When to use “If I was” vs. “If I were”?












156
















  1. If I was...

  2. If I were...


When is it correct to use "If I was" vs. "If I were" in standard English?










share|improve this question

























  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – tchrist
    Feb 4 '18 at 17:20











  • Still related, even if it's been shifted over to chat: If I was an airline pilot...vs. If I had been an airline pilot 10 years ago

    – Mari-Lou A
    Feb 4 '18 at 19:10








  • 2





    Does this question really need a bounty? I appreciate the motives of the regulars here to improve the site, draw attention, and foster good questions. But this one is going on a decade old, replete with existing answers, all upvoted, one accepted, and nowhere near up to the modern standards of the site.

    – Dan Bron
    Feb 4 '18 at 21:02






  • 4





    @DanBron - When I've noticed this problem before (including other SE sites), the answer I've always seen is, don't write a new question -- if you want the answers updates, place a bounty. It seems to be part of the SE design. But if you still want to open a discussion of approach to updating, I suggest you post at Meta, and then make a comment here with a link to the question.

    – aparente001
    Feb 4 '18 at 22:35













  • @aparente001 - I think the point here is; does this question really need an updating?

    – user240918
    Feb 5 '18 at 23:02
















156
















  1. If I was...

  2. If I were...


When is it correct to use "If I was" vs. "If I were" in standard English?










share|improve this question

























  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – tchrist
    Feb 4 '18 at 17:20











  • Still related, even if it's been shifted over to chat: If I was an airline pilot...vs. If I had been an airline pilot 10 years ago

    – Mari-Lou A
    Feb 4 '18 at 19:10








  • 2





    Does this question really need a bounty? I appreciate the motives of the regulars here to improve the site, draw attention, and foster good questions. But this one is going on a decade old, replete with existing answers, all upvoted, one accepted, and nowhere near up to the modern standards of the site.

    – Dan Bron
    Feb 4 '18 at 21:02






  • 4





    @DanBron - When I've noticed this problem before (including other SE sites), the answer I've always seen is, don't write a new question -- if you want the answers updates, place a bounty. It seems to be part of the SE design. But if you still want to open a discussion of approach to updating, I suggest you post at Meta, and then make a comment here with a link to the question.

    – aparente001
    Feb 4 '18 at 22:35













  • @aparente001 - I think the point here is; does this question really need an updating?

    – user240918
    Feb 5 '18 at 23:02














156












156








156


76







  1. If I was...

  2. If I were...


When is it correct to use "If I was" vs. "If I were" in standard English?










share|improve this question

















  1. If I was...

  2. If I were...


When is it correct to use "If I was" vs. "If I were" in standard English?







word-choice grammaticality conditionals subjunctive-mood






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Feb 5 '18 at 22:39









Patrick M

3,91111340




3,91111340










asked Aug 13 '10 at 8:13









AVDAVD

93821114




93821114













  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – tchrist
    Feb 4 '18 at 17:20











  • Still related, even if it's been shifted over to chat: If I was an airline pilot...vs. If I had been an airline pilot 10 years ago

    – Mari-Lou A
    Feb 4 '18 at 19:10








  • 2





    Does this question really need a bounty? I appreciate the motives of the regulars here to improve the site, draw attention, and foster good questions. But this one is going on a decade old, replete with existing answers, all upvoted, one accepted, and nowhere near up to the modern standards of the site.

    – Dan Bron
    Feb 4 '18 at 21:02






  • 4





    @DanBron - When I've noticed this problem before (including other SE sites), the answer I've always seen is, don't write a new question -- if you want the answers updates, place a bounty. It seems to be part of the SE design. But if you still want to open a discussion of approach to updating, I suggest you post at Meta, and then make a comment here with a link to the question.

    – aparente001
    Feb 4 '18 at 22:35













  • @aparente001 - I think the point here is; does this question really need an updating?

    – user240918
    Feb 5 '18 at 23:02



















  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

    – tchrist
    Feb 4 '18 at 17:20











  • Still related, even if it's been shifted over to chat: If I was an airline pilot...vs. If I had been an airline pilot 10 years ago

    – Mari-Lou A
    Feb 4 '18 at 19:10








  • 2





    Does this question really need a bounty? I appreciate the motives of the regulars here to improve the site, draw attention, and foster good questions. But this one is going on a decade old, replete with existing answers, all upvoted, one accepted, and nowhere near up to the modern standards of the site.

    – Dan Bron
    Feb 4 '18 at 21:02






  • 4





    @DanBron - When I've noticed this problem before (including other SE sites), the answer I've always seen is, don't write a new question -- if you want the answers updates, place a bounty. It seems to be part of the SE design. But if you still want to open a discussion of approach to updating, I suggest you post at Meta, and then make a comment here with a link to the question.

    – aparente001
    Feb 4 '18 at 22:35













  • @aparente001 - I think the point here is; does this question really need an updating?

    – user240918
    Feb 5 '18 at 23:02

















Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– tchrist
Feb 4 '18 at 17:20





Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

– tchrist
Feb 4 '18 at 17:20













Still related, even if it's been shifted over to chat: If I was an airline pilot...vs. If I had been an airline pilot 10 years ago

– Mari-Lou A
Feb 4 '18 at 19:10







Still related, even if it's been shifted over to chat: If I was an airline pilot...vs. If I had been an airline pilot 10 years ago

– Mari-Lou A
Feb 4 '18 at 19:10






2




2





Does this question really need a bounty? I appreciate the motives of the regulars here to improve the site, draw attention, and foster good questions. But this one is going on a decade old, replete with existing answers, all upvoted, one accepted, and nowhere near up to the modern standards of the site.

– Dan Bron
Feb 4 '18 at 21:02





Does this question really need a bounty? I appreciate the motives of the regulars here to improve the site, draw attention, and foster good questions. But this one is going on a decade old, replete with existing answers, all upvoted, one accepted, and nowhere near up to the modern standards of the site.

– Dan Bron
Feb 4 '18 at 21:02




4




4





@DanBron - When I've noticed this problem before (including other SE sites), the answer I've always seen is, don't write a new question -- if you want the answers updates, place a bounty. It seems to be part of the SE design. But if you still want to open a discussion of approach to updating, I suggest you post at Meta, and then make a comment here with a link to the question.

– aparente001
Feb 4 '18 at 22:35







@DanBron - When I've noticed this problem before (including other SE sites), the answer I've always seen is, don't write a new question -- if you want the answers updates, place a bounty. It seems to be part of the SE design. But if you still want to open a discussion of approach to updating, I suggest you post at Meta, and then make a comment here with a link to the question.

– aparente001
Feb 4 '18 at 22:35















@aparente001 - I think the point here is; does this question really need an updating?

– user240918
Feb 5 '18 at 23:02





@aparente001 - I think the point here is; does this question really need an updating?

– user240918
Feb 5 '18 at 23:02










11 Answers
11






active

oldest

votes


















48





+50









SYNOPSIS: Sometimes it must be “if I was”, but at other times it can be “if I were” — and for some speakers in those cases, perhaps even must be “if I were” in their idiolect.





Sentences with the subordinating conjunction if normally contain two
clauses, each with its own subject and verb. The question asks what to do
about the past-tense be verb in the “if” clause.



