[A note to the visiting reader: There's nothing idiosyncratic or unusual about making a distinction between "If I were" and "If I was." Countless speakers and writers make this distinction, and explanations of it can be found in numerous writing handbooks (the kind of book usually used in a college writing class). I've tried to make an explanation of the distinction that's engaging and memorable. Happy reading and writing.]
A reader asked in an e-mail if I could explain when to use "if I were" and "if I was." Here are some examples to make the difference clear:
"If I were" (the past subjunctive) is appropriate in stating conditions that are contrary to fact:
If I were a bell, I'd go ding dong ding dong ding. (Frank Loesser)Each of the above sentences states a condition that is not the case: I'm not a bell, not a carpenter, not a rich man.
If I were a carpenter and you were a lady, would you marry me anyway? (Tim Hardin)
If I were a rich man, [yadda, yadda, yadda]. (Sheldon Harnick and Jerry Bock)
"If I was" (the past indicative) is appropriate in stating conditions that are not contrary to fact. Here you might say that the truth or falsity of the condition is not certain:
Was I rude? I'm not sure that I really was. But if I was rude, I'm sorry.The was/were distinction can be tricky to get right. In that last sample sentence, was somehow sounds wrong to me, and if I were doing something other than writing this post, I'd probably choose were or recast the sentence:
If I was to train as a carpenter, I would get to wear safety goggles.
If I train as a carpenter, I will get to wear safety goggles.Why did I write "if I were doing something other than writing this post"? Because the condition stated is contrary to fact: I am writing this post.
The most awful blurring of was/were probably occurs when people say "If I was you." "I," whoever I am, never was "you." Here's another song lyric, which I know from a Fats Waller recording, to help keep the was/were distinction clear:
If I were you, here's what I'd do:Update, July 17, 2011:
I'd stick to me my whole life through,
If I were you. (Buddy Bernier and Robert D. Emmerich)
One sample sentence in this post has continued to bug me: “If I was to train as a carpenter, I would get to wear safety goggles.” Should the verb be was or were? Theodore M. Bernstein’s The Careful Writer: A Modern Guide to English Usage (1965) supports the indicative was in such sentences:
Difficulties do arise, however, from making the unwarranted assumption that if always introduces a condition that is contrary to fact and thus should always be followed by a subjunctive. If may introduce clauses of supposition or concession, as well as conditions that are not true or are hypothetical, and in such clauses the verb is usually in the indicative, not the subjunctive, mood.A sample sentence from The Careful Writer: “The Egyptian declared that if there was more trouble the U.A.R. would ‘exterminate Israel.’”
More recently, the American Heritage Book of English Usage (1996) also supports was:
Remember, just because the modal verb would appears in the main clause, this doesn’t mean that the verb in the if-clause must be in the subjunctive if the content of that clause is not presupposed to be false: If I was (not were) to accept their offer — which I’m still considering — I would have to start the new job on May 2.The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style (2005) makes the same point, with a different sample sentence. Both AH volumes point out that many people dispense with any distinction between if I was and if I were. If I were you though, I wouldn’t go along with them.
Still more recently, Bryan Garner’s Garner’s Modern American Usage (2009) recommends the use of the subjunctive in contexts that involve supposition. Garner’s sample sentence: “if I were to go, I wouldn’t be able to finish this project.” It seems to me that the use of the subjunctive here might erase the useful distinction between supposition and what’s contrary to fact: if I were to go seems to suggest that the speaker has already decided not to do so. (Think of a politician refusing to step down: If I were to resign, I’d be betraying, &c.) Another sentence or two might be needed to clarify things: If I were to go, I wouldn’t be able to finish this project. But I can always get Fred to do that for me. So I’ll go.
When it comes to supposition and the subjunctive, there is no single answer. If one is considering whether to train as a carpenter, the wise choice, as I have suggested above, might be a sentence that avoids any appearance of error by keeping clear of was and were:
If I train as a carpenter, I will get to wear safety goggles.Reader, the choice is yours.
Other useful stuff
How to punctuate a sentence
How to punctuate more sentences
comments: 147
Thanks for addressing my question so quickly and clearly.
You're welcome. I'm happy to do so.
Thanks for such a clear explanation.
I'm just a poor immigrant, but I would say "If I were to train as as a carpenter...", because I'm not training.
I also don't quite understand why one would say "If I was to train as a carpenter"
"If I was to train as a carpenter, I would get to wear safety goggles": there's nothing contrary to fact in this sentence, so "was" is correct. But as I said in my post, it sounds odd. The important bit is "to train," something that may or may not happen in the future, so it's not contrary to fact.
In contrast, "If I were training as a carpenter, I would get to wear safety googles" is a sentence that involves a condition contrary to fact (I'm not training as a carpenter). I hope this additional sentence helps make the difference clear.
If I weren't a native english speaker, I would've asked about the usage of was/were with being reliant on whether the subject was singular/plural. (analyze that).
However, I am not. My question involves the phrase, "I wish I ..." "I wish I was the president." "I wish I were the president." I'm not sure which is correct, and both sound correct to me. Can you clarify this?
With wishes, I’d follow Garner in choosing were. His example: “I wish that I were able to play piano.”
thanks ...
