“If I was” vs. “If I were”

Understanding other Indo-European languages give us an idea of what Proto-Indo-European looked like. But the study of the development of a language, its diachronic study, is a very different thing from its synchronic study: what it looks like at a specific point in time. For instance, "if I were" is historically derived from the Old English past subjunctive. But from a synchronic standpoint, it is not the past subjunctive, at least not in a modern linguistic analysis. Huddleston and Pullum call "were" the irrealis. It's not the past subjunctive because "if it were done" is not the past tense of "if it be done", and because it only occurs with the verb "be" - for all other verbs we use the preterite.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001192.html

@Perfect Pedant and DAW - except most of it's tosh - modals have nothing to do with the subjunctive - except in German. if you want to compare English to Romance languages, for examples - 'would' and 'could' are equivalent to conditional mood and not subjunctive. (English doesn't have a conditional mood - i.e. a separate inflected form of the verb and German seems to combine subjunctive and conditional in one mood). None of the examples A-E are what is understood to be the subjunctive in English. That they may be in German is neither here nor there.

can you help me, i have to make a speech topic about wearing school uniform or not what recomendation they would make?.. if i were prime menister using modals, conditional, passive voice,embedded question and reported speech . Thank you very much.

Please could someone kindly explain the differences between these sentences, or if any of them are just plain wrong:

1. If I was rude, I apologize.
2. If I were rude, I apologize.
3. If I was rude, I would apologize.
4. If I were rude, I would apologize.
5. If I I was rude, I would have apologized.
6. If I were rude, I would have apologized.
7. If I had been rude, I would have apologized.

Does 'was' refer to the past, and 'were' to a hypothetical situation?

Many thanks to anyone who can help. Really like this forum but having a few problems getting my head around it all. The subjunctive is perplexing though I have to admit, as much as I enjoy it, I'm no grammar head.

P.s. Hairy wrote previously:

I can't believe that no one has mentioned the fact that the subjunctive is only a mood. It is a matter of whether one would like to sound sophisticated or not. If you want to sound classy, you say "if I were", but if you want to sound artless, you say "if I was". It's as simple as that! It's like choosing between the words "career" and "vocation".

Is that true?

OK, Layman,

the way to get it right is to remember that subjunctive is for 'hypothetical' situations - not factual - and BOTH clauses are subjunctive. otherwise BOTH are indicative (factual). This is called 'sequence of tenses' by some.

So:

1. If I was rude, I apologize. (Maybe I was rude, and if I was, then I apologise.)
2. If I were rude, I apologize. (Plain wrong. This means it would be rude to apologise, and I do apologise because I was rude, but I wasn't, maybe - daft!) 'If I was rude I apologise' - allows the possibility that maybe I was, so I do. 'If I were rude I would ... " means I won't because it would be rude to do so. You have mixed the moods so have not followed the sequence of tenses rule.
3. If I was rude, I would apologize. Suggests maybe I was rude (indicative) but begs the question what second, further condition must first be satisfied before I apologise. If I was rude, I would apologize if only I were a gentleman (subjunctive suggests I do not consider myself a gentleman).
4. If I were rude, I would apologize. This suggests it would be rude to apologise, but I am not rude so I shall not apologise.
5. If I I was rude, I would have apologized. Suggests maybe I was rude, but something else prevented me apologising. Without that further information (introduced, I suggest, by "but" after "apologised", it makes no sense.
6. If I were rude, I would have apologized. This makes sense: someone else might think I should have apologised, but I think it is rude to apologise, so I didn't.
7. If I had been rude, I would have apologized. I didn't apologise because I wasn't (in my view) rude.

Does 'was' refer to the past, and 'were' to a hypothetical situation? Yes.P.s. Hairy wrote previously:

You quote Hairy: "I can't believe that no one has mentioned the fact that the subjunctive is only a mood. It is a matter of whether one would like to sound sophisticated or not.If you want to sound classy, you say "if I were". "
This is nonsense. The subjunctive mood is employed to make it clear that you are talking of hypothetical possibilities. It is like a third dimension. Is the indicative "only" a mood? If we are not allowed moods, then we cannot use verbs, which must be indicative, subjunctive, or imperative (for orders). Without verbs we cannot make sentences. Must we avoid sentences? Of course not! That is why I dismiss out of hand the idea of 'only a mood'. A bit like a car mechanic saying "it's only an engine".
'Classy' has nothing to do with it, unless inverted snobbery compels you to avoid using the subjunctive in case someone realises or thinks you are educated. (In England some people have a problem with 'educated' and 'classy'.)

Hello Evelyn

You ask for advice: ", i have to make a speech topic about wearing school uniform or not what recomendation they would make?.. if i were prime menister using modals, conditional, passive voice, embedded question and reported speech."

Well, let's try! "If I were prime minister" is a (closed) conditional clause, using a subjunctive verb, 'closed' because you are talking about a situation which is hypothetical, that is, you are not prime minister but if you were, this is what you would have done.

Conditional (open) clause is where it is possible: "If I am right ..." for example, because maybe you are right, and on condition that you are right, then you will do this or that ...

Passive voice is where you talk about what was done to the subject of the sentence: "I was appointed PM" (passive) was done to me, but "I became PM" is active because I did it. The cat sat on the mat is active but the cat was asked to get off the mat is passive. The cat sat (active) but was asked (passive).

Modals? That is another term for mood, so means whether the verb is indicative (fact) or subjunctive (hypothetical), so let us try "If the headmaster (or indeed headmistress) lets us wear what we like on Fridays then ..." that is indicative because it shows you think this is a real possibility. Change this to "If the headmaster (or indeed headmistress) were to let us wear what we like on Fridays then ..." That is subjunctive, because it says you think it won't happen.

"Embedded" question is a puzzle to me, but I think it is what I call an indirect question. A direct question you quote the question: "are you mad?" but indirect you tell us about the question someone asked, like this: "He asked him if he was mad". This is one of the three kinds of reported (or indirect ) speech:

indirect question "He asked him if he was crazy." (Direct: Are you crazy?" - with question mark). Indirect command: "He asked him to open the door". (Direct command: "Open the door." Indirect statement: "He said it was raining". (Direct statement: "It's raining").

Good luck with your speech, and let us know how it goes.

Cheers Brus. What an amazing and quick answer. This is a cool forum; I could really get into this. Gonna take a while digesting all of that with my cuppa and maybe I'll check in again soon. Thanks for the rapid response. Much appreciated. Determined to get my head around it all.

P.s. Why am I being told to choose another name because my name is already being used by someone else? Hi-jacked after my first post! Lol.

@Brus - except that, for many of us, especially in the UK, the subjunctive is largely dead. And this is only the natural conclusion of a process that has been going on in English for centuries. Many educated people in Britain say 'if I was' for hypothetical situations - in standard BrE you now have a choice, and that's what foreigners learning English are taught, although they are warned to use 'were' in more formal situations.

Secondly, the result clause of a hypothetical conditional is most definitely not in the subjunctive, it uses a modal. Just as in romance languages the if clause is in the subjunctive mood, but the result clause is in the conditional mood. The subjunctive in English has only two independent forms, the base form of the verb in the present - 'it is vital that he be at the meeting' (this is hardly ever used in BrE), and 'were' for all forms of be in past simple. Otherwise it is identical to the indicative. So this 'was / were' thing is really the only other time that the question of the subjunctive arises. And not surprisingly, as for every person of 'be' other than 1st and 3rd person singular, and for every other verb, the past subjunctive is identical to the indicative, many of us use the indicative for everything. Modern grammar reference books don't even call this the subjunctive any more, but the Irrealis. In EFL teaching we call it the unreal past.

"Irrealis modality is a modality that connotes that the proposition with which it is associated is nonactual or nonfactual."

Jings! Crivvens! Help ma boab! as we Scots say in moments of extremis, such as on reading this. I googled it, thinking you were having me on. What sort of people dreamed up this guff, when all along we had the subjunctive mood to deal with the matter perfectly affably and easily? Did these folk have nothing better to do? Irrealis indeed. It does not exist in my dictionary, so it must have been invented by the sort of people who like calling meetings and attending them, and making things which are simple look complicated. I came upon this sort in my latter days in the teaching trade - they also loved computers and spreadsheets and putting things into files and making everyone's life a misery!

Now, you say that 'the result clause of a hypothetical conditional is most definitely not in the subjunctive, it uses a modal. Just as in romance languages the if clause is in the subjunctive mood, but the result clause is in the conditional mood.' To this I reply "what?". As the subjunctive is a modal, 'it uses a modal' goes without saying, but you say the result clause is conditional, not subjunctive. And the difference would be ...?

Would an example help?

Right. If anyone has the time? Two respected ESL grammar sites. Correct or incorrect? Opinions would be appreciated.

Grammar Girl - subjunctive
English Club - subjunctive

And, is there a difference between the usage of the subjunctive in American & British English?