Unfortunately, as it’s currently worded the question can have no answer that is
simultaneously all of short, complete, and correct. That’s because it doesn’t
provide enough context to know which one of many possible cases actually
applies here. I must therefore cover them all.





Classification schemes



David Maule in his 1988 EFL paper titled ‘Sorry, if he comes, I go’: teaching
conditionals

suggested that English conditionals be broadly classified as one of four
types depending on whether their outcomes were real vs. unreal and
past vs. non-past. (Maule classifies these
based on their “then” part not on their “if” part, and as we shall see,
this is a useful way to organize them.)




  • Class A: real non-past

  • Class B: real past

  • Class C: unreal non-past

  • Class D: unreal past


Maule discovered that most English conditionals do not fit into the
narrow models typically presented to EFL students learning English.



Christian Jones and Daniel Waller built on Maule’s work with their own EFL paper in 2010,
If only it were true: the problem with the four
conditionals
.
The authors sampled a random assortment of conditionals from the British
National Corpus and classified each as being one of Maule’s four categories
listed above. They discovered that the real cases contained patterns in
both the past and the non-past that appeared very frequently in real
English, but which are rarely taught to learners.



The Reals



The class B “real past” cases fit into three patterns:




  1. If + present simple, past continuous

  2. If + present simple, past simple

  3. If + past simple, past simple


Of those three, the final pattern of having past simple in both
clauses was by far the most common of the three. The sample
provided for that case was:




... if you wanted[real] to know the answer ... you had[real] to keep zapping from channel to channel.




Converting that into the first person singular to align with the asker’s question gives us:




If I wanted[real] to know the answer, I had[real] to keep zapping from channel to channel.




And it just one step more to swap out want for be:




If I was[real] interested in knowing the answer, I had[real] to keep zapping from channel to channel.




So here we discover the first of what shall prove to be several answers to
the asker’s question:



You use If I was in the “if” part when the “then” part is in the simple past.



These are always conditionals from Maule’s
class B. It would not be grammatical to use “If I were” there.



These “real past” cases happen all the time in real speech and real
writing, as Jones and Waller prove.



Consider this arrangement:




If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she took[real] the bus.




That’s a real past case on both sides, and it would be ungrammatical to use
“If she were” to attempt to mean the same thing. You can also use a modal perfect in the consequent along with that past simple in the “if” part:




If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she must have taken the bus.



If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she will have taken the bus.




Those are all real cases, and you know by the “then” part.



The Unreals



For Class C, the unreal non-pasts, there are many example patterns
provided, but the most common case by far uses “if” with past simple or
with a modal, then some modal in the consequent.



One provided example there is:




... I’d give it a good hiding if it didn’t behave.




However, there are many other Class C patterns, such as:




... if we could get three or four items, that would be very nice.



... if two members of staff happen to fall in love and decide to marry it would be churlish to be appointing blame.




The thing about using the past simple in something like “If it didn’t” is
that without looking further along in the sentence, this alone is not
enough to reveal whether it’s a Class B type that will take a real
consequent or whether it’s a Class C type that will take an unreal one.



“If only it were true”, “I wish it were true”



Because we use the simple past tense in English for real and unreal conditionals, you normally cannot know whether it’s the unreal case until you hit the “then” portion. But in one unique yet common case, you can, and that is when a singular subject is governing the verb be in the past. That’s because the unreal case uses were no matter whether singular or plural.



So we could say:




If a staff member were to fall in love, it would be churlish to assign blame.




That’s a Class C conditional because the “then” part has a would be in it. But you already knew it was going to be a hypothetical case when you saw the “If a staff member were” in the first half.



Recasting that into the first person singular provides the second answer
to the asker’s question:




If I were to fall in love, it would be churlish to blame me for it.




This special, modally marked form of be is used only for an unreal
hypothetical. It is a relic of the Old English past subjunctive, and it was once used for far more than we use it today.



Here alone can you detect through the morphology of the verb
that it is anything other than the past simple. This is a Class C
conditional because it has an unreal non-past in its consequent: “would be
churlish”



You cannot go wrong by using were for hypotheticals like this, as it has
been the preferred use for centuries, particularly but not exclusively in America. Many careful writers still choose to
observe this distinction: you need but read some recent issue of The Economist magazine from the UK to find plenty of examples of this. Indeed,
English teachers at American schools have been known to mark various hypothetical uses of was as “wrong”, saying that it “should” be were.



Optional were in Class C conditionals



However, you should not flinch if — nay, when — you hear someone say
“If I was... I would...” as a Class C conditional in casual speech. This sometimes happens even in educated
speakers and writers, so you should not make anything of it. Some writers prefer not to do that, but unless the person complaining is your English teacher, you shouldn’t let it get to you. (Yes, this is ungrammatical for some people. For others, it is not.)



It could be that those writers or speakers using “If I was...would” in their conditionals have
chosen not to convey the nuance, or perhaps did not consider
such a distinction meaningful in their own speech. Some are even
unaware that the distinction exists.



Because of the redundancy in language where the would in the “then” part gives it away, it’s not really needed anyway; everyone will still know what you mean.



These forms are still unreal cases even when they aren’t modally marked as unreal, singular were. Because in all cases except for this unique case of was/were you cannot ever morphologically distinguish a real case from an unreal one in English, you have to decide whether it’s unreal by looking at the “then” part, not the “if” part (at least, not reliably).



That means you need to train yourself to tell the real case:




If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she took[real] the bus.




From the unreal case:




If she were[unreal] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




Even when the unreal case uses the past simple not unreal past in the “if” part the way some speakers do:




If she was[“unreal”] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




That last example above is real in form but it is still unreal in sense because of the would. Some writers disapprove of that style of using was for a hypothetical, but it’s not uncommon, especially in speech.



Moreover, you cannot somehow make it be “less hypothetical” merely by using “was...would”; that’s just as hypothetical as “were...would” for the reasons already stated.



One final common construction uses past perfect in the “if” part and a modal perfect in the “then” part:




If she had been[unreal] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have had[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




Although that’s a common way to set up a unreal case with perfects on both sides, there are many other ways, including using a non-perfect unreal past in the “if”:




If she were[unreal] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have had[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




Yes, it’s somehow “unbalanced” with respect to the perfect aspect, but English doesn’t have an obligatory sequence-of-tenses rule like some languages do, and we often use a simple past instead of a perfect one because it’s...simpler that way.



Inverted Conditionals without if



There is one relatively uncommon place where you pretty much do have to use were not was in a conditional, and that is when you use inversion to forgo the word if altogether:




Were[unreal] there any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




That’s the same as saying:




If there were[unreal] any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




or even as saying:




If there had been[unreal] any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




But that last one lends itself to an inverted version:




Had there been[unreal] any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




The subject–verb inversion is something of a stealth conditional because it doesn’t use the word if. The inversion alone is enough to signal that it’s what used to be called a “subjunctive” use (back when English had an actual subjunctive). It doesn’t have to use be, but if you do use be for it, you should certainly use were. Other verbs in the past tense work the same, with the inversion signalling the conditional:




Had[unreal] they but asked, we would have[unreal] gladly told them.




