Twitter
Email
RSSI wish I were…
A reader wonders whether to use was or were in the following examples:
I wish I were…or…I wish I was…
If only it was…or… If only it were…
What is the rule?
With these examples, the choice is obvous because the words wish and if only make it clear that the speaker is talking about something that is not so. In such a case the subjunctive is called for:
I wish I were…
If only it were…
Sometimes the choice whether to use the subjunctive or the indicative is not so clear. To a large extent, English speakers don’t pay much attention to the subjunctive.
As long ago as 1926 H.W. Fowler called the subjunctive in English “moribund.” He went further and suggested that it never was possible to draw up a consistent table of uses of the subjunctive in English that would correspond to such tables for Latin.
Although the subjunctive is not a big deal in English, some uses of it are still alive and not difficult to master.
Depending on context, the choice between indicative and subjunctive can be as obvious as the examples with “wish” and “if only.”
If I were/if he were/if she were
These forms are called for when the statement refers to a state outside reality:
If he were Governor he could pardon you. (He’s not the Governor.)
If I were you, I’d fix that leaky roof. (I’m not you.)
If she were an animal, she’d be an armadillo. (She’s not an animal.)
If I was/if he was/if she was
These forms are called for when the statement refers to a state of being that existed, or could have existed in actual time:
If he was ill, no wonder he left the oysters untouched.
If I was unkind to you in those days, please forgive me.
If she was lost in the woods, no one can blame her for being late.
Sometimes the speaker must decide according to intended meaning:
If she were sensible, she’d order a background check on him. (I know her and she’s not sensible.)
If she was sensible, she’d order a background check on him. (I don’t know if she’s sensible or not. She may be.)
In his DCBLOG, David Crystal gives this example overheard in conversation:
A — If Jane was right for the part, I’d cast her.
B — But that’s the point. Is she right?
A — Well if she were, I’d cast her, that’s all I’m saying…
This example shows an intermingling of indicative and subjunctive to achieve nuances of meaning.
Got Your Free eBook?
- Subscribe to Daily Writing Tips and you will be able to download our free ebook: Basic English Grammar.
- You will also get all our grammar, spelling, punctuation and writing tips.
- The download link will go along with the first email (you might need to wait up to 24 hours).
Related Articles
- No related posts
I’d take issue with the last two examples for mixing past and present time oddly – ISTM the indicative versions should be “if she was sensible she’d have ordered a background check” and either “if Jane was right for the part I would’ve cast her” or “if Jane was right for the part I’ll cast her”; it doesn’t make sense that if she was sensible (i.e., at some point in the past) she would order a background check (in the present); and in the second example either the speaker already knows whether or not Jane was right for the part (in which case he would have cast her, but she wasn’t, so he didn’t – he needs to speak in past time here), or he doesn’t yet know (somebody else took her audition, for example, and he’ll cast her or not based on that person’s assessment, in which case he needs to speak in future time).
Peter, it seems you have started philosophy (lolz) because its so much difficult to understand (at least for me) what you write….lolz
Dear Maeve, please review the following illustrative example:
If she was sensible, she’d order a background check on him.
This is just not correct English. I’m not saying it’s not typical of colloquial English, but it is both grammatically and semantically indefensible. (Am I shouting?)
Peter, too, noticed that something was wrong with your example, although, unfortunately, his suggested reformulations introduced new problems, not the least of which was the omission of the necessary comma after the if-clause.
There are numerous ways of reformulating the example to avoid the use of the subjunctive, but all those that I have considered seem strained and somehow unnatural. (The replacement of “she’d order” with “she must have ordered” seems the least objectionable option, but even that is less than satisfactory.)
So, why avoid the subjunctive here, when it is clearly the best tool for the job?
Well, the simple answer is that many of us in the English-speaking world (and not least in England) have forgotten how and when to use it (and even, in many cases, how to recognize it). Moreover, the subjunctive mood often has, to our modern ears, a quaint, old-fashioned sound (particularly when it takes the form of the infinitive without to):
Take pity on the helpless, be they man or beast;
Should he fail to arrive, I shall take a taxi;
Would that I were a younger man….
It is hardly surprising that problems arise with the subjunctive, as it shares its forms with other verb-forms – for example:
If he studied hard, he would pass the exam.
This is barely recognizable as the subjunctive mood, yet a slight reformulation swiftly removes any possible doubt:
If he were to study hard, he would pass the exam.
(I won’t go into the niceties of would and should. Modern English, as you probably know, often uses “would” where “should” would once have been preferred, but that’s a discussion for another time and place.)
Turning to the example that “shows an intermingling of indicative and subjunctive to achieve nuances of meaning”, I sincerely hope that David Crystal had no such idea in mind when citing it. There are no “nuances of meaning” to be gleaned here. The first speaker, A, begins with a statement that is clearly ungrammatical, as it employs the indicative where the subjunctive is required. Nevertheless, B understands A’s intended meaning, and responds appropriately, subtly correcting A as he does so. A then responds with the correct use of the subjunctive, very probably having taken note of B’s correction.
(Alas, A’s second statement, as quoted, introduces another small but significant error – one that I rather doubt David Crystal would have made. Technically speaking, “Well” should be followed by a stop, such as a comma or semi-colon.)
Misusing the indicative for the subjunctive will generally go unnoticed in many circles, and we could probably agree that many worse linguistic crimes often go unpunished. I am thinking, in particular, of such crass catachreses as “if you was” and “if we was”, which, outside the pages of Oliver Twist or Pygmalion, are an offence to any but the least-educated ear.