Hard to understand how so many people can give so many different answers. There must be a right and wrong. Surely. After all, it's grammar.

@Brus - The subjunctive is not a modal, it is a Mood, which is a very specific grammatical form which I outlined above.It has nothing to do with the normal meaning of mood. Modal is shorthand for modal auxiliary verb, i.e 'can', 'could', 'will', 'would' etc. Hypothetical conditionals use 'would' or 'could' in the result clause for present and future conditions (what is known in the EFL/ESL world as a 2nd Conditional) and a modal perfect -'would have', 'could have' for past conditions (known as 3rd Conditional). You had both of these in your list, plus a 'Mixed Conditional' which mixes past and present. They use unreal past (or subjunctive only) in the if clause.

Here is a list of examples of the subjunctive collected by a fan of the subjunctive, who hates 'was' instead of 'were', so who is hardly likely to favour my view. But at least he and I and every other grammar website In know of, descriptionist or prescriptionist, are in absolute agreement as to what constitutes the subjunctive.

http://www.ceafinney.com/subjunctive/examples.html

This site is also pretty prescriptionist - note that it says that the modals 'could', would' and 'shoul' are sometimes used to express the same effect. But that doesn't make them the subjunctive.

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000031.htm

I've just had a look at the English Club page on the subjunctive that Layman mentioned and they have it absolutely spot on - on structure, in the difference between formal and informal usage and in the difference between American and British Usage:

http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-subjunctive.htm

And finally there is my own piece on my blog:

http://random-idea-english.blogspot.com/2011/06/exploring-grammar-subjunctive.html

@Layman - Yes. It's used less in British English - for example we don't use it much in the present, in sentences like 'It is essential that she sit the exam this semester.' We prefer a construction with 'should' - 'It is essential that she should sit the exam this semester' (which is not subjunctive, whatever Brus might think) or informally the standard indicative - 'It is essential that she sits the exam this semester'.

Both GrammarGirl and EnglishClub are realiable sites on structure, although I don't always agree with GrammarGirl's conclusions. English Club is one of the best big ESL sites; see my comments above. Other good sites are Learn English at the British Council, Learning English at the BBC, UsingEnglish and esl.about.com and grammar.about.com.

I think one of the the reasons that there is so much disagreement is that some people's
interpretation of what the subjunctive is, is somewhat loose. Whether you use the subjunctive or not, is of course simply down to personal preference. And there Brus and I will never agree.

W Will
thanks for all that very detailed information.
I must disagree on a number of points, but it is all very interesting.

First: I don't agree with your chart of indicative/subjunctive forms of 'be' in the past tense: was/were indicative, yes, but "were to have been" subjunctive, not was/were.

Next: I don't agree that 'should' does the job of subjunctive, so your examples:
She insists / proposes (that) he should pay for the meal - that is a statement: he should because it is his turn, or whatever, adding a new dimension to what is going on. If is just what she insists/proposes, then I would say either "She insists he pay, or pays, for the bill. Subjunctive or indicative mood here, all down to personal preference here, (so that's the third thing I disagree with you on, as personal choice is allowed - sometimes: see below with ref. to the Aeneid).

"He asks that we should be ready to leave at eight". No, he asks us to be ready, or asks that we be ready. 'Should' suggests some extra level of obligation, a new dimension not intended here.
"She requests that we should not make too much noise". No. She requests us not to make ...
He recommends (that) the tablets should be taken after meals. This is wrong but not so much so, if you accept an extra element of obligation, as in 'he's the doc and he says if you don't then there may be a bad consequence, like you'll die', ie the tablets MUST be taken then, to some extent. Otherwise, he recommends that the tablets be taken ... if it doesn't matter greatly but he thinks that's the best time.

And fourthly, Ah yes, all that stuff about moods and modals. To me your modal verbs such as should and can are main verbs, not modals, (French devoir and pouvoir conjugate according to the subject, the dependent, secondary verbs goes in the infinitive form, same with Latin debere and posse) and the only modal verbs you mention which I call modals too, now, are parts of the verb 'to be' which are used to form different tenses and moods: be, is, am, are, will, used to, shall, would, would have ...
Over my teaching career the moods were the indicative and subjunctive and imperative. There were no modals. My dictionary says that modals are verb or auxiliary verb forms used to express a distinction of mood, such as that between possibility and actuality. That's it. So all that extra you have supplied is new to me and very interesting, all designed to help explain things to ESL students I think. But I am still playing devil's advocate to all of it, in that I am going through it most critically.

My function was to show people how to translate into English from languages where no 'modals' were used: first recognise the other language verbs were in a different form if they were subjunctive, then realise why, and finally express it in a level of English beyond that of everyday speech, but in such a way as to show that the other language's forms had been noticed and noted and dealt with. There is a huge width of possibility in doing this, otherwise why would the Iliad and the Aeneid continue to be translated half a dozen times a year by countless boffins, all coming up with different versions? All a matter of style in English, the richest one of the lot, really.

She insists / proposes (that) he should pay for the meal is fine if she said "You should pay for the meal". But if she said "You pay for the meal, okay?" then she insists that he pays/pay for the meal. No 'should' about it.That's clearer than my earlier rambling stuff.

"He asks that we should be ready to leave at eight" is fine too, if he said "You should be ready at eight", but not if he said "I want you to be ready at eight".

I.e., if "should" is used in the original direct statement, then the reported, indirect statement uses it, not otherwise.

Thanks, Warsaw Will. Jolly kind of yourself and Brus to take time to answer my questions. This is a really interesting topic though I'll admit to finding it slightly tricky to get the head around; however, persistence usually pays off in the end. Much obliged, people.

@Brus - Thanks for visiting my website. I don't think I understand your first point. I clearly said that 'was' is indicative, but that 'were' for 1st and 3rd persons singular is subjunctive (all other past subjunctive forms are the same as indicative).

Unreal past - 'If I were prime minister, I would ...' - were for 1st and 3rd person singular here is usually accepted as being subjunctive (although I think the authors of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language disagree - calling it irrealis). While 'If I was prime minister, I would ... 'is thought of as indicative, but both are talking about a hypothetical condition - which is why we call it the unreal past.

I talked about 'were to' in a different section. - 'were to' is a compound subjunctive form which is usually thought to be more tentative ('were to have been' is just another form of 'were to'). 'If I were to offer you ... ', is more tentative than 'If I offered you ...'. Go to Wikipedia and scroll down to Compound forms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive

I don't think I said that 'should' does the job of the subjunctive, I said that it was the British preference, because we prefer to avoid the subjunctive (see English Club, or any EFL website). You say - 'He recommends (that) the tablets should be taken after meals.' is wrong. But that is standard in British English, whereas 'He recommends (that) the tablets be taken after meals' is more standard in American English. Neither is more right nor wrong than the other. I think in your interpretations you are being far too literal. In its basic meaning 'should' is more or less interchangeable with 'ought to', but 'ought to' would not work in those examples.

Modals can have several different meanings and functions. Just look at how many functions 'would' has:

The past of will - This was the woman who would become his wife
In conditionals - If he came I would be very happy
To talk about someone's behaviour or habits - Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?
To talk about past habit - I used to live buy the seaside and every day I would go for a swim in the sea.
To complain about somebody's behaviour - I wish he would help more with the housework

And how can a modal verb be a main verb? It has no tense; it needs a main verb (aka lexical verb) in the bare infinitive to go with it. That's why it's called an auxiliary or helping verb. I'm not quite sure what you're saying about pouvoir and devoir. That they are not modal verbs but main verbs? They are definitely modal verbs - ''Pouvoir, devoir sont des auxiliaires modaux" (Le Robert Micro). In fact we probably got the expression modal auxiliary from French. The only difference between English and French is that English modals have no inflections. But they can be used in much the same way - Je dois partir - I must go - Elle ne peut (pas) venir avec nous - She can't come with us.

There are two types of auxiliary verb - the primary auxiliaries used to form tenses, and modals to add modality. The exceptions are future tenses which are formed with the modal verb 'will'.

am, is, are, was, were (for continuous tenses)
have, has, had (for perfect tenses)
do, does, did (for simple tenses)

can, could, will, would, shall, should, may, might, must, ought to (modals - nothing to do with the verb be)

There are also a couple of semi-modals - need and dare -they can be used as standard verbs with a basic auxiliary - he doesn't need to do it - or as a modal - he needn't do it.