You’ll find this “subjunctive inversion” style in formal writing, but very rarely if ever in extemporaneous, casual speaking. That’s because inversion isn’t all that normal, so it’s a marked form. Consider how stiffly formal this Steven Brust quote mentioned in this answer sounds:




To be more precise, and state the matter in its simplest form, we believe that were[unreal] any of the events in the previous volume of such a nature that they could be omitted without severe damage to the narrative, we should have omitted[unreal] them to begin with.



        ― The Lord of Castle Black, by Steven Brust




There instead of writing out the conditional the long way with “if any were”, to be more formal Brust wrote it with inversion: “were any”. (He’s also playing on the modal duality of should, but that’s something else again.)



If you ever get the chance to read English literature from a couple centuries ago or better, you might even come upon conditional inversion used with the bare infinitive in what has historically been called a “present subjunctive” use:




Be ye[unreal] man or mouse, still shall ye say nothing!




That’s using inversion to skip the if, as though it were:




If ye be[unreal] man or mouse, still shall ye say nothing!




Nobody talks that way anymore, and nobody writes that way anymore, either, not unless they intend to represent the speech of centuries long past. Instead we’d just say:




No matter whether you are a man or a mouse, you still will say nothing!






Further Reading



I have related answers here:




  • subjunctive in a “non-if” hypothetical clause

  • “Be them” or “be they”?

  • If I were him, I would doubt if she (is/was/were?) serious about this relationship

  • How is the English Subjunctive Composed?

  • Present subjunctive with synonyms of lest






share|improve this answer


























  • re "to be deliberately archaizing Brust wrote..." When I write a formal letter (e-mail, these days) I often use inversions such as "had there been" "should you have" or "were you to" to convey a formal tone but I had no idea I would be archaizing.

    – Centaurus
    Feb 5 '18 at 12:49













  • @Centaurus You’re right, so I’ve re­moved that bit. Mere “sub­junc­tive in­ver­sion” for con­di­tion­als by it­self is not ar­chaiz­ing, al­though it is more of­ten to be found in writ­ing than in speech and so might be “for­mal­iz­ing”. Brust is writ­ing a char­ac­ter there who’s pur­pose­fully stuffy. (continued...)

    – tchrist
    Feb 5 '18 at 14:13








  • 1





    @Centaurus (continued) His word-play on we should is pos­si­ble be­cause most peo­ple would today say we would but Brust is us­ing the “old” “1st-per­son” fla­vor of we should where in mod­ern times we’d be much more likely to say we would. He did so be­cause this way he al­lows for both modal­i­ties of should — the epis­temic sense of prob­a­bil­ity and the de­on­tic sense of obli­ga­tion — to si­mul­ta­ne­ously en­ter into the read­er’s mind for the delectably sub­tle, hu­mor­ous ef­fect.

    – tchrist
    yesterday













  • There's at least one inversion which can only really be thought of as indicative in modern 21st century English, the one with should - as in Should you see Centaurus, ask him to ping me.

    – Araucaria
    11 hours ago





















88














When in doubt, always use the subjunctive mood:




If I were you...




It will make you sound smarter and it is technically correct since "the subjunctive mood is used to express a wish or possible situation that is currently not true."






share|improve this answer



















  • 3





    Please provide references to support this answer. The year is now 2018 and smartypants answers are not exactly commendable :)

    – Mari-Lou A
    Feb 4 '18 at 19:05






  • 4





    Previous comments have been moved to chat, but since this answer remains accepted (and the asker apparently AWOL), this should be stated here: THIS ANSWER IS NOT CORRECT. The subjunctive mood is NOT always the right option. See Nick’s answer for a much better explanation.

    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Feb 4 '18 at 23:14











  • MODERATOR NOTE: Aw gee, can't you guys ᴘʀᴇᴛᴛʏ ᴘʟᴇᴀsᴇ ᴡɪᴛʜ sᴜɢᴀʀ ᴏɴ ɪᴛ carry on your discussion either in this answer’s chatroom, or in this question’s chatroom, or even in the main ELU chatroom where people actually hang out? I've manually copied your comments into this answer’s chatroom.

    – tchrist
    Feb 5 '18 at 14:22








  • 4





    This answer appears to be a bit of satire that was so successful that it got taken for a real piece of advice, and irritated some people. Repeatedly. Rather like Macchiavelli.

    – John Lawler
    Aug 31 '18 at 23:01



















71














It's if I were for hypothetical in the present or future and if I was when talking about something presumed true in the PAST. "IF" then means something likened to "since".




If I were class president, I would represent our class very well for the next four years.



If I was at the party last night, I don't remember.




It's an old, residual rule from the days of yore when English verbs conjugated differently for person and singular/plural in both the past and present tense indicative and subjunctive. While I may not have enough knowledge on Old and Middle English, I can show you the conjugation for to do for the 2nd person singular form of "thou" in Early Modern English:




present indicative - thou dost

present subjunctive - thou do

past indicative - thou didst

past subjunctive - thou did




It's why it should be "if I be" for things possible and one could still say it. We see "if truth be told" and "whether it be" and others, all residual subjunctives from the days of Chaucer and even Shakespeare wherein it was already disappearing. In Modern English, the past tense is uniform for every person (I, you, he, we, you, they did) except for "to be" (I, he was, but you, we, you, they were), but it wasn't always that way.



Anyway, if I were you, I would learn it because it usually separates the intelligent from ignoramuses. It's correct English even if it be a little old.






share|improve this answer

































    30














    Well, "if I was" can be valid for the past, I guess.




    If I was wrong, please forgive me.




    That aside, I think one of the other answers is right that in British English — at least spoken — both are acceptable and probably equally common. (The 'were' version sounds more 'educated'.)






    share|improve this answer


























    • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

      – tchrist
      Feb 4 '18 at 17:20



















    15















    The rule that I was taught is that was
    is for things that could be true but
    aren't, and were is for things that
    could never be true.



    So, if I was an airline pilot is OK
    because conceivably I could retrain as
    a pilot, if I wanted.



    But if I were you is right because I
    will never be you.




    The rule you were taught is wrong, Daniel.



    The few subjunctive forms that are left can all be stated in other fashions using language that isn't subjunctive in form. We use lexical verbs to state subjunctive/contrary to fact situations all the time.



    If I lived in Bangkok, ... // If I had a million dollars, ... // If I hadn't been born, ... .



    Just as we can use the past time FORM of lexical verbs to describe contrary to fact situations, so too we can use 'was'. It's not as formal as the subjunctive form 'were' but it means the same thing.



    There's not a speaker of English anywhere who thinks that "If I was you" means that the speaker is saying "I am you".



    "If I were you" means the same thing as "If I was you". They both entail that I am not you.



    Of course, we can and do use 'was' to state "allowing that that's true":



    If she was at the party, she sure was quiet.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 1





      As you indicate, saying, "If I was you" would almost certainly not cause confusion (except perhaps some confusion about this rule), but it would make people think you didn't finish high school.

      – Kai Maxfield
      May 21 '16 at 3:46



















    13














    The rule that I was taught is that was is for things that could be true but aren't, and were is for things that could never be true.



    So, if I was an airline pilot is OK because conceivably I could retrain as a pilot, if I wanted.