You’re welcome.
Michael,
Thank you for an excellent post, solved the puzzle for me.
Fragvis
You’re welcome, Fragvis.
Ok, this is still confusing me...please help. Looking over an essay my son wrote for school and it reads, "If I was unable to pledge allegiance to our flag, I would feel worthless." Should it be was or were?
Since your son can pledge allegiance, I would say were — contrary to fact.
Hey, thanks for this post.
I wasn't quite sure about writing "as though it was" vs. "as though it were", but have now decided on the latter.
You’re welcome. Yes, “as though it were,” contrary to fact.
I wonder if it feels wrong to use 'was' in the carpenter example simply because it negates the grammar lesson intended when the word 'were' is used. The sentence, "If I were to train as a carpenter, I would get to wear safety goggles" seems to exemplify the difference between 'were' and 'wear'. I have nothing to reference here, but it reminds me of sentences I've heard in grammar lessons before. I may be pulling this from thin air, but I thought I'd note it anyways.
The difference between were and wear? I’m afraid I don’t follow.
I often wondered: If the ball were in my court rather than his to make the first move, where would I be?
is that sentence correct?
I think you would be on the court. But if the ball is in your court, someone else has already made a move, no? That’s one odd sentence.
Thanks for this helpful post. It really cleared things up for me ... and don't forget the great example by Beyonce: "If I were a boy ..."
Lauren, thank you for adding the Beyoncé example, memorable and closer to the present tense than my musical examples. :)
Michael, I LOVED your musical examples, especially Tim Hardin's song "If I Were A Carpenter." I have several of his songs in my collection ("Black Sheep Boy" and "Lady Came From Baltimore"), but I've rarely seen anyone refer to him by name. He died in the early 1980s, but his songs live on. ANYWAY, I also appreciated your explanation of "If I were" and "If I was," a subject I was researching today because I'm grading a bunch of graduate student papers, and the writers often make the wrong choice. I will now send them to this web site.
Thanks, Steve. Best wishes for your grading.
This was very helpful and Orange Crate Art is indeed a fantastic song. I live in SF and it gets absolutely embedded in my head every time I go up to Sonoma!
Thanks Michael!
There was about 6 hours of reconnaissance.
There were about 6 hours of reconnaissance.
Are both correct?
Thanks,
Mike
Garner’s Modern American Usage: “In AmE [American English], a plural noun denoting a small unit by which a larger amount is measured generally takes a singular verb.” One of his examples: “Five hours are [read is] enough time.” As they say on the Internet, hope this helps.
VERY helpful! Thank you for sharing all this information and the helpful examples.
You’re welcome, Jonathon.
It depends on what you mean.
“If what she said was true”: what she said may be true.
“If what she said were true”: what she said is not true.
i want to ask you, which one is the correct form, "i was here" or i were here"? and may i know why. as if the word "you", it'll be "you were" never "you was", right?
“I was here” is correct. The verb to be is irregular:
I was
you (singular) were
he, she, or it was
we were
you (plural) were
they were
It’s always “you were,” whether the you is singular or plural. As they say on the Internet, hope this helps. :)
If it were easy, everyone would be doing it.
Thank you! ^_^
That’s a helpful example, Anon.
And Anon., you’re welcome.
Thank you for this and other posts, your tips will be really useful in my English exams. Greetings
You’re welcome, Agatha. Best wishes for your exams.
One of the HUGE problems with understanding proper English, and with grammar and writing, is that the names of various parts of speech are non-intuitive and intimidating. The "past participle"? WTF is that? "Pluperfect"? Whatever. The best types of names for things are those that tell what the things do or are. Toaster. Perfect name. Ice cream machine. Bingo. I know - proper nouns: you just have to know them. Still, there is a whole new world of English teaching to be opened up if you could invent an intuitive, non-specialist lexicon.
Thanks Micheal!
OMG! Thank you!!!! :D
I'm having trouble with a sentence for an application (should be correct, but flow and phrasing are important).
"They spoke about me as if I wasn't in the room."
Is wasn't correct there or should it be weren't?
Counterfactual, so the subjunctive were is appropriate. It might sound better though if you remove the contraction. As they say on the Internet, “Hope this helps.”
Also, a belated “You’re welcome” to earlier commenters.
Hi there.
Ok. Here's something for you.
Was we rude? If we was rude, we're sorry.
If you was to train as a carpenter, You would get to wear safety goggles.
If you was to accept their offer —
If we was to accept their offer -
Why does either a 'plural' or a 'second person' seem to throw a wrench into your whole explanation?
I’ve explained a distinction between if I was and if I were, that’s all. The pronouns we and you never take was. Why? As Run-DMC once said, “It’s like that, and that’s the way it is.”
Justin Bieber sings a song called if I was your boyfriend (I'd never let you go) Does he need a grammar lesson? Clearly he is not my boyfriend...so it should be were...correct?
Yes, just as with the Beyoncé title Lauren mentions above.
Thank you. This really helped.
You’re welcome, Samir.