As for being 'my modals', they are just the same as any grammatical definition of modal verb in English. Please visit any grammar website - for example the University of Wisconsin Platteville (not ESL) has a very good glossary here, check out primary and modal auxiliaries:

http://homepages.uwp.edu/canary/grammar_text/glossary_of_terms.html

I never said anything about modals being a mood, keep up! - As you say, English has three moods: indicative, subjunctive and imperative. But certain modals, 'would' and 'could', do a very similar job to the conditional mood in French and Spanish. And what do you mean 'over your teaching career there were no modals'? - You never said 'can', 'could' etc -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_verb
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/modal+verb

The grammatical definition for modals and explanations of the subjunctive are no different for ESL than they are for native speakers studying grammar at American universities. These are standard grammatical terms. And the subjunctive in English is very limited. What I provided you with wasn't 'extra', it was the basics. If we can't agree on basic definitions, the rest is pretty meaningless. And if you don't accept what all the references I've given you say, descriptionist and prescriptivist alike, there's not a lot more I can say.

I'd simply add the word still:

"If I were still the Prime Minister, ..."

Correction - I should have said modals have no person or number - they can occasionally express tense, or at least time.

@Jasper - the sentence I quoted was said by all three candidates before the British general election, at which time none of them were prime minister. And that's not a subjunctive were, but a plural were after none, another great arguing point.

or indeed none of them had been prime minister, surely? Did Gordon Brown say this? Or was it the candidates for Labour leader after GB resigned from that position?

I said pouvoir, devoir, vouloir are French verbs which inflect, which means they are "main" verbs, followed by an infinitive, a secondary, dependant verb. To call them modal is an interesting version. If you say "I want to swim" what are you doing ... wanting or swimming? I say wanting, so that is the main verb, not a subsidiary or secondary or dependant or modal verb. That's all. Their Latin, German ... equivalents do the same. That was why we didn't have any need to make life hard for ourselves by talking of modals.

Now that you have introduced to me the notion of these modals, I took the term to mean those words we need in English, for which Latin and French have no need as they are inflected, in order for us and German speakers to build up the expression of different tenses, voices and moods.

I quote you: 'modals have no person or number - they can occasionally express tense, or at least time'. You also say elsewhere today that devoir, vouloir, and pouvoir are modals. I say to this, 'Houston ... we have a problem'. Well, not Houston, Warsaw. I rest my case.

@Brus - All three candidates for prime minister at the last election, in other words the leaders of the three main UK parties, David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg. I suppose that 'none of them had been prime minister' is your little joke because they said 'was' instead of 'were'.

I'm afraid I misunderstood your meaning of 'main verb', as this is an expression which is usually used to denote the lexical verb as opposed to the auxiliary. So in 'I don't want to swim' - the main verb (in the usual meaning of the term) is of course 'want', but not to differentiate it from 'to swim', which is its complement, but from its auxiliary 'don't'. In 'I don't swim' swim is the main verb. I suggest you google 'main verb' and you'll see what I mean.

It's French dictionaries that call pouvoir and devoir auxiliaries, not me - http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/modal.

In your second last paragraph, you're nearly there. But the primary auxiliaries - do, be, have, (which aren't modals) are mainly used for tense and voice, whereas the modal auxiliaries are mainly used for modality. The exception being future tenses which use the modal will, sometimes in combination with the primary auxiliaries do and have - I will be seeing him tomorrow - I will have finished it by Friday.

Ça va, Houston, il n'y a aucune problème. A Varosovie non plus. I meant English modals weren't inflected, I didn't say French ones weren't, obviously they are. This is a site about the English language, so I assume when I say modal or subjunctive without further qualification, people will understand I'm talking about modals or the subjunctive in English.

'That was why we didn't have any need to make life hard for ourselves by talking of modals.' - but that's what every English grammar book under the sun calls them. And the only reason I started talking about modals was because you suggested, insisted even, that 'BOTH clauses are subjunctive' in hypothetical conditionals (your capitals). But I'm afraid this is tosh - 'If he were a bit less shifty, I would trust him more.' - 'If he had worked harder at school, he could have got into university.' - The result clause of a hypothetical conditional uses verbs with the modal auxiliaries 'would, would have, could, could have' etc. This is not the subjunctive. That's why I started talking about modals.

I'm afraid that one of the problems I find with this discussion is that you use terms your own way, not as they are generally understood in English grammar. When you talk of the subjunctive, I suspect you are thinking that the English equivalent of a French, Spanish or German sentence in the subjunctive is somehow subjunctive in English. But the subjunctive is not a feeling, it is a specific grammatical form, and its use in each of these languages is different from in English. - Il faut que je sache.- I need to know - Nous cherchons quelqu'un qui puisse commencer immédiatement - We're looking for somebody who can start immediately - Both sentences use the subjunctive in French, but neither do in English.

A slip of the finger as usual - it's Varsovie, of course, not Varosovie.

second slip - il n'y a aucun problème not aucune

Okay W Will, I go along with what you say. I dispute none of your latest message. It's possibly a bit like the Archbishop of Canterbury and Prof Dawkins (a well-known scientist and atheist in the UK) arguing different views about religion: they actually both hold exactly the same thinking if only they knew it, but are divided by the way in which the same words they both use have different meanings in each one's head. In other words we have been arguing over terminology. I have learned much from this conversation and appreciate it. Best wishes to you and all the denizens of those expat bars in Warsaw of whom you speak so warmly elsewhere. (My computer spellcheck doesn't like 'expat' but I don't pay attention to such 'authorities'. I see it doesn't like 'spellcheck' either!).

I was quoting Jasper:
"I'd simply add the word still:
"If I were still the Prime Minister, ..."

and Warsaw Will:
"All three candidates for prime minister at the last election, in other words the leaders of the three main UK parties, David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg."

Historical point: Gordon Brown was the prime minister and leader of the Labour party and candidate for the job of staying in office, and was still the prime minister until the coalition came into being, ending the candidate and prime minister bits of that, and then the leader bit when he resigned from that position, allowing the election of Miliband. Worth mentioning all that to get the understanding of the language right:

Linguistic point: You can't make a conditional, Jasper, by inserting "still". Brown still was prime minister, so no "if "about it, and the others never had been, so could not use "still prime minister".

That's what I meant, W Will.

Now that Brown is not prime minister any more he can say "if I were still prime minister", followed by another subjunctive clause telling us what he would do, for instance. The others can't. because Cameron still is, and Clegg never was.

'Nuff said about subjunctives by me.

Brus,

I think you mistook me for being part of your and Warsaw Will's argument. I was just commenting on the question. What I had stated, adding still, was in response to "once was Prime Minister". So I thought 'still' would belong there.

"If I were still the Prime Minister, I'd lower taxes."

I took it as he currently isn't the Prime Minister, and that if he were, he'd lower taxes.

If anyone is still following this, there's an interesting blog post (relevant to the original question) by Jan Freeman, ex of the Boston Globe at her blog - http://throwgrammarfromthetrain.blogspot.com/2012/11/fighting-off-were-wolves.html

And another article, by Professor of linguistics, Geoffrey Pullum, at The Chronicle of Higher Education - http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2012/11/09/grammatical-relationship-counseling-needed/

" If I was the prime minister" suggests that he can't remember if he held that office. And I thought I had a short attention span.

@Skeeter Lewis - You might well prefer "were", and that's fine. But I don't for one minute go for this confusion argument.

In the article linked to above, Professor Pullum points out that the average native speaker knows about 5,000 verbs, in all of which the subjunctive is exactly the same as the indicative. There is one exception, "be", which is only different in two persons, 1st and 3rd singular. Why should there be this confusion with these two instances when there is no confusion with the other 4999, or with 2nd person singular and plural and 1st and 3rd person plural of "be"?

By your argument we could say:
"If they were rich, they would buy a new house" - they can't remember if they were rich
"If I worked there, I'd resign" - I can't remember if I worked there
Why are "If I was" and "If she/he was" so different?

In any case, I sincerely doubt there were many people thinking that all three candidates had had a problem with memory loss :).

If I were you?? If someone goes speaking in that manner, it isn't a coplete,neither a correct sentence. But if the individual goes like "if I were the boy,I wouldn't........ . The person's making sense....
If I was you-: simply means the person was present/there when the incident or anything he wants to say took place....for example "if I was you, I would have collected the money....this is more correct...THINK TWICE after reading this. Follow me on twitter for more @abexklovac1..

@alexandre - I think we all knew that 'if I were you' was an incomplete sentence, hence the three ellipsis dots in the original question.

And as for your second point, the one you want us to THINK TWICE about - if the person was present, why the 'if'? Why didn't they just collect the money - but the use of the modal 'would have' specifically tells us they didn't. This is what is variously known as a Third conditional, a past hypothetical conditional or a past counterfactual conditional.

'If I was you, I would have collected the money' means exactly the same as 'If I were you, I would have collected the money'. The question is whether the first one is grammatically correct, or whether we have to use the subjunctive 'were'. Virtually every modern grammar reference book, as well as most of the ESL/EFL world, thinks it is perfectly grammatical, although admittedly less formal.

@goofy
If I was the Prime Minister, I would change the law.
If I were the Prime Minister, I would change the law.
Don't both of these sentences refer to unreal present events? If I can't remember if I was Prime Minister, I would be talking about a past event. I might say:
If I had been the Prime Minister, I would have changed the law.
or
I can't remember if I was the Prime Minister.