    But if I were you is right because I will never be you.






    share|improve this answer





















    • 23





      "If I was an airline pilot" and "If I were an airline pilot" have different meanings. The latter is the subjunctive case (and presumably what most people mean, even if they say the former). The former is talking about the past tense - "if I was an airline pilot 10 years ago..."

      – Marthaª
      Oct 12 '10 at 17:28











    • Before I had ever heard of Martha and had seen the caliber of her contributions, one of my first questions as a novice was inspired by the comment above. She is very good, and she writes impeccably well. But here she is wrong.

      – Mari-Lou A
      Jun 28 '18 at 10:23



















    13














    Younger people would never use 'were', here in Australia at least. From the point of view of grammar, both are OK nowadays. It's interesting to note, that IELTS would accept both while TOEFL would be very reluctant to accept 'was'.






    share|improve this answer
























    • re "younger people would never use "were"". Do they say "If I was you"?

      – Centaurus
      Feb 5 '18 at 14:49






    • 2





      @Centaurus Yes, in my region of Australia. You might also hear "I goes" and "Should have went".

      – geometrikal
      Apr 26 '18 at 15:17





















    9














    The rule is, if your hypothetical scenario suggests something that isn't true, use were:




    If I were stronger, I'd break your arm!




    (I'm not stronger.)




    If I were a flower, I'd go crazy!




    (I'm not really a flower, though I've been called a pansy before.)




    If my room were clean, it would be a first.




    (My room isn't clean.)



    If it may be true, use was:




    If this answer was poorly constructed, it may have been due to the fact that I was really tired.




    (It may be poorly written.)



    The same rules apply to sentences with though:




    He appears as though he were homeless.




    (He's not homeless, yet, although keeping up his current dressing habits could result in such.)



    This is addressed, among other places, on pages 56-57 of my favorite reference book, "Woe Is I" by Patricia O' Conner.



    Also see
    http://m.grammarbook.com/grammar-rules/subject-and-verb-agreement.aspx from which I quote:




    Rule 10. The word were replaces was in sentences that express a wish or are contrary to fact:



    Example: If Joe were here, you'd be sorry.



    Shouldn't Joe be followed by was, not were, given that Joe is singular? But Joe isn't actually here, so we say were, not was. The sentence demonstrates the subjunctive mood, which is used to express things that are hypothetical, wishful, imaginary, or factually contradictory. The subjunctive mood pairs singular subjects with what we usually think of as plural verbs.



    Examples:
    I wish it were Friday.
    She requested that he raise his hand.



    In the first example, a wishful statement, not a fact, is being expressed; therefore, were, which we usually think of as a plural verb, is used with the singular subject I.



    Normally, he raise would sound terrible to us. However, in the second example, where a request is being expressed, the subjunctive mood is correct.



    Note: The subjunctive mood is losing ground in spoken English but should still be used in formal speech and writing.







    share|improve this answer

































      4














      I think both can be said to be standard uses nowadays. I have read that American English uses the subjunctive ("If I were you") more than British English. I never use "If I were you" but always the "was" formation. In the same way I would never say "If he be right", etc.






      share|improve this answer



















      • 5





        An American would not say if he be right too.

        – kiamlaluno
        Aug 29 '10 at 23:45






      • 2





        @Shinto Sherlock: the past tense of the subjunctive moode is used to express an imaginary or hypothetical condition, as far as I know. I have never heard somebody saying if I be rich, I would live in Hawaii, or if I am rich, I would be live in Hawaii.

        – kiamlaluno
        Sep 5 '10 at 21:26











      • Compare the previous sentence with "I request that Jill pick up the ball," which uses the present subjunctive to express a mandative statement. Subjunctive mood is used in the same way in both American and British English.

        – kiamlaluno
        Apr 3 '11 at 1:38






      • 2





        For this form of the subjunctive, Ngrams doesn't show a marked American/British difference.

        – Peter Shor
        Feb 9 '12 at 17:35



















      3














      Real Past



      If I was: This phrase uses the past indicative mood, and it is used to state a fact that could be true. Have you ever gotten an e-mail from Twitter telling you about a suspicious login? They say, "If this was your login, don't worry about it," because that login to your account the other day could be yours, but Twitter isn't sure.



      Unreal Past



      If I were: This phrase uses the past subjunctive mood, and it is used in situations in which the speaker is wishfully thinking. I want to be taller, so I sometimes I say, "If I were taller, my life would be easier," but the fact of the matter is I'm not taller than I already am. I'm wishfully thinking about a situation that isn't true.



      Present



      If I be/If I am: These phrases can be used interchangeably when the sentence refers to a future situation that could happen. The archaic If I be uses the present subjunctive while If I am uses the present indicative. Here are a few examples.




      1. If you be good tomorrow, Mommy will buy you a cookie. (archaic)

      2. If I am great during my speech for school president, maybe I will be elected.

      3. Whether my future be promising or not, I know it will work out in the end. (archaic)


      Google Ngrams shows that using the present subjunctive in this case is rather archaic, but it is still far from being incorrect. Again, the two moods can be used interchangeably in these cases.






      share|improve this answer


























      • Please provide authoritative sources that support your claim.

        – Mari-Lou A
        Jun 28 '18 at 23:30











      • No one today or in the last twenty (30?) years says "If you be taller" or "If I be wealthier". No one.

        – Mari-Lou A
        Mar 20 at 19:18











      • @Mari-LouA And?

        – Black and White
        Mar 21 at 2:58



















      3














      First things first.



      When you're talking about a real situation, you should stick to either:




      (1) If I was...




      [for the past time]



      Or:




      (1') If I am...




      [for the present or future time]



      When you're talking about a hypothetical situation, you'll most likely be okay with:




      (2) If I were...




      [for the present or future time]



      The beauty of (2) is that it can be used even for the past time of a hypothetical situation. Yes, the original form for this would be:




      (3) If I had been...




      But I've seen native speakers prefer to use (2) instead of (3) for the past time of a hypothetical situation, time and time again, especially in spoken English.



      So much for the basics...



      There's a little but important twist in all this.



      Although being correct, using (2) for a hypothetical situation in an informal context might make it sound a tad stronger than you want it to. I suppose this might be because were sounds stronger than was.



      Whatever the real reason may be, therefore, you might want to use (1) instead of (2) for a hypothetical situation in an informal context, unless of course you want to make it sound stronger for some contextual reason.



      Sometimes, using (1) for a hypothetical situation might also make the speaker sound "cooler" as might be the case in this clip of the movie 'KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE', where Charlie says:




      If I was you, I'd unlock your cab.







      share|improve this answer
























        protected by Mari-Lou A Aug 13 '18 at 23:23



        Thank you for your interest in this question.
        Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



        Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














        11 Answers
        11






        active

        oldest

        votes








        11 Answers
        11






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        48





        +50









        SYNOPSIS: Sometimes it must be “if I was”, but at other times it can be “if I were” — and for some speakers in those cases, perhaps even must be “if I were” in their idiolect.





        Sentences with the subordinating conjunction if normally contain two
        clauses, each with its own subject and verb. The question asks what to do
        about the past-tense be verb in the “if” clause.



        Unfortunately, as it’s currently worded the question can have no answer that is
        simultaneously all of short, complete, and correct. That’s because it doesn’t
        provide enough context to know which one of many possible cases actually
        applies here. I must therefore cover them all.