Back in high school, our teacher taught us that for conditional sentences, we should always use "were" regardless the form of the subject (singular or plural). So it became "If I were...", "If she were...", etc. There never was a clear explanation as to why that was so, nor was there an explanation of exceptions to the rule that may exist. So thank you very much for your article. It helps to know these things. :)
You’re welcome, Haste. Thanks for writing.
Thank you for this great information, Michael. It was very useful.
~Kimberlee
You’re welcome, Kimberlee.
I have to say that if I were born in the United States I wouldn't have grasped the concept of using were vs. was. My mother tongue is Arabic. Our 5th-grade teacher in Lebanon made damned sure we understood this were/was business pretty well. When I went to college in America I used the past subjunctive properly in my everyday conversation. People thought I was pompous.
Do you think "were" eventually will be replaced with "was," since most native English speakers in America use the latter incorrectly? Do you think it's a "Lost Cause," much like "I" vs. "me," "who" vs. "whom," etc.?
That’s a good question. For many speakers and writers, there is already no distinction between was and were. But there are many other speakers and writers who want to make the distinction and get it right. Some evidence of that: this post gets at least fifty visits a day. I think that the distinction will hold for a long time, at least in formal writing.
It’s common in the United States for grammar, punctuation, and usage to get little attention in writing classes. Growing online attention to these matters (for instance, recent New York Times and New Yorker columns on the semicolon) suggests to me that the Internet is making up for what’s often missing from classrooms.
Thanks, Samir, for your observations and question.
Hello Michael!
But how about the negative form? Is it correct to say:
If I weren't a singer, I'd be a painter.
Thanks,
Natalia
Hello Natalia. That’s an interesting example. If you are a singer, “If I were not a singer” involves a statement contrary to fact. So were seems right to me. Think of what Captain Renault says in Casablanca: “If I were a woman, and I were not around, I should be in love with Rick.” “If I were a woman” = “If I were not a man.”
Not relevant, but credit should be given...
Thank you for the memorable clarification, although I will likely be back (poor memory & overall grammar on my part).
I don't know what's more impressive:
Your ability to make this discussion interesting... or your ability to pull grammatical examples from such a wide range of mediums. Thank you!
Kind words are always relevant. :) Thanks, Anon.
Could you clear up one sentence for me?
It were Einestein himself that said that...
It was Einestein himself that said that...
Am I right in saying that it should be 'was' because Einestein did say it and therefore it is not contrary to fact?
Thanks, Shaw
It should be was. The sentence is just a matter of the simple past, no if involved. Using were here is not an option.
P.S.: If you’re writing about the physicist, it’s Einstein.
all these comments and questions are in relation to the subject "i". my question however is in relation to "he" as the subject. Do we say
1) If he was a doctor,... Or
2) If he were a doctor,....
Thanks!! :)
J
The same reasoning applies:
If he was a good doctor, he has long since lost his skills. [Maybe he was a good doctor; maybe he wasn’t.]
If he were a good doctor, he would be able to help. [He’s not a good doctor.]
So assuming he was never a doctor to begin with, it's 'if he were a doctor' right? Okay so Understanding that, is it safe to say that all hypothetical statements use the past plural form of the word.... as in all hypothetical sentences always use "were" not "was" or "are" or "is"? Thanks!! :)
And thanks your explanations are super helpfull! ! :)
It’s not really the past plural though; it’s the past subjunctive. Many speakers and writers use it in stating conditions contrary to fact. (I think that’s what you mean by hypothetical, but I don’t think that word covers conditions contrary to fact.)
Not everyone uses the past subjunctive, and some see its use as finicky and outdated. I think the past subjunctive marks a useful distinction, so I think it’s smart to use it. I’m glad you found this post helpful, Jayshree.
I am writing something at the moment, and one of the sentences I had (which MS Word didn't like) was this :
'Little did I know how many nights lay ahead of me that were to be a lot more difficult than this one.'
This came very naturally and I wrote the sentence almost without thinking, then MS-Word underlined 'were'.
I know what you mean about the carpenter sentence, it sounds similar to how some of my friends from Essex speak ;+}
I’d say your sentence is fine. Word’s grammar checker is highly unreliable: here's some great proof.
Oh, wow, this difference in the two phrases has been a pea under the mattress of my brain for years— decades. Thank you for explaining it so clearly. I feel like I grok the matter and can go forward more comfortably.
Thanks!
You’re welcome, John. Thanks for writing.
I would appreciate it if you could clarify this for me: "If I was/were interested..."
Thanks!
Consider the context. “If I were interested” means that I’m not interested. “If I was interested” would apply to past situations: “If I was interested, I would follow up,” &c.
Mr. Leddy - I read your posts and the replies with great interest. I must say that I'm in agreement with the Arab teacher who said that "if" is always followed by the copula verb "were". My mother was a grammar teacher (and other languages) in the late 1920s, and she was a grammar Nazi at home. Even with you carpenter example (safety goggles), the if necessarily imp;ies that one is not, regardless of intent. The person is not training as a carpenter, so there is a contrary factor, the future notwithstanding. Your thoughts?
yes; I see the point in "he wanted to know if I was interested" The "if" here refers back to "he" and not to the state that "I" was in. But I would say, turning it around: "If I were interested, I would have made it known to him". In that case again, there is a subtle implication to the contrary, or else I would have told him
I think that Samir likely meant that his teacher taught him to distinguish between was and were, not that were always follows if. At any rate, were doesn’t always follow, as in the example “Was I rude? I'm not sure that I really was. But if I was rude, I'm sorry.”