It’s common sense that only the current Prime Minister would have the power to change the law, so the clause “if I was the Prime Minister” refers to the present, since there is no logical connection between being the former Prime Minister and changing the law if you are saying that you were Prime Minister before. But who is the Prime Minister is a fact, in this context, not the speaker, which is true without any subjective judgment, making “if I was the Prime Minister” is a counterfactual supposition. So in this context, “if I was the Prime Minister” and “if I were the Prime Minister” mean basically the same thing.

@Brus
If I was the Prime Minister, I would change the law." This to me suggests that I am surprised and doubtful to hear that I was sometime in the past the Prime Minister, find it hard perhaps to believe that such an thing could have been allowed, and if it is true, would want someone to change the law, maybe to prevent such a calamity in the future.
The logic doesn’t stand. You are linking the assumption of being the Prime Minister in the past to the change of law which would be made to happen in the future. Who would the speaker be talking to? It’s hard and complicated to find such a context that would fit in here.

(I have, of course, by the way, no particular prime minister in recent history in mind.)
"If I were the Prime Minister, ..." has a totally different meaning, that I want the law changed and if I could I would, but I can't so I shan't because I am in fact not the Prime Minister.
Which one do you mean?
@goofy
Your sentence "If I was a hopeless cad, I apologize" refers to a past event, so it's not the same context as my examples.
Would you ever use "if I was" in exactly the same context as "if I were"? Would you say this:
"If I was a hopeless cad, I would apologize."
"If I was a hopeless cad” could refer to a past event too, even in "If I was a hopeless cad, I would apologize". The reason behind is that whether or not you are a hopeless cad depends on the criteria of judgment of the person you are speaking to, involving subjective factor. This is not falling in the same category as being the Prime Minister.

You quote me:

If I was the Prime Minister, I would change the law." This to me suggests that I am surprised and doubtful to hear that I was sometime in the past the Prime Minister, find it hard perhaps to believe that such an thing could have been allowed, and if it is true, would want someone to change the law, maybe to prevent such a calamity in the future.
The logic doesn’t stand. You are linking the assumption of being the Prime Minister in the past to the change of law which would be made to happen in the future. Who would the speaker be talking to? It’s hard and complicated to find such a context that would fit in here.

No it isn't. It is easy and simple: I am informed (by anyone at all) that this national misfortune has occurred, and I as the speaker am declaring that it should not have been allowed (if indeed it was - the indicative mood of the verb "was" rather than "were" means it is treated by me as an open condition, which is to say that I accept it is possible that I was prime minister at one time, but I can't remember). If I wished to indicate disbelief in such a preposterous assertion I would use a closed conditional clause, denoted by the subjunctive form of the verb: "were".

If I am ... means perhaps I am (present tense, open, indicative, conditional clause)
If I was ... means perhaps I was (past tense, open, indicative, conditional clause)
If I do ... means perhaps I shall do (future, open, indicative...
If I were ... means I am not (present, closed, subjunctive ...)
If I were to have been ... means I was not (past, closed, subjunctive ...)
If I were to do ... means I shall not do(future, closed, subjunctive ...)

Piece of cake, really. Twelve year old children learning Latin get a couple of lessons to master all this and cope perfectly well, including the Latin forms of the verbs. The logic stands then that I could assert to the world at large that if indeed I was PM, which I accept as a possibility, then I would wish whoever can do so to get the law changed.
Saying "I would change the law" when I have not the power to do so means that I am declaring that I wish someone would change the law, and that I would counsel, and indeed advocate this course of action. It does not suggest that I must necessarily play a part in this legislative tinkering, merely that I recommend it.

Where was I? What are we talking about again?

@sundy - of course you're right, which is why, in EFL, we refer to this as the Unreal past. We only have to compare it with any other verb - 'If he acted like that at my party, I'd throw him out' - this can only be about an unreal event in the present / future - the 'would' in the result clause tells us that. If it was about the past, we'd use a past or present tense in the result clause, as in the cad example (which seems to be very popular in the States).

Oh no! Looking back I learn that in August I said I would hold my counsel on the subject of the subjunctive. And now I've gone and raved on about it for a while. If only I were to have ...

@Warsaw Will - of course you're right, which is why, in EFL, we refer to this as the Unreal past. We only have to compare it with any other verb - 'If he acted like that at my party, I'd throw him out' - this can only be about an unreal event in the present / future - the 'would' in the result clause tells us that. If it was about the past, we'd use a past or present tense in the result clause, as in the cad example (which seems to be very popular in the States).

The context is very important in understanding the subjunctive sentences.

'If he acted like that at my party, I'd throw him out' - this can only be about an unreal event in the present / future - the 'would' in the result clause tells us that. If it was about the past, we'd use a past or present tense in the result clause, …

This may be not true depending on various context. First, this can be about the past as in this context:

You held a big party at your big home with dozens of people attending, where you were very busy all over the place, even without paying attention to your girl friend. Now the next day after the party, one of your best friends tells you that he saw your another friend was trying to impress your girl friend by chatting with her in a small room on the second floor. You are kind of trust your girl friend on that she wouldn’t do this which is seen as inappropriate at your party. But this is what your best friend is telling you, so you might think that your best friend was just mistaking another girl for your girl friend. You might say to your friend:

You might have mistaken another girl for my girl friend, but 'If he acted like that at my party, I'd throw him out' – “I’d “means the future here while 'If he acted like that at my party’ refers to the past, so the whole sense implies that if “he acted like that at my party” is to be proven, when I see him I would throw him out. Please note that “out” here has changed not to mean “my party”, instead, the surrounding where you would meet him when you throw him.

So we have to look at the context (scenario) in interpreting subjunctive sentences. Without doing this it would let the argument keep going and going forever.

@ Brus - No it isn't. It is easy and simple: I am informed (by anyone at all) that this national misfortune has occurred, and I as the speaker am declaring that it should not have been allowed (if indeed it was - the indicative mood of the verb "was" rather than "were" means it is treated by me as an open condition, which is to say that I accept it is possible that I was prime minister at one time, but I can't remember). If I wished to indicate disbelief in such a preposterous assertion I would use a closed conditional clause, denoted by the subjunctive form of the verb: "were".

I would be very nervous if you say that “I accept it is possible that I was prime minister at one time, but I can't remember”. Or if I am serious enough, I may call the police to take you to hospital for an overall medical checkup. You can’t forget if you were once the prime minister some time ago unless there is a medical problem. So this is not an usual context.

You say you would be very nervous if I were to say that “I accept it is possible that I was prime minister at one time, but I can't remember”.
You are evidently of a very delicate disposition. A past prime minister of Britain in the last fifty years did indeed develop dementia, in more lucid moments telling other people "I used to be prime minister, you know". Those to whom he confided this information did not report feeling nervous because of it. Nor did they call the police to take him to hospital for an overall medical checkup, as there was no need for one and in Britain the police are the wrong agency for this. As you point out you can’t forget if you were once the prime minister some time ago unless there is a medical problem, so this is not an usual context. Well, Sundy, it may not be usual for someone to develop dementia but it happens.
Besides all that, the point under discussion is a linguistic one.
On another linguistic point, what does this mean: "You are kind of trust your girl friend on that she wouldn’t do this ... "? You wrote it. No need to call the police, but it scores poor marks for English, I feel.

@ Brus - "I used to be prime minister, you know".

Does this mean "I" can't remember I was prime minister? No, it just means that I am not the prime minister, but I used to be.

@ Brus - Well, Sundy, it may not be usual for someone to develop dementia but it happens.
Besides all that, the point under discussion is a linguistic one.

Putting the context in the language would make more sense than to discuss purely linguistic instances. I am emphasizing "purely" here.

Though I would have to agree that your interpretation works in your proposed context, but that's not an usual context. Why did some expressions in a language die out? One of the reasons is that there is a lack of contexts in life to fit in.

Trust me, "if I was you" will become more common as it means the same thing as "if I were you" since by no way, no mean, the assumption of "I am you" would become true.

@ Brus -On another linguistic point, what does this mean: "You are kind of trust your girl friend on that she wouldn’t do this ... "? You wrote it. No need to call the police, but it scores poor marks for English, I feel.

You could give me poor marks of English, but not poor marks of language and how a language works.

I wanted to edit my post after submission, but I couldn't. I may have to change it to "you kind of trust your girl friend that she wouldn’t do this ..."

@sundy - OK, I follow your example now, but I think you're stretching it a bit far. In fact what I'd say in that context is something like: "If he really did act like that, I'd throw him out if he came again."

However, I've realised that there is another possible interpretation of "If he acted like that at my party, I'd throw him out" and that is where we use would for repeated actions in the past, for example - "I used to live near my work and would walk to work every day"

So it would be possible to interpret "If he acted like that at my party, I'd throw him out" as "Whenever he acted like that, I used to throw him out". But as you say, context would usually help you.

