Comments on: The irrealis “were” can say hello to the Dodo

By: mand

mand — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:54:16 +0000

@ Peter: {applause} :0)

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:58:25 +0000

Irrealis is a generic descriptor, like plural or male. “Irrealis were” is being used to distinguish the subjunctive (an “irrealis case”) from the indicative use of the word ‘were’ (e.g., “we were speaking”); it’s just another way to say “subjunctive”. (Actually, it’s a more generic descriptor than “subjunctive”, but English, like Latin, only has the one irrealis case; i.e., the subjunctive. Ancient Greek, for example, has two: subjunctive and optative, so “irrealis” would cover both)

By: Brad K.

Brad K. — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:24:35 +0000

@ Maeve,

Would another expression for irrealis be “phantom”? In your example “If she were younger, she would have enjoyed that trip” then common or general rules would pair She Was or We Were. So using She Were might be considered a “phantom” construct, not because the sense of the verb and noun agree, but because the verb is used in a disjoint time sense.

Almost like “informs” as in “Data informs strategy, or should.”

I at first took irrealis to be a generic descriptor, like plural or male. But perhaps the phrase “irrealis were” is a specific bit of technical jargon, with a meaning quite aside from common usage, and not immediately available from the words of the phrase.

By: mand

mand — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:11:32 +0000

No need to apologise, the exploring was fun!

(By the way, what’s your view on that comma?)

I can’t be a genuine grammarian either – but then i haven’t ever claimed to be. ;0)

By: Maeve Maddox

Maeve Maddox — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:16:05 +0000

Sorry, guys,
It was naughty of me to use “irrealis” without explanation. It was my first encounter with the term too and I’ve been teaching English since before the term “determiner” became common.

I guess I expected everyone would read the article I was responding to.

Here’s the reference:

These musings weren’t getting us anywhere, though; it was time to call in a genuine grammarian. So I sent my query to Geoffrey Pullum, coauthor of the imposing Cambridge Grammar of the English Language and a linguist at Edinburgh University. Was there an obvious cure, I asked, for our was-were puzzlement?

There was, he said: Have it both ways. The Times’s choice of the “irrealis were,” as it’s called in the higher grammarspeak, is correct; so is our preferred was. “In informal style, Standard English substitutes ‘was’ for the irrealis ‘were,’ ” Pullum explained . . .

And no, I don’t agree with Professor Pullum that it’s OK to ditch the subjunctive “were.” Guess I’m not a genuine grammarian.