The safety goggles example involves the future, something hypothetical, not contrary to fact. The examples from The Careful Writer and the American Heritage Book of English Usage work in the same way. Garner prefers were with such sentences, which seems to me to remove a useful distinction. I think you are with Garner here, not a bad place to be. As the works I’ve cited show, there’s room for disagreement here.
But with “If I was rude,” where the past is in question, was is what works. “If I was rude” leaves it an open question — maybe I was, maybe I wasn’t. With at least some sentences, it has to be was.
Jack, I wrote the above comment before seeing your second one. Yes, “if I was interested” leaves it an open question. “If I were interested” implies that there’s no interest.
I would always use were if something were not currently the case. I don't agree that saying, "If I were to resign" implies that you will not. You may be just discussing your options.
As the sources I cited suggest, ther’s no consensus on this question. “If I resign” could be a way to dodge the problem.
Love this post. Very interesting. I usually feel I'm quite clued up on my use of grammar but today something has made me think twice when someone else believed this following sentence was wrong...
"scenes of it [film] were filmed in..."
For my ears, this sounds correct. However someone was adamant that the use of was should be used here? I though if they were to say "some of this film were shot" then that then would be incorrect, but they didn't.
I was wondering whether if you could shed some light on this phrase and use of were/was when used with "I" beforehand. Many thanks!
You’re right. “Scenes were filmed” is correct: plural subject and plural verb. “Some of the film was shot” is correct too: singular subject and singular verb. If the sentence read “Some of the scenes were shot,” then the plural verb is correct, to go with the plural subject some. It’s the subject that determines the verb.
I is singular and always takes the verb was, unless it’s a matter of the past subjunctive, as in this post.
Which one of these sentences is correct: "These were the documents I received today," or "There are the documents I have received today."
Can you help?
Anon., I think “These are the documents” sounds right. If you’re done receiving documents, then “These are the documents I received today” would be right. If documents are still due to arrive, you might opt for “These are the documents I have received today.” But I think very few speakers or writers would see much of a distinction between the two sentences. As they say on the Internet, Hope this helps,
This has always been one of my favorite grammatical rules, though every once in a while I find myself saying if and was and it ends up only sounding correct that way, as opposed to if and were. I'm not grammatically perfect, but I love to learn about it. An old post, but I'm glad you clarified it so neatly. It's still confusing a bit, but I'll have to practice some more.
I’m glad you found it helpful. I think this distinction has more importance in writing than in conversation. Go easy on yourself. :)
Thanks a lot. You just cleared up a bunch of confusion for me :)
Ok, so my brother just asked a question:
"Was Scott or Joe working?"
I'm pretty sure that should be "were"- who's right?
Your brother’s right. “With compound subjects joined with or or nor, make the verb agree with the part of the subject nearer to the verb”: Diana Hacker and Nancy Sommers, A Pocket Style Manual (the book closest to hand).
I love reading this blog!
Educative and entertaining!
Thank you- Angela Fowler
You’re welcome, Angela. I’m always happy to know that someone finds a post helpful.
I found this post via Google search.
So, I'm reviewing a document with this sentence about vaccines for a student we've entered in our software: "If a student was 10 years old in 6th grade he/she would be considered compliant according to the software."
I think it should be "were 10 years old."
Thoughts?
Since there’s nothing counterfactual, I would vote for “was” here (see the update to this post above).
I like you, Michael Leddy.
I especially appreciate your earlier comment about the internet serving as our always-available English Usage Guide. ;)
Surprisingly, most references I've found are fairly consistent and accurate which is not like other types of sources in this cyber world. We grammar nerds want to make it right!
Thank you so much for this helpful post.
I was taught the distinction about I was and I were by using an introductory if as the only clue. The full explanation of the difference between past indicative and past subjunctive was extremely helpful.
I also read Grammar Girl on the topic too. As you hinted, the Internet is not destroying our ability to communicate, but enhancing it.
Thanks for your comment, David. That this post gets many visits, every day, is evidence that lots of people care about writing well.
I didn’t know about Mignon Fogarty’s post. I have to admit that I like my explanation better. :)
IM currently having a debate with someone about whether to use "were" or "was" in this next sentence
"I've just realised that one of my closest friends were fake all along"
Is it "were fake" or "was fake"??
One was fake. Don’t be misled by the plural friends.
The use of were does not always require a statement contrary to fact:
"My boyfriend invited me to the ball. If I were to go to the ball, I would need a new dress." (I am still considering the possibility of going, though it is by no means certain; the element of uncertainty is implied by use of the word "were". However, use of the word "were" does not automatically mean that I will not be attending the event).
Equally, "Were I to go to the ball, I would need a new dress".
Further thoughts on If I were/was:
"If I were there, things would be done differently." (statement regarding a circumstance contrary to fact: I am not there, and so things are not being done my way).
Another way of saying this, as a commentary on a past occurrence, is "Had I been there, things would have been done differently".