So here's another one:

"If I won the lottery, I'd buy a new house" - can you put a different interpretation on that?

My point, though, is that Unreal past (subjunctive, for those who prefer it) is exactly the same as Real Past for all verbs except one, and for only two persons of that one verb, 1st and 3rd singular of 'be'. I can seen no logical reason why a different form is thought necessary for those two persons of one verb when we have absolutely no confusion in all other cases. It might sound more refined, but that's about all.

You go on the street and ask the ordinary people how they would feel if somebody says he /she can’t remember if he/she was the prime minister before. People would say: “it’s a bit wired. I would never forget if I was once the prime minister.” So when you say to, again, ordinary people that “if I was the prime minister,..” you would be taken as to mean an imaginary situation of being the prime minister.

Demotic usage based on their contexts determines the life of a language, eventually, not the contexts thought of by linguists in pure linguistics.

@ Warsaw Will - "If I won the lottery, I'd buy a new house" - can you put a different interpretation on that?

Yes. Assume this context:

You were so tired and went to bed last night before the lottery winning numbers showed on TV. In the morning after you get out of bed, you hold your lottery ticket in hand, ticking it in front of your wife, saying:

"If I won the lottery, I'd buy a new house."

You are referring to the real past. But since your wife doesn't know you didn't have a chance to check the number as usual, she interprets "if I won the lottery" as to refer to the present, hence meaning an imaginary situation.

She then might say to you : "Don't keep daydreaming."

You further explain: "I didn't have a chance to check the number as I went to bed earlier last night. I still have a chance to win." So now she understands that "if won the lottery" means a real condition.

The context is a key.

@sundy - I think you're confusing linguists and grammarians - grammar books written by linguists, for example the Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (CGEL), by Quirk and Greenbaum, and the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CaGEL), by Huddleston and Pullum, are entirely descriptive and allow both 'If I were prime minister' and 'If I was prime minister', both being what CaGEL calls Irrealis (i.e. Unreal past).

Linguistics is the study of language as it is, not language as how some people think it should be. That's the domain of the prescriptivists: people like Neville Gwynne. Modern linguistics is based almost entirely on corpora - computerised collections of real language, both written and spoken, such as the British National Corpus and COCA - The Corpus of Contemporary American English.

@ Warsaw Will - My point, though, is that Unreal past (subjunctive, for those who prefer it) is exactly the same as Real Past for all verbs except one, and for only two persons of that one verb, 1st and 3rd singular of 'be'. I can see no logical reason why a different form is thought necessary for those two persons of one verb when we have absolutely no confusion in all other cases. It might sound more refined, but that's about all.

Yes, there is no logical reason that a different form is necessary for only two persons of that one verb, 1st and 3rd singular of 'be'. In Chinese, there are no such forms of verbs, only one fixed form for every verb. But subjunctive is a mood existing in every language, I guess. In Chinese, there are other words that explicitly propose an imaginary situation, something like " listen up: I am doing daydreaming now, I am the prime minister, I will change the law." Of course, these words are quite different in a sense that they can express different emotions or moods.

Humans have so much confusion in conversational communication in terms of the language itself. English works in its own way. Ideally, it would be perfect if we could create a subjunctive form of verb for every verb in English, which, however, would result in an unrealistic and unpractical situation, too many forms of verbs. The problem now is that the verb needs a form in a sentence in expressing subjunctive mood, which will definitely confuse with other forms of verbs such as past and future tenses. Luckily, the context where the conversation is taking place will resolve the ambiguity. That's why I would expect that even "I was you" would substitute "if I were you" in the future, as the assumption of "I am you " will be never truthful in our context of human's world.

@sundy - 'If I won the lottery, I'd buy a new house' with present meaning describes a hypothetical condition. But you're talking about a specific occasion, so If I hadn't had a chance to check my ticket the previous night, I'd never say to my wife 'If I won the lottery, I'd buy a new house' but 'If I've won the lottery, I'll buy a new house'.

Well, we would in British English at least. I know Americans don't use present perfect as much as us, but if it's a real condition, you'd (they'd) still use 'will' in the result clause.

If + past simple + will is perfectly possible when talking about a real possibility on a specific occasion but when you don't know if the past condition has been fufilled - "If he managed to finish that report last night, we'll be able to get it to everyone today".

@sundy - " Ideally, it would be perfect if we could create a subjunctive form of verb for every verb in English" - that would be to reverse history and go against what you were saying earlier. In fact these forms do/did exist, but over the centuries they've been replaced by indicative forms. English has been gradually ridding itself of the subjunctive since it stopped being Anglo-Saxon. Present subjunctive - "It's vital that he be informed" is very rarely used in British English, for example, except in very formal writing. All we have left are a few vestiges - a few fixed phrases and 'were'.

So, no, it wouldn't be perfect; it would be totally artificial and totally unnecessary. The beauty of the English verb system is that each verb has a maximum of five inflections, for example - 'do, does, did, done, doing'. All the rest is done with auxiliaries.Why then go and complicate matters? We express doubt or indefiniteness etc in other ways. For example 'We're looking for someone who speaks French' - in Spanish that would need the subjunctive - but there's no reason why we have to have it in English.

@ Warsaw Will - Well, we would in British English at least. I know Americans don't use present perfect as much as us, but if it's a real condition, you'd (they'd) still use 'will' in the result clause.

I would think simple past tense also works here. When there has been no change to the situation since the time that the past tense indicates, simple past would mean the same as the present perfect. This is the reason why American tends to use simple past in many contexts where this condition is met.

"would" works as well in 'If I've won the lottery, I'd buy a new house', in which "would" implies that there is less possibility of buying a new house as other factors may come into play.

@ Warsaw Will - "Ideally, it would be perfect if we could create a subjunctive form of verb for every verb in English" - that would be to reverse history and go against what you were saying earlier.

Look at the last part of what I was saying: "which, however, would result in an unrealistic and unpractical situation, too many forms of verbs."

@ Warsaw Will - "If he managed to finish that report last night, we'll be able to get it to everyone today".

In a context where typing the report may need to be done by another person as "he" was only the report writer, "we'd be..." works, especially when typing may take some time.

I meant:

would" works as well in 'If I won the lottery, I'd buy a new house', in which "would" implies that there is less possibility of buying a new house as other factors may come into play.

Sundy, you miss my point about the fact that there is at least one prime minister in our recent history who developed dementia and may well at times have not been aware that he (or indeed she) had once been prime minister, and at more lucid moments would be in a position to advise others that this honour had once been his, or hers. Telling people things which they must surely already know ("I used to be prime minister, you know") is perhaps a rather obvious consequence of dementia. To assert then that "if I was prime minister" is a possible open condition, one which the speaker does not feel able to assert is the case, nor not the case, but must let lie open, is a perfectly feasible possibility. Nothing weird about it, this unhappy condition happens to people, prime ministers included.

You allow that I could give (you) poor marks of English (sic), and indeed I I fear I must. But keep cracking away; the subjunctive is the ultimate polish which once mastered allows the user the right finally to claim that he has learned the language. Oh yes, and those pesky prepositions too.

@Sundy - Though I would have to agree that your interpretation works in your proposed context, but that's not an usual context.

Keep in mind that I have said this already.

If I say "If I was the prime minister, I'd change the law" to my colleagues tomorrow, how would they interpret? Sure, "If I was the prime minister" will be taken as imaginary assumption, which is far more common than your context.

@Brus - You allow that I could give (you) poor marks of English (sic), and indeed I I fear I must.

I don't really care about what you must do. But we are discussing the logic behind a language, not anything else.

Brus - the subjunctive is the ultimate polish which once mastered allows the user the right finally to claim that he has learned the language.

Should it be "which (is) once mastered"? Can you master a polish? Or the craft of polishing?

@Brus - the subjunctive is the ultimate polish which once mastered allows the user the right finally to claim that he has learned the language.

In order to learn the language, it seems to me there is a lot more to master than the subjunctive, which includes the distinction between "that" and "which". Other than the questions asked in the last post, I would read the above sentence as:

"the subjunctive is the ultimate polish, which, once mastered, allows the user the right finally to claim that he has learned the language."

To be honest, it's a bit complicated sentence.

@sundy - we'll have to agree to differ. On a particular occasion like this where there is a real possibility of winning, we'd normally use what in EFL and ESL teaching we call First conditional, with a present tense after if, and will (or an imperative or certain modals) in the result clause. If I'm not so sure about my course of action I'd use 'could, may' or 'might', but not 'would'. The only time I would use 'would' in the result clause of a real conditional is to be more polite - "If you're ready, would you follow me, please?" or if the verb in the if clause shows uncertainty, as in the conditional sentence I just wrote "I'm not so sure ...". "If I've won" or "If I won" (with real past meaning) show no such uncertainty.

