past indicative form of _If you were..._ happens to be _If you were..., _not "If you was..." _ _

The past "subjunctive" of the verb _be_ is detectable only in the first and third persons singular, where (indicative) _was_ is replaced by _were_:

_If I were a rich man... 
If he were the King of Spain..._

In the third person singular, the simple past indicative doesn't sound at all awful to my British ear: 

_If he was a native speaker of BE, he might use the indicative in informal speech.

_


----------