        Classification schemes



        David Maule in his 1988 EFL paper titled ‘Sorry, if he comes, I go’: teaching
        conditionals

        suggested that English conditionals be broadly classified as one of four
        types depending on whether their outcomes were real vs. unreal and
        past vs. non-past. (Maule classifies these
        based on their “then” part not on their “if” part, and as we shall see,
        this is a useful way to organize them.)




        • Class A: real non-past

        • Class B: real past

        • Class C: unreal non-past

        • Class D: unreal past


        Maule discovered that most English conditionals do not fit into the
        narrow models typically presented to EFL students learning English.



        Christian Jones and Daniel Waller built on Maule’s work with their own EFL paper in 2010,
        If only it were true: the problem with the four
        conditionals
        .
        The authors sampled a random assortment of conditionals from the British
        National Corpus and classified each as being one of Maule’s four categories
        listed above. They discovered that the real cases contained patterns in
        both the past and the non-past that appeared very frequently in real
        English, but which are rarely taught to learners.



        The Reals



        The class B “real past” cases fit into three patterns:




        1. If + present simple, past continuous

        2. If + present simple, past simple

        3. If + past simple, past simple


        Of those three, the final pattern of having past simple in both
        clauses was by far the most common of the three. The sample
        provided for that case was:




        ... if you wanted[real] to know the answer ... you had[real] to keep zapping from channel to channel.




        Converting that into the first person singular to align with the asker’s question gives us:




        If I wanted[real] to know the answer, I had[real] to keep zapping from channel to channel.




        And it just one step more to swap out want for be:




        If I was[real] interested in knowing the answer, I had[real] to keep zapping from channel to channel.




        So here we discover the first of what shall prove to be several answers to
        the asker’s question:



        You use If I was in the “if” part when the “then” part is in the simple past.



        These are always conditionals from Maule’s
        class B. It would not be grammatical to use “If I were” there.



        These “real past” cases happen all the time in real speech and real
        writing, as Jones and Waller prove.



        Consider this arrangement:




        If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she took[real] the bus.




        That’s a real past case on both sides, and it would be ungrammatical to use
        “If she were” to attempt to mean the same thing. You can also use a modal perfect in the consequent along with that past simple in the “if” part:




        If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she must have taken the bus.



        If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she will have taken the bus.




        Those are all real cases, and you know by the “then” part.



        The Unreals



        For Class C, the unreal non-pasts, there are many example patterns
        provided, but the most common case by far uses “if” with past simple or
        with a modal, then some modal in the consequent.



        One provided example there is:




        ... I’d give it a good hiding if it didn’t behave.




        However, there are many other Class C patterns, such as:




        ... if we could get three or four items, that would be very nice.



        ... if two members of staff happen to fall in love and decide to marry it would be churlish to be appointing blame.




        The thing about using the past simple in something like “If it didn’t” is
        that without looking further along in the sentence, this alone is not
        enough to reveal whether it’s a Class B type that will take a real
        consequent or whether it’s a Class C type that will take an unreal one.



        “If only it were true”, “I wish it were true”



        Because we use the simple past tense in English for real and unreal conditionals, you normally cannot know whether it’s the unreal case until you hit the “then” portion. But in one unique yet common case, you can, and that is when a singular subject is governing the verb be in the past. That’s because the unreal case uses were no matter whether singular or plural.



        So we could say:




        If a staff member were to fall in love, it would be churlish to assign blame.




        That’s a Class C conditional because the “then” part has a would be in it. But you already knew it was going to be a hypothetical case when you saw the “If a staff member were” in the first half.



        Recasting that into the first person singular provides the second answer
        to the asker’s question:




        If I were to fall in love, it would be churlish to blame me for it.




        This special, modally marked form of be is used only for an unreal
        hypothetical. It is a relic of the Old English past subjunctive, and it was once used for far more than we use it today.



        Here alone can you detect through the morphology of the verb
        that it is anything other than the past simple. This is a Class C
        conditional because it has an unreal non-past in its consequent: “would be
        churlish”



        You cannot go wrong by using were for hypotheticals like this, as it has
        been the preferred use for centuries, particularly but not exclusively in America. Many careful writers still choose to
        observe this distinction: you need but read some recent issue of The Economist magazine from the UK to find plenty of examples of this. Indeed,
        English teachers at American schools have been known to mark various hypothetical uses of was as “wrong”, saying that it “should” be were.



        Optional were in Class C conditionals



        However, you should not flinch if — nay, when — you hear someone say
        “If I was... I would...” as a Class C conditional in casual speech. This sometimes happens even in educated
        speakers and writers, so you should not make anything of it. Some writers prefer not to do that, but unless the person complaining is your English teacher, you shouldn’t let it get to you. (Yes, this is ungrammatical for some people. For others, it is not.)



        It could be that those writers or speakers using “If I was...would” in their conditionals have
        chosen not to convey the nuance, or perhaps did not consider
        such a distinction meaningful in their own speech. Some are even
        unaware that the distinction exists.



        Because of the redundancy in language where the would in the “then” part gives it away, it’s not really needed anyway; everyone will still know what you mean.



        These forms are still unreal cases even when they aren’t modally marked as unreal, singular were. Because in all cases except for this unique case of was/were you cannot ever morphologically distinguish a real case from an unreal one in English, you have to decide whether it’s unreal by looking at the “then” part, not the “if” part (at least, not reliably).



        That means you need to train yourself to tell the real case:




        If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she took[real] the bus.




        From the unreal case:




        If she were[unreal] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




        Even when the unreal case uses the past simple not unreal past in the “if” part the way some speakers do:




        If she was[“unreal”] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




        That last example above is real in form but it is still unreal in sense because of the would. Some writers disapprove of that style of using was for a hypothetical, but it’s not uncommon, especially in speech.



        Moreover, you cannot somehow make it be “less hypothetical” merely by using “was...would”; that’s just as hypothetical as “were...would” for the reasons already stated.



        One final common construction uses past perfect in the “if” part and a modal perfect in the “then” part:




        If she had been[unreal] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have had[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




        Although that’s a common way to set up a unreal case with perfects on both sides, there are many other ways, including using a non-perfect unreal past in the “if”:




        If she were[unreal] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have had[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




        Yes, it’s somehow “unbalanced” with respect to the perfect aspect, but English doesn’t have an obligatory sequence-of-tenses rule like some languages do, and we often use a simple past instead of a perfect one because it’s...simpler that way.



        Inverted Conditionals without if



        There is one relatively uncommon place where you pretty much do have to use were not was in a conditional, and that is when you use inversion to forgo the word if altogether:




        Were[unreal] there any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




        That’s the same as saying:




        If there were[unreal] any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




        or even as saying:




        If there had been[unreal] any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




        But that last one lends itself to an inverted version:




        Had there been[unreal] any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




        The subject–verb inversion is something of a stealth conditional because it doesn’t use the word if. The inversion alone is enough to signal that it’s what used to be called a “subjunctive” use (back when English had an actual subjunctive). It doesn’t have to use be, but if you do use be for it, you should certainly use were. Other verbs in the past tense work the same, with the inversion signalling the conditional:




        Had[unreal] they but asked, we would have[unreal] gladly told them.