However, as the possible number of conditional structures is unlimited it's probably theoretically possible to come up with any interpretation. I'm really only interested in how conditionals are used in everyday life, not weird and wonderful scenarios where the interpretation is stretched to the limit, so as they say on 'Dragon's Den', I'm afraid I'm out.

Sundy
You rewrite my sentence by scattering a few commas around in it: "the subjunctive is the ultimate polish, which, once mastered, allows the user the right finally to claim that he has learned the language."

You say "to be honest, it's a bit complicated sentence".

Yes. Is that a problem?

'A bit complicated' does not work well here as an adjective describing 'sentence', does it? "This sentence is a bit complicated" is fine.

I agree that matters such as the use of 'that' when you mean 'which' or even worse 'who/whom' need attention too, as of course do dozens of other fine points, but they need only a few lines each of explanation in a language course, whereas the subjunctive is, as the conversation above indicates, complex and not to be covered in too much hurry.

@ Warsaw Will - If I'm not so sure about my course of action I'd use 'could, may' or 'might', but not 'would'

Agree that most people would do this, but not all, especially when accompanied with the if clause.

@ Warsaw Will - "If I won" (with real past meaning) show no such uncertainty.

Depends on what you would win, if it's a lottery, as the chance of winning is so slim, even when the if clause has the real past meaning, "If I won" does show some sort of uncertainty. But anyway, you still have a chance to win when if clause refers to the real past meaning, so it's not imaginary present.

@ Warsaw Will - I'm really only interested in how conditionals are used in everyday life, not weird and wonderful scenarios where the interpretation is stretched to the limit,...

That's why I disagree with the "I can't remember if I was the prime minister" scenario. The lottery winning context I thought of, is not that common in daily life, but not very weird and wonderful. So the difficulty for a teacher lies in how you would teach. This is extremely true when it comes to the subjunctive teaching in ESL. I find myself in good agreement with Brus in the fact that "the subjunctive is, as the conversation above indicates, complex and not to be covered in too much hurry"

@Brus - You rewrite my sentence by scattering a few commas around in it: "the subjunctive is the ultimate polish, which, once mastered, allows the user the right finally to claim that he has learned the language."

It's not just a few commas, it's the logic of the language and its structure.

I would be very surprised about the excellent level of your English writing if you are not a native speaker of English, but quite curious about the way you approach the subjunctive mood if you are a native speaker.

@sundy,

But that's the thing: language is not always logical. Further, some people choose to use 'which' without a comma and some introductory prepositional phrases can be left without commas. I'm reminded of a post on Sesquiotica where one of the articles states that setting 'which' apart with commas is a stylistic issue. Sometimes, I feel that 'which' reads better without commas, although I don't do it out of, as you would call, the logic of language.

I think that pushing grammar to its limits is beneficial because it can reveal holes in that logic.

Here's the excerpt from that Sesquiotica article:

"First of all, the restriction of which to nonrestrictive clauses is not a grammatical law; it is a stylistic recommendation and does not have to be followed, even in North America (let alone in Britain)."

Source: http://sesquiotic.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/why-its-best-to-leave-grammar-advice-to-experts/

Sundy,
you are too kind about my English. In fact, would you believe, my first language was Zulu, so there is a bit of doubt about whether or not I am a native speaker of English. No, I was never taught the English subjunctive by any English teacher. In Britain English teachers do not really teach English at all, but rather creative writing and poetry and drama and nice things like that. Grammar is not taught, as incredible though this may sound, it seen as elitist, I am told.
Now, where learning English properly is best done is in the Latin classroom, where that language is used primarily as a tool through which proper, grammatical English (or indeed German, French, Italian, whatever ...) may be studied. The study of modern languages is different: its purpose is to learn that other language. So those who study Latin even to a fairly elementary level understand grammar, including therefore the grammar of their own languages. And that is where I learned my grammar, and taught it. I am told by others that you can tell in less than a minute, from his speech patterns, if someone has learned Latin, and I take their word for it. I always assume everyone has learned it.
This forum has provided me with rich food for thought and entertainment beyond the limited linguistic playing fields of those happy schooldays, and I especially enjoy the fancy terms they have invented to keep us busy, my favourite today being Irrealis, the unreal past. Love the capital I ! Which institution cooked it up? Cambridge, I see. Latin, yes, good, but why the capital I? I'm an Oxford man myself, and we called it the unreal past. Well, we would have done, but actually we never spoke of it at all.

Fortisan si toti illi incolii olim apsumebent sui dies grammatica linguae latinis eruditione, omnibus minor tempora esset in vicis alii populi necare. An fortasse nos seniores in irreale praeterito habitant.

Fortisan si omnes illi incolii...

Lingua populi Romae lingua deorum semper non oblita atque non oblitanda saluatio omnibus ominbusque problemis humanis...

cum essem parvulus loquebar ut parvulus sapiebam ut parvulus cogitabam ut parvulus tuncque didici linguam populi Romae factusque sum vir

Indeed, Jayles. Quite so.

timor tui incomprehensionis ironiae meae conturbat me

Don't worry about it, Jayles. No need for conturbation on your part. Your remarks at 6.05 pm please me greatly, as I am sure they do all of us.

De grammaticae eruditione: The first thing we would need to establish is what is the purpose of learning grammar; what are the aims, goals, and objectives? We can hardly determine this without discussing exactly who is doing the learning and why they need to, and what they need.
I would suggest that those least of all in need are native speakers - group one. There are some perhaps whose at home dialect (perhaps deeply Scottish or AAVE) is so far removed from what is the acceptable norm in business and at university that some work toward more standard writing is needed - group two. And my third group would be those who speak very little English at home - it is a second language. This would apply to perhaps 200 million "English speakers" in India and other erstwhile colonies including USA where my understanding is that perhaps a third of the pop is Hispanic speaking at home.
Plainly the first group (who already speak RP etc) have little need beyond punctuation. The second group may need more work. The third group and the rest of the world plainly need grammar as a crutch to get the word order, tenses and so on right. Even so I avoid grammar terminology as much as possible, as the purpose is to put together good English not to know the difference between a "voice" and a "mood", or indeed "indicative","imperative", subjunctive, optative, and all the other moods, unless that terminology is sine qua non for understanding. For example they don't need to know that "ago" is a postposition not a preposition, just put it after the noun not before.
That said, some grammar terminology is needed: Subject, Verb, Object, Past Present Future, Modal, auxiliary, Continuous - I have to teach them all, as they are all in the books and I need them anyway. One needs to remember that in languages such as Mandarin there are no tenses so they cannot learn them at school and have no awareness.
As to the usefulness of Latin grammar, well consider the sentence: I was given the book.
English is a quirky language and somehow we manage to have an object in a passive sentence, which is absolutely impossible in Latin and indeed other European languages. So how does Latin grammar help here? Again Slav languages do not have a past perfect, nor do they distinguish praeteritum irrealis and futurum irrealis. Should they learn latin grammar first or just get on with English?
Incidentally modals in English are, in terms of word roots, already a preterite - that is why there is no final 's', why 'must' is seemingly inconjugable.
What all this means is that there are no cast-iron grammar rules chiselled in stone. The whole thing is but a crutch, means to an end, and whatever means is justified if the end output is normal acceptable English. So in this case "was" or "were" or whatever will do.

@jayles - I'll have you know that the 'purist' English spoken in Britain is said to be that of Inverness, so I'm not sure why you pick out the Scots for special attention; try understanding a Geordie after he's had a pint or two!

Yesterday was National Grammar Day in the US, and one or two people have been asking the same question as you.

http://www.arrantpedantry.com/2014/03/04/why-teach-grammar/

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/02/the-wrong-way-to-teach-grammar/284014/

@WW no offence intended, Geordie or Glaswegian both incomprehensible to me, but good English nevertheless.
In truth one's the grammar of one's natural English dialect is the one that makes most sense. If one is north-country saying "we was" and "she were", that's your natural grammar, and "standard" Englsh grammar is something you learn at school for writing.
However, ESOL is a different kettle of fish. For many ESOL students present perfect is a strange concept, just as the "definite/indefinite" conjugation in Hungarian is for me, and no amount of grammar exercises can make it automatic.
Again, in Korea (and Japan) they learn English grammar, grammar, grammar at school with very little practical result.
Equally in my experience, most students who reach an advanced level have worked through something like Murphy; and equally just working through Murphy does not per se make a student advanced: so grammar, grammar, grammar alone is not enough. I guess you know that already. Perhaps the real point is that it is quite rare for a Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Thai or Korean speaker to get to a CAE level. The gulf in concepts is just so wide. Ban Ki Moon is exceptional - Korean has tenses and so on but lacks "f", "v" and has the l/r issue and is SOV, and like Slav tongues lacks articles; moreover (as in Hungarian) generalizations are made in the singular even for countable nouns. It is the same for us trying to learn a tonal language like Thai, Vietnamese, Mandarin, or Cantonese. The gulf is huge.