I do not agree with regard to the use of was/were here:
"If I was (not were) to accept their offer — which I’m still considering — I would have to start the new job on May 2."
Here I think that the best way of parsing it easily is by substituting the following word order: "Were I to accept their offer.... I would have to start the new job on May 2." This renders the subjunctive in clearer language. When I see "If I was to...", I often see this as describing the past in terms of intention, fulfilled or otherwise: "He was to have attended the function (but fell ill and so could not)." "I was to have been the doctor in the family, but instead went on to become a juggler." Hence, "If I was to be given the award, it's clear that they considered me the best candidate." "If I was to accept the offer, it is because at the time nobody else wanted it." "If I was to accept the offer, I was certainly going about it the right way." The second clause explains or adds to, in some way, the main clause, as shown in the second following sentence:
"If I were you, I would have stayed home."
"Well, if I was to stay home, you could have made it easier by running the errands for me."
Of course, I could be in danger of over-parsing this, and the nuances are certainly elusive :-)
"If I was there, I do not recall it"; "If I was there, someone would have seen me." "If I was there, then all the witnesses who say they saw me here must be lying." (denying an allegation regarding a past action, for example).
Very good article, very informative. It's good to see clear explanations for proper use of speech so we can all understand each other :-)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, Anon. I agree with you that was/were is tricky. It seems to me that the problems arise with statements that are not contrary to fact. Because usage guides are split on this question, such statements seem to me too easily misread. “If I were to go to the ball”: are you thinking about going, or have you already decided not to go? (As with my sentence: “If I were to resign.”) So my choice would be to change the verbs:
If I were to go to the ball, I would need a new dress.
If I go to the ball, I will need a new dress.
*
Were I to accept their offer. I would have to start the new job on May 2.
If I accept their offer, I will have to start, and so on.
*
If I was to accept the offer, it is because at the time nobody else wanted it.
If I accepted the offer, it was because, and so on. Or “it was only because.”
So one of my strategies for contending with was/were is to avoid them both. :)
Can i consider "was" is used for 'True or may be false' and "were" is false ?
Yes, if . . . was when what’s stated may be true or false.
Question for you. I am writing a scientific paper.
I want to write this:
"It is also possible that there was some cracking of the bitumen, however were this the case, the effect would be expected to be greater in the higher power treatment rather than the lower power treatment."
I think that the use of "were" here sounds good. However, I wasn't sure, so I googled and came to your article. The condition I refer to is (as you can tell from the way I wrote it), in my opinion, unlikely but not impossible. So does that mean, because it MIGHT be possible, that I can't use "were"? I know I could rephrase, but I don't want to. Rereading, do I have to put a comma after "however"? In my opinion that would make the sentence ugly.
Thanks for your opinion!
Your sentence involves the question that prompted me to add to this post in 2011 — whether the subjunctive is a good choice with supposition. Your sentence has an added complication: “were this the case” is familiar phrasing; “was this the case” sounds strange and unidiomatic. But switching from “was” to “were,” as the sentence does, seems awkward too.
I would recast the sentence like so:
It is also possible that there was some cracking of the bitumen. But in that case, the effect should be greater in the higher power treatment, not in the lower one.
The revision gets rid of the comma splice (the original sentence needs a semicolon before however) and avoids the repetition of be (“would be expected to be”).
When however functions as a conjunctive adverb (the kind of word that often shows up after a semicolon), a comma should follow it. Many writers on writing recommend placing however later in a clause, with a comma on each side. I lean in that direction too. But the more I write, the more I prefer the conjunction but, which is much less ponderous. For instance,
We’re low on groceries; however, we can wait till tomorrow to shop.
We’re low on groceries, but we can wait till tomorrow to shop.
Here’s a post with more on however.
I hope my reply helps with your sentence. You mention not wanting to rephrase. Consider though this advice from Verlyn Klinkenborg:
“You can almost never fix a sentence —
Or find a better sentence within it —
By using the words it already contains.”
Several Short Sentences About Writing (2012).
The willingness to reimagine and recast a sentence is tremendously helpful. As you can guess, I spend a lot of time fixing my own sentences. : )
This article is very helpful. Thank you so much! I'll share this article with friends as reference.
You’re welcome. I hope your friends find it helpful too.
If I were ever to think to use those two words, this was my wake up call.
By the way; everyone gets to wear safety goggles.
Especially if they take industrial arts (the class formerly known as “shop”). :)
I am cringing at the title of the new movie Wish I Was Here.
Yikes!
I felt as if I was reading one’s opinion on how the internet “took over them” while learning about some of our history’s creditors.
In this case, how would it be clarified?
I’m not sure I really understand the context, but if that’s how you felt, use was. You can see the choice more clearly if you omit as if: “I felt that I was reading,” and so on. Nothing contrary to fact there.
As they say on the Internets, Hope this helps.
Hi, I'm pleased to see you're still answering questions.
I have a question that I think is slightly different due to word placement in the sentence.
Which is correct, or at least preferred?
I'm not nearly as dangerous as I wish I were.
or ...as I wish I was.
Thanks in advance. BTW, that's a paraphrase of something I heard Arlo Guthrie say at a concert several years ago.
