This is bugging me (subjunctive woes)

Homemaster

Registered
Joined
Nov 19, 2012
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Website
www.tomatoesandespresso.com
Is it were or was in this? Does the subjunctive apply to questions?

"What if everyone was an admin?"

I realise that "everyone" takes the singular, but if it's subjunctive tense then...

Subjunctive slays me.
 

Bartholomew

Comic guy
Kind Benefactor
Poetry Book Collaborator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
8,507
Reaction score
1,956
Location
Kansas! Again.
I'm only here because I thought the title said "Buggering," not "Bugging."

<Scoots out of the thread>
 

Tedium

Le sigh.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
222
Reaction score
21
Location
Searching for Willoughby
I'm with Susan. Use "were" with the subjunctive. Doesn't really matter that it's a question or that the subject is singular. That's the prescriptivist answer.

But, she's also right that "was" is not entirely incorrect thanks to common usage. That's the descriptivist answer. Just depends on how casual you are trying to be.
 

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
9,239
Reaction score
2,316
Location
Oregon, USA
To reinforce Susan's use of the subjunctive when the "if" is hypothetical:

By far the most common use of the subjunctive is the use of the subjunctive after "if" clauses that state or describe a hypothetical situation.

Subjunctive: "If I were a butterfly, I would have wings."
Note that in the indicative, we normally write, "I was." For instance, "When I was a young boy, I liked to swim." However, to indicate the subjunctive, we write "I were." The subjunctive indicates a statement contrary to fact. In the butterfly example above, I am not really a butterfly, but I am describing a hypothetical situation that might occur if I were one.

Indicative: "When I was a butterfly in a former life, I had wings."

In this sentence, the author uses the indicative to indicate that she indeed was a butterfly in the past, and she is not just hypothetically speaking about a situation contrary to her reality. Note that "when" usually takes the indicative after it, and "if" frequently takes the subjunctive.

(Carson-Newman College webpage)​
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
If I were a rich man.....diddle, diddle, diddle....:snoopy:
 

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
9,239
Reaction score
2,316
Location
Oregon, USA
If I were you, Bufty, I'd be careful up on that roof.
 

Maryn

Sees All
Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
55,432
Reaction score
25,450
Location
Snow Cave
I've shared this copy-and-paste before.

Subjunctive verbs can be tricky, and the tone of the narrative containing one can make the correct verb feel wrong. In general, they sound pretty formal and may not fit the tone of what you’re writing. They’d be absolutely correct in academic or business writing, but could sound stiff and weird in a character’s casual dialogue.

When a verb
• indicates a wish (Examples: I wish I were home. She wished the store were open.)
• begins with if and expresses a condition that does not exist (Examples: If I were queen, you would bow. If we were any luckier, we'd be rich.)
• begins with as if or as though (Examples: She ran as if she were on fire. They bought stock as though investing were risk free.)
• begins with that and expresses a demand, request, requirement, or suggestion (Examples: The college requires that incoming students register in person. Lucille asks that Tom arrive early.)
that's subjunctive mood.

The present tense of subjunctive uses the base form of the verb. (That means the verb’s basic form: come, arrive, run, swing, think, etc.) The past tense uses the indicative mood except for be, which uses were for both singular and plural.

Maryn, dimly remembering subjunctive from Latin, where she learned most of her English
 

Cactus Land

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
148
Reaction score
6
Location
Europe
Definitely were because this is the second condition, past simple, plus future perfect.. If I were you, I wouldn't smoke that right now.... in this case, verb to be goes past plural, always... only really sound subjunctivy when the subject is singular...
 

ccarver30

Nicole Castro
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
2,606
Reaction score
857
Location
Wherever the MMC is
Website
www.amazon.com
Yeah- were. Conditional.

It's funny that the only reason why I know verb tenses is from my spanish classes. I don't remember learning any of this stuff in english class.
 

fadeaccompli

here and there again
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
899
Reaction score
227
Location
Austin, TX
Yeah- were. Conditional.

It's funny that the only reason why I know verb tenses is from my spanish classes. I don't remember learning any of this stuff in english class.

I learned how to make proper conditional sentences in English through my Latin class; after all, they had to give us the proper English grammatical paradigms to translate the different Latin conditionals into, right?

At least in speaking and casual writing, I find that using the Right Conditional Forms doesn't go wrong. Not a lot of people say "If I were to do that, I would be an idiot!" these days, but no one misunderstands it, either. And when I write academic work, it fits in perfectly. I have more trouble deciding which forms to use when I'm writing fiction; I have to fight the urge to just let everyone speak 'properly', and consider what it's going to imply about the speaker if they do.
 

DreamWeaver

Shakespearean Fool
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
2,916
Reaction score
403
Just as a personal observation, it seems to me that Brits don't use subjunctive nearly as much as Mercans do. I often read a sentence in British English that jars my internal ear enough to make me mutter, "Were, were, WERE." I find that situation ironic, since we Mercans generally think of ourselves as using a less formal version of English--but we seem to be more particular about using the subjunctive. :D

Or maybe I just read bad examples of British writing ;).
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
I learned how to make proper conditional sentences in English through my Latin class; after all, they had to give us the proper English grammatical paradigms to translate the different Latin conditionals into, right?

Not right. Latin isn't, and never was, the framework for English grammatical construction. It got slathered onto English grammar by the effort of certain Latin scholars in the 18th century, notably John Dryden, which resulted in the ridiculous dictum of not using a preposition to end a sentence with, among many other tribulations inflicted upon students in subsequent decades.

English grammatical construction isn't derived from Latin. English is not a Romance language, despite its spongiosity in adopting words and phrases from other tongues.