@jayles - I quite agree with you about terminology, and in class I use the least possible, except where it can make life easier. It's a bit different on my blog, but people come to that from choice. The only reason we teach grammar is to try and speed up the process of learning the language, not so that they learn about grammar per se. Also the grammar we teach is very much based on real natural English.

A much bigger problem is the way grammar is taught to native speakers. The writer of that Atlantic article thinks that traditional grammar teaching has a negative effect on students, cramping their writing and generally pitting them off English. Which is why, of course, it was ditched in Britain at the end of the 60s. The only thing is that they haven't really come up with anything to replace it that would be both helpful and interesting for school pupils. Personally I think a comparative approach has the best chances (dialect and standard - discussing the differences rather than knocking dialect use).

@Warsaw Will,

"The writer of that Atlantic article thinks that traditional grammar teaching has a negative effect on students, cramping their writing and generally pitting them off English."

Really? (I find that) The converse is actually true. Seriously, my writing style before I taught myself grammar had been above average to high; now that gap is far greater. I can write Proustian length sentences because of my knowledge of grammar. Knowing grammar actually improves someone's understanding of how to compose sentences, via the (basic) syntactical elements. This is even more highlighted when thinking about phrases and clauses.

@Jasper - she's not against teaching grammar, but would prefer it through writing, not teaching a lot of (sometimes silly) rules before getting the students to write anything. And I think the author was mainly referring to stuff like parsing and diagramming, and being forced on people that weren't that interested.

Traditional grammar teaching in Britain up to the sixties was widely believed to stifle creativity, which as why it was ditched.

But there are always exceptions, and the fact that we comment on this forum probably means we are rather more interested in grammar than most people. Personally, I'm fascinated by the stuff - but real grammar, not all the stupid prescriptions and proscriptions (which she also mentions in her article) which often pass for grammar in writing schools. But best read the article yourself; the link is in my last-but-one comment.

Often one does not need to teach grammar as such; just select a befitting topic to elicit it. For instance, to elicit "third" conditionals, topics like:-
"What effect did the British occupation have on India?"
"How has the Japanese occupation influence Korean education since WWII?"
or more directly:
"If the USA had successfully supported Chiang Dae Shur (ie chang kai shek) and the GuoMingTang, how would China be different today?"
It's not about learn grammar per se, it's about being able to use it.

If one wishes to teach "grammar" a little more directly, one can set a task like:
"A friend of mine says there are thirteen meaningful ways to join together the two sentences "Roses are red' and 'Violets are blue' : what are they and explain the differences in nuance". Good practical stuff not boring analysis and terminology.

Everyone here is discussing what is correct and what is incorrect about using was instead of were in a sentence. Are you all stupid?

The English teachers in the days of Shakespeare would turn over in their graves at the what you consider proper/correct english.

Things change. What was incorrect at one time is now considered correct now, and in 200 years our English will be old and thrust aside. (It won't matter, you and I will be dead by then anyway.)

Some of you just can't stand to see that some of the rules you were taught are being changed right before your eyes and not after you are long gone.

Well, GET OVER IT! It happens, and is happening. Were can now be substituted for Were, and it just isn't incorrect anymore. Just because you learned it one way, does not mean it is still correct.

I bet you learned that wireless telephones are impossible too?

pardon, i meant was can be substituted for were now. The rest of my grammatic errors were left on purpose.

[quote="goofy"]My idiolect doesn't make any difference in meaning between

If I was the Prime Minister, I would change the law.
If I were the Prime Minister, I would change the law.[/quote]

But wouldn't the first one require the second clause to also be in the past tense i.e. "If I was the Prime Minister, I would have changed the law."

Whilst language does indeed change over time, and I'm a firm believer in descriptivism (for native speakers), I don't agree that (all) grammatical concepts should be eliminated just because of a few uneducated people because without these concepts, we will end up speaking pigeon English; unable to communicate a wide enough range of ideas. The only reason people confuse 'was' and 'were' in that construction is because of a lack of education and understanding of what the purpose of the subjunctive mood actually is. If the subjunctive disappeared altogether, it would make for extremely confusing communication at times.

I would also like to point out to the people screaming for a 'no rules' and 'anything goes' version of English: I could understand wanting 'was' to be equally acceptable [i]if the subjunctive were actually no longer being used[/i] but that isn't the case. Just because you don't realise you are using the subjunctive, doesn't mean that it isn't used. We use it just as often as other languages do but as we recycle words (a lot), it isn't always obvious. Until the subjunctive actually stops being used, using 'was' instead of 'were' remains an uneducated mistake as opposed to a sign of language progressing(/devolving).

I've just double checked verbix and (of course) there is no 'was' version of the subjunctive, but I'm starting to suspect that even in the indicative, there is no possibility of using 'was' in the past tense with an 'if' statement. Perhaps a language expert can confirm?

As you correctly say, there is no 'was' in subjunctive past.

The real question though, is whether it is necessary to use a separate subjunctive form after 'if' for unreal conditionals for what amounts to two persons of one verb, when for all other persons of 'be' and for every other verb, no such separate form exists, and we use what the same form as the simple past.

And most modern (i.e. non-prescriptive) grammars would say no - it's a matter of style. You are quite entitled to think 'were' sounds more elegant, and perhaps more appropriate in more formal language, but that doesn't mean 'was' is incorrect.

In teaching English as a foreign language we refer to this use of past simple in present time hypothetical conditionals as the 'unreal past' rather than subjunctive, and see 'were' as an optional exception, but warn students that it is needed in more formal language. But most of the time we use informal language, and 'was' is just fine.

This is from the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, where they call Unreal past Irrealis:

'This use of were is highly exceptional: there is no other verb in the language where the modal remoteness meaning is expressed by a different inflectional form from the past meaning. The irrealis mood form is unique to be, and limited to the 1st and 3rd person singular. It is an untidy relic of an earlier system, and some speakers usually, if not always, use preterite was instead.'

Another example is the expression 'if it wasn't /weren't for', where the use of 'was' is probably even more common, and after 'I wish I was/were' (same 'rule'). At Ngram they're running neck-and-neck.

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=I+wish+I+was%2CI+wish+I+were&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CI%20wish%20I%20was%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CI%20wish%20I%20were%3B%2Cc0

The subjunctive has slowly been disappearing from English over the centuries, and present subjunctive, for example, is hardly used nowadays in British English. Yet in the eighteenth century it was still deemed incorrect not to use subjunctive in present time real conditionals, something nobody would do today:

'If music be the food of love' - Shakespeare
'we found therein several massy pieces of yellow metal, which, if they be real gold, must be of immense value.' - Gulliver's Travels - Jonathan Swift
'If there be in this work, as some have been pleased to say, a stronger picture of ...', Tom Jones, Henry Fielding

By the nineteenth century it had more or less died out, but we can still find it occasionally in Jane Austen - 'and if her home be uncomfortable, or her fortune small'. Nowadays we'd think of that as rather archaic. Language changes. Use of subjunctive 'were' might show you're 'educated', but that's about all.

But perhaps the real answer to "there is no possibility of using 'was' in the past tense with an 'if' statement" is that of course there is, simply because there are enough competent speakers who do exactly tha to make it standard. But then that's a descriptivist talking.

She would have died there and then, were it not for the sudden arrival of the medics

Yes, jayles, you're right, there are a couple of times when we don't have that freedom, and one of them is when we use inversion in conditionals. But in the univerted version of the expression you used 'was' would be OK, at least according to Oxford Dictionaries Online:

" if it wasn’t/weren’t for…
used to say that somebody/something stopped somebody/something from happening If it weren't for you, I wouldn't be alive today."
http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/be_1

Inversion seems to lock you into the subjunctive. For example, we can't abbreviate 'not' here either - an asterisk means it's ungrammatical, i.e. not acceptable to the majority of speakers:

If he were/was arriving later, I could go and fetch him.
Were he coming later, I could go and fetch him.
*Was he coming later, I could go and fetch him.

If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I would never have believed it.
Had I not seen it with my own eyes, I would never have believed it.
*Hadn't I seen it with my own eyes, I would never have believed it.

Interestingly, some writers also used to replace the 'would have' part with 'had'. When this happened together with inversion, Priestley called it the double conjunctive (his word for subjunctive) and thought it had 'a peculiar elegance':

'He had (= would have) formed one of the shining characters of his age, had not the extreme narowness of his genius, in everything but war, diminished the lustre of his merits.' David Hume, History

The other exception would be the fixed phrase 'If I were you'. This would sound very odd with 'was'.

For more on inversion in conditionals, see: http://random-idea-english.blogspot.com/2013/01/inversion-in-conditionals.html

uninverted, narrowness

@ElleEnglish re: "If I was the Prime Minister, I would have changed the law."