Well, it’s contrary to fact — he’s not that dangerous, so logic would dictate were. But was sounds more natural to me. Arlo could dodge the question: “I‘m not nearly as dangerous as I’d like to be.”
If I was a carpenter, I don't know if I'd care about such distinctions.
(Still a great post though)
Hi again,
Back to "If I were to go to the ball..." and the whole was/were statement-contrary-to-fact/uncertainty subjunctive debate. (I've been away from your blog for a while). Thanks for the reply, which was well-considered and thoughtful, and who doesn't love grammar?!
Nevertheless, it's actually far less confusing that it appears. Conditionality attaches to the use of the subjunctive here. I have an offer to go to the ball. I can only go if certain conditions are met. If they are met, I may go; if they are not met, I may not go or may not be able to go. Other conditions may also attach, but this condition of acquiring a new garment, at least, is specified. I'd like to go, but I have no dress. Perhaps I am hoping that my boyfriend will suggest buying me one, which will remove the obstacle preventing my attendance at said festive function.
[I did explain in my initial post that I have yet to decide:
"My boyfriend invited me to the ball. If I were to go to the ball, I would need a new dress." (I am still considering the possibility of going, though it is by no means certain; the element of uncertainty is implied by use of the word "were". However, use of the word "were" does not automatically mean that I will not be attending the event, merely that the result is not certain)].
The subjunctive here illuminates the utter lack of certainty to either end.
Yes, one could say "If I am to go to the ball, I will need a new dress", but this suggests greater certainty than I currently confidently possess, and could be interpreted thus: We are going to the ball. I need a dress. Therefore, we will go shopping this afternoon, acquire the necessary clothing and dance the night away at the ball.
It's a shame to have such a finely nuanced way of expressing a situation and finding it necessary to impoverish ourselves linguistically by circumventing the more subtle use of the language by taking "the easy route".
Thanks again for getting grammar out there :)
Suddenly I feel like I need a new wardrobe. :)
I think that the new dress can just as easily be seen as something that follows from the decision to go (instead of a condition that must be met). But again, I’d rather avoid the subjunctive and say “If I decide . . . , I will need . . . ,” something like that. I still go back to the ambiguity of Bryan Garner’s sample sentence: “If I were to go, I wouldn’t be able to finish this project.” Is the speaker debating, or has she or he already decided not to go? Because people understand the past subjunctive in different ways, both interpretations are plausible. So again, I’d dodge the subjunctive.
Hm, I take your point about clarity, so where a situation requires that there be no doubt whatsoever, perhaps it's best just to spell it out. A lack of understanding of the subjunctive might stem also from lack of further context, familiarity with the speaker and a whole host of other factors, and in the absence of these, simplest can often be best.
Something that occurs when I look at the sample statement is that it contains a negative in the second part:
'the ambiguity of Bryan Garner’s sample sentence: “If I were to go, I wouldn’t be able to finish this project.”'
The sample sentence, with its negative, does seem to imply a greater likelihood that the person will not go. The speaker doesn't seem to be so much debating as justifying.
It might be less ambiguous (or at least allow more flexibility for the speaker's plans) if the second part did not contain this negative - something along these lines, perhaps:
"If I were to go, I would have to work a bit harder and finish the project earlier" (or "....work extra hard tomorrow to finish it after enjoying the evening" or whatever event is being suggested). Again, less debate and more justification, but here with the opposite intention. Still, you are not certain what the outcome will be, only that a discussion is ongoing with strong hints in a particular direction.
More context is helpful in such instances.
And a new wardrobe, were it suddenly to appear, would of course be welcome :)
The Garner sounds to me as if the speaker has already decided not to go and is explaining why. Yes, more context — and more clothes — would be helpful.
Hi,
this helped me a lot thank you. But then reading the comments has opened up a whole new can of worms!!! Can you help me? Which one is correct
It's not who I am that matters. It's who they wish I was.
It's not who I am that matters. It's who they wish I were.
I feel that it should be 'were' because 'I' will never be what they wish for. Can you help?
I’d follow Garner and choose were with a wish. (Search for wish and you’ll see some similar cases in the comments.) I think the problem though is that neither sentence sounds natural. I’d rewrite: It’s not who I am that matters. It's who they want me to be. Or: What matters is not what I am but what they want me to be.
You are right. It does sound better. Thank you again.
If I were you, I would pat myself on the back. :)
You're a grammar wizard!
Thanks a bunch for the clarification!
- Will
You’re welcome, Will.
Firstly thank you for writing such a clear concise explanation - and thank you for continuing to answer questions about it (almost 8 years since your original post)!
I just have a couple of questions I’m still puzzling over:
What about hypothetical future events: an “if” that might come true one day? “If google glass was a threat to our privacy...” or if it “were a threat...”
Or something which may or may not be true (it’s not total fantasy, but it’s not a sure thing either) “If it was just a joke he was playing, we’d all have laughed.” / “If it were just a joke he was playing, we’d all have laughed.”
Sorry, they’re rubbish examples but hopefully you can see what I’m trying to ask!
With future events: How about “If Google Glass proves a threat” or “If Google Glass turns out to be”? I don’t think was or were works there.
If something may or may not be true, was works, as in the “if I was rude” example.