        You’ll find this “subjunctive inversion” style in formal writing, but very rarely if ever in extemporaneous, casual speaking. That’s because inversion isn’t all that normal, so it’s a marked form. Consider how stiffly formal this Steven Brust quote mentioned in this answer sounds:




        To be more precise, and state the matter in its simplest form, we believe that were[unreal] any of the events in the previous volume of such a nature that they could be omitted without severe damage to the narrative, we should have omitted[unreal] them to begin with.



                ― The Lord of Castle Black, by Steven Brust




        There instead of writing out the conditional the long way with “if any were”, to be more formal Brust wrote it with inversion: “were any”. (He’s also playing on the modal duality of should, but that’s something else again.)



        If you ever get the chance to read English literature from a couple centuries ago or better, you might even come upon conditional inversion used with the bare infinitive in what has historically been called a “present subjunctive” use:




        Be ye[unreal] man or mouse, still shall ye say nothing!




        That’s using inversion to skip the if, as though it were:




        If ye be[unreal] man or mouse, still shall ye say nothing!




        Nobody talks that way anymore, and nobody writes that way anymore, either, not unless they intend to represent the speech of centuries long past. Instead we’d just say:




        No matter whether you are a man or a mouse, you still will say nothing!






        Further Reading



        I have related answers here:




        • subjunctive in a “non-if” hypothetical clause

        • “Be them” or “be they”?

        • If I were him, I would doubt if she (is/was/were?) serious about this relationship

        • How is the English Subjunctive Composed?

        • Present subjunctive with synonyms of lest






        share|improve this answer


























        • re "to be deliberately archaizing Brust wrote..." When I write a formal letter (e-mail, these days) I often use inversions such as "had there been" "should you have" or "were you to" to convey a formal tone but I had no idea I would be archaizing.

          – Centaurus
          Feb 5 '18 at 12:49













        • @Centaurus You’re right, so I’ve re­moved that bit. Mere “sub­junc­tive in­ver­sion” for con­di­tion­als by it­self is not ar­chaiz­ing, al­though it is more of­ten to be found in writ­ing than in speech and so might be “for­mal­iz­ing”. Brust is writ­ing a char­ac­ter there who’s pur­pose­fully stuffy. (continued...)

          – tchrist
          Feb 5 '18 at 14:13








        • 1





          @Centaurus (continued) His word-play on we should is pos­si­ble be­cause most peo­ple would today say we would but Brust is us­ing the “old” “1st-per­son” fla­vor of we should where in mod­ern times we’d be much more likely to say we would. He did so be­cause this way he al­lows for both modal­i­ties of should — the epis­temic sense of prob­a­bil­ity and the de­on­tic sense of obli­ga­tion — to si­mul­ta­ne­ously en­ter into the read­er’s mind for the delectably sub­tle, hu­mor­ous ef­fect.

          – tchrist
          yesterday













        • There's at least one inversion which can only really be thought of as indicative in modern 21st century English, the one with should - as in Should you see Centaurus, ask him to ping me.

          – Araucaria
          11 hours ago


















        48





        +50









        SYNOPSIS: Sometimes it must be “if I was”, but at other times it can be “if I were” — and for some speakers in those cases, perhaps even must be “if I were” in their idiolect.





        Sentences with the subordinating conjunction if normally contain two
        clauses, each with its own subject and verb. The question asks what to do
        about the past-tense be verb in the “if” clause.



        Unfortunately, as it’s currently worded the question can have no answer that is
        simultaneously all of short, complete, and correct. That’s because it doesn’t
        provide enough context to know which one of many possible cases actually
        applies here. I must therefore cover them all.





        Classification schemes



        David Maule in his 1988 EFL paper titled ‘Sorry, if he comes, I go’: teaching
        conditionals

        suggested that English conditionals be broadly classified as one of four
        types depending on whether their outcomes were real vs. unreal and
        past vs. non-past. (Maule classifies these
        based on their “then” part not on their “if” part, and as we shall see,
        this is a useful way to organize them.)




        • Class A: real non-past

        • Class B: real past

        • Class C: unreal non-past

        • Class D: unreal past


        Maule discovered that most English conditionals do not fit into the
        narrow models typically presented to EFL students learning English.



        Christian Jones and Daniel Waller built on Maule’s work with their own EFL paper in 2010,
        If only it were true: the problem with the four
        conditionals
        .
        The authors sampled a random assortment of conditionals from the British
        National Corpus and classified each as being one of Maule’s four categories
        listed above. They discovered that the real cases contained patterns in
        both the past and the non-past that appeared very frequently in real
        English, but which are rarely taught to learners.



        The Reals



        The class B “real past” cases fit into three patterns:




        1. If + present simple, past continuous

        2. If + present simple, past simple

        3. If + past simple, past simple


        Of those three, the final pattern of having past simple in both
        clauses was by far the most common of the three. The sample
        provided for that case was:




        ... if you wanted[real] to know the answer ... you had[real] to keep zapping from channel to channel.




        Converting that into the first person singular to align with the asker’s question gives us:




        If I wanted[real] to know the answer, I had[real] to keep zapping from channel to channel.




        And it just one step more to swap out want for be:




        If I was[real] interested in knowing the answer, I had[real] to keep zapping from channel to channel.




        So here we discover the first of what shall prove to be several answers to
        the asker’s question:



        You use If I was in the “if” part when the “then” part is in the simple past.



        These are always conditionals from Maule’s
        class B. It would not be grammatical to use “If I were” there.



        These “real past” cases happen all the time in real speech and real
        writing, as Jones and Waller prove.



        Consider this arrangement:




        If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she took[real] the bus.




        That’s a real past case on both sides, and it would be ungrammatical to use
        “If she were” to attempt to mean the same thing. You can also use a modal perfect in the consequent along with that past simple in the “if” part:




        If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she must have taken the bus.



        If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she will have taken the bus.




        Those are all real cases, and you know by the “then” part.



        The Unreals



        For Class C, the unreal non-pasts, there are many example patterns
        provided, but the most common case by far uses “if” with past simple or
        with a modal, then some modal in the consequent.



        One provided example there is:




        ... I’d give it a good hiding if it didn’t behave.




        However, there are many other Class C patterns, such as:




        ... if we could get three or four items, that would be very nice.



        ... if two members of staff happen to fall in love and decide to marry it would be churlish to be appointing blame.




        The thing about using the past simple in something like “If it didn’t” is
        that without looking further along in the sentence, this alone is not
        enough to reveal whether it’s a Class B type that will take a real
        consequent or whether it’s a Class C type that will take an unreal one.



        “If only it were true”, “I wish it were true”



        Because we use the simple past tense in English for real and unreal conditionals, you normally cannot know whether it’s the unreal case until you hit the “then” portion. But in one unique yet common case, you can, and that is when a singular subject is governing the verb be in the past. That’s because the unreal case uses were no matter whether singular or plural.



        So we could say:




        If a staff member were to fall in love, it would be churlish to assign blame.




        That’s a Class C conditional because the “then” part has a would be in it. But you already knew it was going to be a hypothetical case when you saw the “If a staff member were” in the first half.



        Recasting that into the first person singular provides the second answer
        to the asker’s question:




        If I were to fall in love, it would be churlish to blame me for it.