"I would have changed the law" is still hypothetical, but with past reference, so you need "had" in the "if" clause - "If I had been prime minister, I would have changed the law"

The only way I can think of when "If I was"can be used with past reference is using 'real past ', for example when it refers to a repeated event in the past - "If I was in London, I always stayed at the Ritz." Or, in an example similar to the 'cad' one above - "If I was rude (earlier on), I apologise" (as opposed to "If I were rude, I would apologise")

" If the subjunctive disappeared altogether, it would make for extremely confusing communication at times." - So why aren't we confused with every other verb and four persons of 'be'?

I'm not 'uneducated', in fact I know quite a lot about grammar. But I also know I have a choice.

Actually the subjunctive is around quite a bit even though it is unmarked. Modal verbs have a 'real' past tense in reported speech:
"She said she would do it"
Modal verbs also use the past subjunctive with present meaning for politeness:
"Could I come in?"
They also use past subjunctive to indicate unreal/hypothetical ideas:
"I would be surprised if ...."
In a main clause only, to distinguish an unreal past idea from real, we usually add a perfect infinitive to the past subjuctive of the modal:
"I would have been surprised if ..."
The point here is that when the use of past subjunctive for politeness developed in the early Middle Ages, we lost the ability to clearly use it to refer to the past. The usage of "had" in the main clause of a past conditional sentence is a throwback (which BTW mirrors modern German):
"Haette ich das gewusst, haette ich es Ihnen erzaehlt"
"Had I known, had I told you"

In fact that sentence "If I was the Prime Minister, I would have changed the law." does work,as a mixed-time hypothetical condition, but only if you accept that "was"can be used in hypothetical conditionals.

@jayles - I agree that there is a hidden subjunctive in things like "If I had", but I'm not so convinced by your arguments about modals. French and Spanish use similar expressions, but they are part of their conditional mood, not subjunctive. Theres'a website put together by a subjunctive fan, with a very comprehensive collection of examples, and he doesn't, as far as I can see, include expressions like this.

http://www.ceafinney.com/subjunctive/examples.html

I'm aware Lowth talks of using the subjunctive with words like "may, might, could, would", but I haven't investigated it very far. It might be worth, however, exploring the possible link between "should" and the subjunctive - the fact that it can be inverted, and that Brits often use it instead of present subjunctive, and in expressions like "I should think so". But again, I can't remember seeing anyone fererring to this as the subjunctive.

@WW My thesis would be that modal verbs in English are used in much the same way as they are in German, Dutch and languages like Frisian. Thus in German the past subjunctive "must", "could", "might", "dared" is distinguishable from the past indicative: musste vs muesste and so on.

In English we do not mark the disctinction, but it is still there: German does not mark the subjuctive for "would" and "should" either, but one can use "should" in German instead of "if" in just the same way as in English.

The usage of the past subjunctive to express politeness with a present meaning is very similar too. Thus "She should come" = "Sie sollte kommen" - unmarked past subjunctive, talking about now

The point of all this is it explains how our present usage developed and provides a framework for teaching rather than just saying sometimes it's like this and sometimes it's like that.

Essentially all I'm suggesting is that modals have a real and an unreal past just like any other verb; but they also have a third meaning - the past (subj) used as a polite present. When one adds that the real past is mostly not used as a main clause, we have pretty much explained all modal verb usage in one fell swoop.

@jayles - Hi, I confess to knowing next to nothing about the use of subjunctive in early English, but looking around, the subjunctive is usually seen as a form of inflection, some of whose functions were 'taken over by' modals (MWDEU). That's not the same as saying they *are* the subjunctive. Or as one paper (The Subjunctive in Old English and Middle English - Eva Kovacs) puts it (my emphasis):

"*Instead of* the subjunctive mood modal auxiliaries can also be used. The
auxiliary found most frequently in these clauses is shal/sholde, especially in the preterite. Furthermore, may/mighte also occurs mainly in the present tense, just like wil/wolde, which is occasionally found in Late Middle English."

By the time eighteenth century grammarians had discovered the subjunctive it had largely fallen out of use, and as I've already pointed out, more has disappeared since then, such as its use with real time conditionals. What's more, as Goold Brown shows, in A Grammar Of English Grammars, these grammarians disagreed quite significantly as to its composition and use.

However, grammarians today are generally agreed that there are two inflected (or rather, uninflected) forms, present and past (although compounds are also possible - "If he were wanting to ...)", and I firmly believe to start bringing modals into it is an unnecessary complication - especially to the understanding of modals, which are complicated enough already. In these old grammar books, where may, might and should are sometimes referred to as subjunctive, I have never seen these polite forms ("Would you, could you" etc) referred to like this, and if anything they are much more like a conditional mood. But it is generally agreed, that as we don't have separate inflections for these, they don't constitute a mood.

"English does not have an inflective (morphological) conditional mood, except in as much as the modal verbs could, might, should and would may in some contexts be regarded as conditional forms of can, may, shall and will respectively. What is called the English conditional mood (or just the conditional) is formed periphrastically using the modal verb would in combination with the bare infinitive of the main verb." Wikipedia

The modal system in English is highly complex and central to the way we express modality, just as the primary auxiliaries are to the way we express time and aspect. The use of the subjunctive, on the other hand, is marginal in modern English, and in British English, apart from set phrases, is for all intents and purposes limited to this one word - 'were'. And even then its use varies according to context. It might be hanging on in there in hypothetical conditionals, but it's not nearly so strong in constructions with 'I wish' or 'I would rather', and especially not after 'imagine' and 'supposing'.

I much prefer the concept of 'unreal past' that we teach our EFL students, which explains all these uses much more easily, the past being used here for 'distancing', and 'I/he/she were' simply seen as an exception (see quote from The Cambridge Grammar of English Grammar, above), charming and elegant as it may be for some people, and even for me sometimes. I'm not saying that the history of the subjunctive isn't interesting in its own right, but as far as modern language teaching is concerned, I don't think it's worth much more than a quick mention to explain the 'were' exception.

I thought this one had been put to bed some time ago.

Wake up, HS, it's morning again :). And the subjunctive, and especially the use of 'were/was', being one of the most controversial areas of grammar, I doubt it will ever go away.

My discussion with jayles has been purely historical, and I've learnt a little about Old English along the way.

But when someone like EnglishElle calls herself a 'firm believer in descriptivism', and goes on to contradict that in everything she says, I will react, especially when she puts it down to lack of education. She might try reading a modern grammar book for a start before throwing about that sort of accusation.

Hi WW,

Point taken.
I must say that in addition to respect for your knowledge I am impressed by your patience.
Were I to once more involve myself in this discussion I might well grow tired of casting my pearls .........................

Enough said methinks. :-))

In the sentence "I wish that Jim Bennett or Tom Fulmer (now deseased) was or were writing this letter." Which is correct?

Robert,
I suggest you read the previous entries in this thread and make up your own mind.
There are those of us who will say that it has to be "were".
However, "was" seems to be gaining in popularity.

You seem to be getting diseased and deceased confused. :-)

The main problem here is that English has evolved from a largely synthetic language (one in which grammatical function is marked by verb form or inflections) to a largely analytical language (where word order, modals, and prepositions mark syntactical, grammatical, and semantic functions). The "irrealis were" is not even considered by modern linguists as a form of the "subjunctive" at all, and it is a relic of old English that quite simply no longer serves any grammatical purpose. The syntactical, grammatical and semantic functions that used to be marked by morphology (changes in verb form or inflections) are now marked by in other ways, so the distinction between the "irrealis were" and "was" is no longer needed. The language hasn't lost anything, it is just marking or expressing it in a different way. We don't need the "were" in most "irrelis were" constructions because the semantics of the construction is made plain by words such as "if" or "wish". It is hilarious that people attempt to work out whether they should use "were" by first working out whether the construction is counterfactual, etc. Proof that the "were" isn't what makes the semantics plain.

And "idiolect" is certainly not a neologism. It is a very common word in grammar or linguistics. And it is amusing how some people claim that "correct usage" is seen as pedantic. Not at all. Pedantic usage is what is seen as pedantic ;-)

Insisting on the "irrealis were" as "correct usage" is obviously pedantic and rather odd. It only exists in the one construction, (where a "was" is changed to a "were") and with no other verbs and in no other constructions, proof in itself that it no longer needed.

And, ironically, the "irrealis were" or "subjunctive" as so many call it is much more common in AmE than in BrE. I seems to only be in the US where it is ever taught these days and only in the US where many people, other than grammar freaks, care, or even know about it.

@Henry

I respect your opinion however misguided it may be.

Since you are obviously not a grammar freak, are you perhaps some other genus of freak?

Henry and one or two others have summed it up fairly well. The "were" used in place of "was" in some English conditionals is a relic of the Old English subjunctive. It preserves no semantic distinction in Modern English and can be dropped. It is still quite frequently used in a number of constructions, though, and has more or less taken on the status of a fixed expression or idiom. The notion that it is not used as often as it used to be isn't supported by a quick check of corpora I have access to.