As they say on the Internets, hope this helps. : )
Thanks so much! That helps a lot :-D
You’re welcome. : )
Glad to see this post and comments are still active . . .
I want to use a text, that my college age daughter sent to my wife, and have a T-shirt made.
The text read: If my pony were any more awesome he would be a unicorn ! !
I am confused in this example as to which is correct.
"If my pony were...", or
"If my pony was..."
I am leaning toward "were", but would be very embarrassed if the T-shirt contained a grammatical error.
Thank You
Were makes sense here. The pony isn’t any more awesome than it is, so were is right: contrary to fact.
I don’t mean to insult the pony though. : )
Thanks, Michael
Appreciate your insight and the quick response.
Matt
What about: "If it was easy, a girl could do it." or "If it were easy ...."
I’d rethink the sexist illogic of that statement if I were you.
If I was confused about the difference between 'was' and 'were' before, I am a little less so now. Correct?
Yes.
If you are referring to an action or commission previously undertaken by a company, would you use the (company name) 'was' commissioned to or 'were' commissioned to... its is a company singular, so would suggest 'was' should be used, but referring to it in a third person sense should it be 'were'? or should it be 'were' if the company name is plural i.e. Smith engineers? or should it be 'were'as the work was undertaken by the people within the company plural?
I hope that makes sense!
Here you’re out of the territory of wishes and counterfactuals and the subjunctive; it’s just the plain old past tense that’s in question. I can’t really speak to company names, which may be governed by local traditions of usage. But a company name would at least typically be singular.
I hope this thread is still active because, having read your blog and each and every comment, I'm still looking for guidance.
My wife has asked me to look over her book manuscript which contains the following sentence: "If she were lucky, Robin would hear tires hiss a warning on the hot blacktop before she saw Old Man Lindsey's truck turn in at the gate."
I gather you'd prefer "was" in this context because Robin might or might not get lucky, so it's not a proposition contrary to fact. OTOH, some of you commentators prefer "were" here because "if" is followed by something which may or may not occur. So is it just a matter of personal preference or is there a hard and fast rule to be found in some authoritative source?
Finally, what do you think of this end around: "With any luck, Robin would hear tires hiss a warning..." ?
If you leave a comment, it’s active, at least as far as I’m concerned. :) Though there hasn’t been a comment for some time, this post still gets visits every day.
Guides to usage are split on was/were and matters of supposition. (That’s the short version of the extra bit I added to this post in 2011.) So either choice may look wrong to some reader. I think your workaround is a good choice. Your wife has a thoughtful reader there.
Thank you for your prompt and on point response--and that's not a matter of supposition!
I'm stuck on this phrase; which is correct?
"If ever there was a right job for me, surely it's this one."
Or
"If ever there were a right job for me, surely it's this one."
Any advice would be appreciated!
Was, because you’re writing about something not contrary to fact. In other words, there may be a job right for you. But this is one of those sentences in which either choice sounds funny. How about “If there’s ever been a right job for me, surely it’s this one.”
Whatever the job is, I hope you get it. :)
Hello Mr.Leddy,
Could I ask thee a question, please?
Yes, of course.
Thanks a lot.Thou'rt an angel.
Here're my questions.They're about the subjunctive mood which maketh English so much more interesting. 1) If thou (be1) fair,where folk (be2/are) present, show thou thy visage and thy apparel. Here Chaucer and the modern paraphrase used the present subj. in the if-clause.In the if-clause we have two "be's".They used "be fair" & "folk are", so within the if-clause the present subj. & the present indicative were used.I don't find that fine.I think it ought to be "be fair" &"folk be".Am I right?
2) If it so (be1) that thou (can't/ canstn't 2) hide thy own plans, how darest thou pray any other person to keep thy advice secretly? Here Chaucer used the subj."be1" & the indic."canstn't ", whilst the modern paraphrase used the subj. "be1" & the subj."can't". Here the paraphrase confirmth what I see.
3) "Art thou coming to the cinema?" Imagine that thou (thought) thy friend (weren't) coming. Someone (told) thee that she (were) busy & she (couldn't) come with thee. So now when thou (ask) the question, it (sound) different /'a:t.đə/.This time thou (emphasise) the aux.v. "art" because thou (thought) thy friend (couldn't) come & thou (be) showing surprise.
Is it correct to use the subjunctive mood as above for all the verbs between brackets because it's all about imagination & unreal?
4) "How long hast thou been waiting here?"
Imagine thou (be) talking to several people. Thou (ask) person A, but person B (think) thou (be) talking to him & (answer) instead. So thou (ask) the question again to person A. This time it (sound) different because thou (be) emphasising the word "thou" because thou (want) to make it clear to whom thou (be) talking. Is it correct to use the subj. mood for all the verbs above because it all about imagination?