        This special, modally marked form of be is used only for an unreal
        hypothetical. It is a relic of the Old English past subjunctive, and it was once used for far more than we use it today.



        Here alone can you detect through the morphology of the verb
        that it is anything other than the past simple. This is a Class C
        conditional because it has an unreal non-past in its consequent: “would be
        churlish”



        You cannot go wrong by using were for hypotheticals like this, as it has
        been the preferred use for centuries, particularly but not exclusively in America. Many careful writers still choose to
        observe this distinction: you need but read some recent issue of The Economist magazine from the UK to find plenty of examples of this. Indeed,
        English teachers at American schools have been known to mark various hypothetical uses of was as “wrong”, saying that it “should” be were.



        Optional were in Class C conditionals



        However, you should not flinch if — nay, when — you hear someone say
        “If I was... I would...” as a Class C conditional in casual speech. This sometimes happens even in educated
        speakers and writers, so you should not make anything of it. Some writers prefer not to do that, but unless the person complaining is your English teacher, you shouldn’t let it get to you. (Yes, this is ungrammatical for some people. For others, it is not.)



        It could be that those writers or speakers using “If I was...would” in their conditionals have
        chosen not to convey the nuance, or perhaps did not consider
        such a distinction meaningful in their own speech. Some are even
        unaware that the distinction exists.



        Because of the redundancy in language where the would in the “then” part gives it away, it’s not really needed anyway; everyone will still know what you mean.



        These forms are still unreal cases even when they aren’t modally marked as unreal, singular were. Because in all cases except for this unique case of was/were you cannot ever morphologically distinguish a real case from an unreal one in English, you have to decide whether it’s unreal by looking at the “then” part, not the “if” part (at least, not reliably).



        That means you need to train yourself to tell the real case:




        If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she took[real] the bus.




        From the unreal case:




        If she were[unreal] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




        Even when the unreal case uses the past simple not unreal past in the “if” part the way some speakers do:




        If she was[“unreal”] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




        That last example above is real in form but it is still unreal in sense because of the would. Some writers disapprove of that style of using was for a hypothetical, but it’s not uncommon, especially in speech.



        Moreover, you cannot somehow make it be “less hypothetical” merely by using “was...would”; that’s just as hypothetical as “were...would” for the reasons already stated.



        One final common construction uses past perfect in the “if” part and a modal perfect in the “then” part:




        If she had been[unreal] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have had[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




        Although that’s a common way to set up a unreal case with perfects on both sides, there are many other ways, including using a non-perfect unreal past in the “if”:




        If she were[unreal] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have had[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




        Yes, it’s somehow “unbalanced” with respect to the perfect aspect, but English doesn’t have an obligatory sequence-of-tenses rule like some languages do, and we often use a simple past instead of a perfect one because it’s...simpler that way.



        Inverted Conditionals without if



        There is one relatively uncommon place where you pretty much do have to use were not was in a conditional, and that is when you use inversion to forgo the word if altogether:




        Were[unreal] there any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




        That’s the same as saying:




        If there were[unreal] any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




        or even as saying:




        If there had been[unreal] any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




        But that last one lends itself to an inverted version:




        Had there been[unreal] any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




        The subject–verb inversion is something of a stealth conditional because it doesn’t use the word if. The inversion alone is enough to signal that it’s what used to be called a “subjunctive” use (back when English had an actual subjunctive). It doesn’t have to use be, but if you do use be for it, you should certainly use were. Other verbs in the past tense work the same, with the inversion signalling the conditional:




        Had[unreal] they but asked, we would have[unreal] gladly told them.




        You’ll find this “subjunctive inversion” style in formal writing, but very rarely if ever in extemporaneous, casual speaking. That’s because inversion isn’t all that normal, so it’s a marked form. Consider how stiffly formal this Steven Brust quote mentioned in this answer sounds:




        To be more precise, and state the matter in its simplest form, we believe that were[unreal] any of the events in the previous volume of such a nature that they could be omitted without severe damage to the narrative, we should have omitted[unreal] them to begin with.



                ― The Lord of Castle Black, by Steven Brust




        There instead of writing out the conditional the long way with “if any were”, to be more formal Brust wrote it with inversion: “were any”. (He’s also playing on the modal duality of should, but that’s something else again.)



        If you ever get the chance to read English literature from a couple centuries ago or better, you might even come upon conditional inversion used with the bare infinitive in what has historically been called a “present subjunctive” use:




        Be ye[unreal] man or mouse, still shall ye say nothing!




        That’s using inversion to skip the if, as though it were:




        If ye be[unreal] man or mouse, still shall ye say nothing!




        Nobody talks that way anymore, and nobody writes that way anymore, either, not unless they intend to represent the speech of centuries long past. Instead we’d just say:




        No matter whether you are a man or a mouse, you still will say nothing!






        Further Reading



        I have related answers here:




        • subjunctive in a “non-if” hypothetical clause

        • “Be them” or “be they”?

        • If I were him, I would doubt if she (is/was/were?) serious about this relationship

        • How is the English Subjunctive Composed?

        • Present subjunctive with synonyms of lest






        share|improve this answer


























        • re "to be deliberately archaizing Brust wrote..." When I write a formal letter (e-mail, these days) I often use inversions such as "had there been" "should you have" or "were you to" to convey a formal tone but I had no idea I would be archaizing.

          – Centaurus
          Feb 5 '18 at 12:49













        • @Centaurus You’re right, so I’ve re­moved that bit. Mere “sub­junc­tive in­ver­sion” for con­di­tion­als by it­self is not ar­chaiz­ing, al­though it is more of­ten to be found in writ­ing than in speech and so might be “for­mal­iz­ing”. Brust is writ­ing a char­ac­ter there who’s pur­pose­fully stuffy. (continued...)

          – tchrist
          Feb 5 '18 at 14:13








        • 1





          @Centaurus (continued) His word-play on we should is pos­si­ble be­cause most peo­ple would today say we would but Brust is us­ing the “old” “1st-per­son” fla­vor of we should where in mod­ern times we’d be much more likely to say we would. He did so be­cause this way he al­lows for both modal­i­ties of should — the epis­temic sense of prob­a­bil­ity and the de­on­tic sense of obli­ga­tion — to si­mul­ta­ne­ously en­ter into the read­er’s mind for the delectably sub­tle, hu­mor­ous ef­fect.

          – tchrist
          yesterday













        • There's at least one inversion which can only really be thought of as indicative in modern 21st century English, the one with should - as in Should you see Centaurus, ask him to ping me.

          – Araucaria
          11 hours ago
















        48





        +50







        48





        +50



        48




        +50





        SYNOPSIS: Sometimes it must be “if I was”, but at other times it can be “if I were” — and for some speakers in those cases, perhaps even must be “if I were” in their idiolect.





        Sentences with the subordinating conjunction if normally contain two
        clauses, each with its own subject and verb. The question asks what to do
        about the past-tense be verb in the “if” clause.



        Unfortunately, as it’s currently worded the question can have no answer that is
        simultaneously all of short, complete, and correct. That’s because it doesn’t
        provide enough context to know which one of many possible cases actually
        applies here. I must therefore cover them all.