Subjunctive case in English is a diminishing formality. The issue of decision, relative to the question in the OP, is how formal the writer wants the prose to be.

caw
 

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
9,239
Reaction score
2,316
Location
Oregon, USA
I think we get to blame the subjunctive on Old English speakers and writers.

In English Syntax: From Word to Discourse, Lynn Berk has this opinion:

Like the term imperative, the term subjunctive refers to a particular verb form. In Old English, special verb forms existed to communicate non-facts, e.g., wants, hopes, and hypothetical situations. The subjunctive is somewhat weak in Modern English, but there are speakers who use it routinely. In many cases, the subjunctive is a form learned in school or through reading, so it is educated speakers who use it most.

I’m guilty of aping the subjunctive from reading "too many" old books.

On the other hand, as far back as the 1920s, Henry Fowler didn’t think much of its use:

About the subjunctive, so delimited, the important general facts are: (1) that is is moribund except in a few easily specified uses; (2) that, owing to the capricious influence of the much analysed classical upon the less studied native moods, it probably never would have been possible to draw up a satisfactory table of the English subjunctive uses; (3) that assuredly no-one will ever find it possible or worth while now that the subjunctive is dying; (4) that subjunctives met with today, outside the few truly living uses, are either deliberate revivals by poets for legitimate enough archaic effect, or antiquated survivals as in pretentious journalism, infecting their context with dullness, or new arrivals possible only in an age to which the grammar of the subjunctive is not natural but artificial (A Dictionary of Modern English Usage).
 

fadeaccompli

here and there again
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
899
Reaction score
227
Location
Austin, TX
Not right. Latin isn't, and never was, the framework for English grammatical construction. It got slathered onto English grammar by the effort of certain Latin scholars in the 18th century, notably John Dryden, which resulted in the ridiculous dictum of not using a preposition to end a sentence with, among many other tribulations inflicted upon students in subsequent decades.

English grammatical construction isn't derived from Latin. English is not a Romance language, despite its spongiosity in adopting words and phrases from other tongues.

Perhaps I was unclear.

Just as learning SPANISH taught me more about what verbs in ENGLISH were doing, learning LATIN taught me more about what conditionals in ENGLISH were doing. This doesn't mean they work the same way! It means that seeing a language from the outside can make it easier to re-evaluate one's native language, and offer more vocabulary and paradigms for discussion of its quirks.

If I had said "learning Latin taught more about English because English grammar is exactly like Latin!" then there'd be room for dispute. But I didn't say that, because they're not. A year of Japanese also taught me more about English grammar, and they're not even distant cousins as language families go.
 

ConnieBDowell

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
75
Reaction score
2
Location
VA
Website
bookechoes.com
Just as a personal observation, it seems to me that Brits don't use subjunctive nearly as much as Mercans do. I often read a sentence in British English that jars my internal ear enough to make me mutter, "Were, were, WERE." I find that situation ironic, since we Mercans generally think of ourselves as using a less formal version of English--but we seem to be more particular about using the subjunctive. :D

Or maybe I just read bad examples of British writing ;).

I once had a prof tell me that colonial societies tend to retain older linguistic forms longer. They're more resistant to change. That's certainly true of American pronunciation of words with the letter r. I used to wonder why we Americans stopped dropping the r. Turns out British people used to pronounce all their r's, developing the dropped r as a feature of the dialect after there was a cultural and (naturally) physical split between British and American populations.

I'm just hypothesizing here, but I wonder if that's also the reason why Americans say "Merry Christmas" and not "Happy Christmas" as they say in the UK.
 

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
9,239
Reaction score
2,316
Location
Oregon, USA
I'm just hypothesizing here, but I wonder if that's also the reason why Americans say "Merry Christmas" and not "Happy Christmas" as they say in the UK.

Hi, Connie.

Merry Christmas and happy Christmas are the same sign in American Sign Language, but didn't Charles Dickens have his Londoners wishing "merry Christmas" in A Christmas Carol?
 

Fallen

Stood at the coalface
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
5,500
Reaction score
1,957
Website
www.jacklpyke.com
Perhaps I was unclear.

Just as learning SPANISH taught me more about what verbs in ENGLISH were doing, learning LATIN taught me more about what conditionals in ENGLISH were doing. This doesn't mean they work the same way! It means that seeing a language from the outside can make it easier to re-evaluate one's native language, and offer more vocabulary and paradigms for discussion of its quirks.

If I had said "learning Latin taught more about English because English grammar is exactly like Latin!" then there'd be room for dispute. But I didn't say that, because they're not. A year of Japanese also taught me more about English grammar, and they're not even distant cousins as language families go.

I was the same. In primary/secondary education there was a focus on punctuation, but nothing really on grammar and syntax. I didn't get into grammar mechanics until university, and that was only going through specialist courses (functional approaches (corpora etc)), and then a latin class. You really get to grips with English in the latter because you're constantly sorting conjugation and declension, where you really need to know indicative v subjunctive, nom, acc, gen, dat, abl etc.

My Latin is rubbish :D but it really helped refine my English.

Connie, we use both happy and merry Christmas over here. Happy Christmas is the less formal. :)
 
Last edited:

King Neptune

Banned
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
4,253
Reaction score
372
Location
The Oceans
It is horrible that people didn't learn grammar in elementary school. I didn't learn all of the details in any school, but I got the essentials, including a little about the subjunctive before secondary and more in secondary school. I kept my high school grammar book, because it was a good reference. Latin was slightly useful in English grammar, but there are too many bits of Latin grammar that do not apply for it to be truly relevant to English.

And a joyous Sol Invictus