5) Imagine that thou (*be) running away from a vicious foe. He (*be) much stronger & faster than thou (*be). Thou (*know) that he (*be) merciless because thou(*'ve) seen him slay some of thy friends. No matter how hard thou (*try) to outrun him, he (*keep) getting closer. There (*seem) to be no hope. Suddenly, tho',a rescuer (*appear) at thy side. He (*be) far more powerful than thy enemy,& he (*promise) to help thee. How relieved that (*make) thee feel! In a sense, thou(▪︎'rt) being pursued by such an enemy. All of us (▪︎are) .The Bible (▪︎callth) death an enemy. Thou (▪︎canstn't) outrun it or fight it off. Thou(▪︎'st) seen this enemy claim the lives of people dear to thee , but God (▪︎is) far more powerful than death. He(▪︎'s) the loving Rescuer Who(▪︎'th) already shown that He (▪︎can) defeat this foe & He (▪︎promiseth) to destroy it once & for all.
I've used the subjunctive mood for all the verbs with this symbol* because it's all about imagination, & the indicative mood for all the verbs with that▪︎symbol because they tell true information. Am I right?
I'm looking forward to seeing thy comments, Mr. Leddy. I've asked many questions, so thou dostn't have to rush.Take thy time.
Thank thee in advance.
1. I think “folk are” is right. The presence of folk is a given in that sentence. There’s nothing contrary to fact there.
2. I’m puzzled here. The line from Chaucer reads “If so be that thou ne mayst nat thyn owene conseil hyde.” The interlinear available online from Harvard has “If it so be that thou can not hide thine own plans.”
3. No need for the subjunctive here. In this post I was writing about the specific question of choosing between “if I was” and “if I were.” There’s no need to use the subjunctive with questions about what may or may not happen. So: Someone told me that she was busy and couldn’t come with me. I am showing surprise.
4. Again, no need for the subjunctive.
5. Here too, there’s no need for the subjunctive. Imagine that you are running away. He is much stronger, and so on.
Very important to understand that an imaginative scenario doesn’t require the subjunctive. For more explanation, I’d suggest Garner’s Modern English Usage. Bryan Garner describes six scenarios that require the subjunctive. I’ll quote, with the passage broken into parts for easier reading:
(1) conditions contrary to fact <if I were king> (where the indicative would be am);
(2) suppositions <if I were to go, I wouldn't be able to finish this project> (where the indicative would bewas);
(3) wishes <I wish that I were able to play piano> (where the indicative would be was);
(4) demands and commands <I insisted that he go> (where the indicative would be goes);
(5) suggestions and proposals <I suggest that she think about it a little longer> (where the indicative would be thinks);
and (6) statements of necessity <it's necessary that they be there> (where the indicative would be are).
Garner goes into these matters in detail.
If you’re coming to English as a second language, reading as much as you can will help to give you a better feel for when the subjunctive is needed. Short answer: not that often. :) I hope this helps.
Thank thee very much.
Hello Mr.Leddy,
1) Here's a line of Thomas Moore's poem: The night's long hours still find me thinking of Thee,Thee,only Thee.
I see that line hath a grammatical mistake.It ought to be: ....thinking of Thee,Thou only Thou. Am I right?
2) If she was already home when thou (gotst) there,then she must've taken the bus. Here I think that "gotst" ought to be in the indicative mood. Am I right?
3) Dear Mr.Leddy,Wikipedia addth a piece of information about the subjunctive that's not included in the 6 points that thou'st typed.It sayth that the past subjective may be used similarly to express counterfactual conditions after suppose,as if,as tho',unless,imagine,etc.& here's its example:Try to imagine he were here.
4)I'm fond of the American spelling 'cause it's logical, but why don't ye spell "ogre" as "oger" ,following the same style "meager" for " meagre"?
Ogre....ogress, goiter...goiteress or goitress, center ...central, theater...theatrical.
5) W. Stannard Allen in his Living English Structure for School in 1977 explained that the Americans prefer using the present continuous in stead of the English style of using the simple future, & he gave an example: Shalt thou take the children with thee?= Art thou taking the children with thee? Here the meaning is: Is it on thy program to take the children with thee? = a plan. We know "I will"& " thou shalt" express determination & not a plan.When I read a line in Hamlet by Shakespeare, I noticed the paraphrase wasn't correct. Hamlet sayth to the his father's ghost: Where wilt thou lead me? Speak, I'll go no further. (the original text)= Where'rt thou taking me? Speak. I'm not going any farther. (the paraphrase).According to Shakespeare the ghost is determined to take Hamlet somewhere & Hamlet is also determined not to go with him unless he speak,but the paraphrase depicth that the ghost hath already planned to take Hamlet somewhere and that Hamlet hath already planned/decided not to go with him before they meet as well. Dost thou agree with me?
6) We know that adjectives in English are always before nouns except in literary texts where they come after nouns for the sake of rhythem, so we find "The Paradise Lost" by Milton & "The Table Spread" a chapter in the Qur'ân & a novel.We can of course in spoken English say "The Lost Paradise " & "The Spread Table".The English are still stubborn & they refuse to say "The Simple Present " as ye say in US; they say only "The Present Simple " tho' it isn't a literary text. Likewise the Americans still say "The Present Perfect " instead of "The Perfect Present ", why???
Thank thee in advance.
I appreciate the confidence you have in whatever answers I might offer, but I’m just not in a position to respond to these questions. If you’re studying English, these are questions to put to your instructor or to a reference librarian. If you do, I’d suggest asking without the use of the archaic thee and thy. :)
Post a Comment