        Classification schemes



        David Maule in his 1988 EFL paper titled ‘Sorry, if he comes, I go’: teaching
        conditionals

        suggested that English conditionals be broadly classified as one of four
        types depending on whether their outcomes were real vs. unreal and
        past vs. non-past. (Maule classifies these
        based on their “then” part not on their “if” part, and as we shall see,
        this is a useful way to organize them.)




        • Class A: real non-past

        • Class B: real past

        • Class C: unreal non-past

        • Class D: unreal past


        Maule discovered that most English conditionals do not fit into the
        narrow models typically presented to EFL students learning English.



        Christian Jones and Daniel Waller built on Maule’s work with their own EFL paper in 2010,
        If only it were true: the problem with the four
        conditionals
        .
        The authors sampled a random assortment of conditionals from the British
        National Corpus and classified each as being one of Maule’s four categories
        listed above. They discovered that the real cases contained patterns in
        both the past and the non-past that appeared very frequently in real
        English, but which are rarely taught to learners.



        The Reals



        The class B “real past” cases fit into three patterns:




        1. If + present simple, past continuous

        2. If + present simple, past simple

        3. If + past simple, past simple


        Of those three, the final pattern of having past simple in both
        clauses was by far the most common of the three. The sample
        provided for that case was:




        ... if you wanted[real] to know the answer ... you had[real] to keep zapping from channel to channel.




        Converting that into the first person singular to align with the asker’s question gives us:




        If I wanted[real] to know the answer, I had[real] to keep zapping from channel to channel.




        And it just one step more to swap out want for be:




        If I was[real] interested in knowing the answer, I had[real] to keep zapping from channel to channel.




        So here we discover the first of what shall prove to be several answers to
        the asker’s question:



        You use If I was in the “if” part when the “then” part is in the simple past.



        These are always conditionals from Maule’s
        class B. It would not be grammatical to use “If I were” there.



        These “real past” cases happen all the time in real speech and real
        writing, as Jones and Waller prove.



        Consider this arrangement:




        If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she took[real] the bus.




        That’s a real past case on both sides, and it would be ungrammatical to use
        “If she were” to attempt to mean the same thing. You can also use a modal perfect in the consequent along with that past simple in the “if” part:




        If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she must have taken the bus.



        If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she will have taken the bus.




        Those are all real cases, and you know by the “then” part.



        The Unreals



        For Class C, the unreal non-pasts, there are many example patterns
        provided, but the most common case by far uses “if” with past simple or
        with a modal, then some modal in the consequent.



        One provided example there is:




        ... I’d give it a good hiding if it didn’t behave.




        However, there are many other Class C patterns, such as:




        ... if we could get three or four items, that would be very nice.



        ... if two members of staff happen to fall in love and decide to marry it would be churlish to be appointing blame.




        The thing about using the past simple in something like “If it didn’t” is
        that without looking further along in the sentence, this alone is not
        enough to reveal whether it’s a Class B type that will take a real
        consequent or whether it’s a Class C type that will take an unreal one.



        “If only it were true”, “I wish it were true”



        Because we use the simple past tense in English for real and unreal conditionals, you normally cannot know whether it’s the unreal case until you hit the “then” portion. But in one unique yet common case, you can, and that is when a singular subject is governing the verb be in the past. That’s because the unreal case uses were no matter whether singular or plural.



        So we could say:




        If a staff member were to fall in love, it would be churlish to assign blame.




        That’s a Class C conditional because the “then” part has a would be in it. But you already knew it was going to be a hypothetical case when you saw the “If a staff member were” in the first half.



        Recasting that into the first person singular provides the second answer
        to the asker’s question:




        If I were to fall in love, it would be churlish to blame me for it.




        This special, modally marked form of be is used only for an unreal
        hypothetical. It is a relic of the Old English past subjunctive, and it was once used for far more than we use it today.



        Here alone can you detect through the morphology of the verb
        that it is anything other than the past simple. This is a Class C
        conditional because it has an unreal non-past in its consequent: “would be
        churlish”



        You cannot go wrong by using were for hypotheticals like this, as it has
        been the preferred use for centuries, particularly but not exclusively in America. Many careful writers still choose to
        observe this distinction: you need but read some recent issue of The Economist magazine from the UK to find plenty of examples of this. Indeed,
        English teachers at American schools have been known to mark various hypothetical uses of was as “wrong”, saying that it “should” be were.



        Optional were in Class C conditionals



        However, you should not flinch if — nay, when — you hear someone say
        “If I was... I would...” as a Class C conditional in casual speech. This sometimes happens even in educated
        speakers and writers, so you should not make anything of it. Some writers prefer not to do that, but unless the person complaining is your English teacher, you shouldn’t let it get to you. (Yes, this is ungrammatical for some people. For others, it is not.)



        It could be that those writers or speakers using “If I was...would” in their conditionals have
        chosen not to convey the nuance, or perhaps did not consider
        such a distinction meaningful in their own speech. Some are even
        unaware that the distinction exists.



        Because of the redundancy in language where the would in the “then” part gives it away, it’s not really needed anyway; everyone will still know what you mean.



        These forms are still unreal cases even when they aren’t modally marked as unreal, singular were. Because in all cases except for this unique case of was/were you cannot ever morphologically distinguish a real case from an unreal one in English, you have to decide whether it’s unreal by looking at the “then” part, not the “if” part (at least, not reliably).



        That means you need to train yourself to tell the real case:




        If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she took[real] the bus.




        From the unreal case:




        If she were[unreal] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




        Even when the unreal case uses the past simple not unreal past in the “if” part the way some speakers do:




        If she was[“unreal”] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




        That last example above is real in form but it is still unreal in sense because of the would. Some writers disapprove of that style of using was for a hypothetical, but it’s not uncommon, especially in speech.



        Moreover, you cannot somehow make it be “less hypothetical” merely by using “was...would”; that’s just as hypothetical as “were...would” for the reasons already stated.



        One final common construction uses past perfect in the “if” part and a modal perfect in the “then” part:




        If she had been[unreal] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have had[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




        Although that’s a common way to set up a unreal case with perfects on both sides, there are many other ways, including using a non-perfect unreal past in the “if”:




        If she were[unreal] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have had[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




        Yes, it’s somehow “unbalanced” with respect to the perfect aspect, but English doesn’t have an obligatory sequence-of-tenses rule like some languages do, and we often use a simple past instead of a perfect one because it’s...simpler that way.



        Inverted Conditionals without if



        There is one relatively uncommon place where you pretty much do have to use were not was in a conditional, and that is when you use inversion to forgo the word if altogether:




        Were[unreal] there any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




        That’s the same as saying:




        If there were[unreal] any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




        or even as saying:




        If there had been[unreal] any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




        But that last one lends itself to an inverted version:




        Had there been[unreal] any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




        The subject–verb inversion is something of a stealth conditional because it doesn’t use the word if. The inversion alone is enough to signal that it’s what used to be called a “subjunctive” use (back when English had an actual subjunctive). It doesn’t have to use be, but if you do use be for it, you should certainly use were. Other verbs in the past tense work the same, with the inversion signalling the conditional:




        Had[unreal] they but asked, we would have[unreal] gladly told them.




        You’ll find this “subjunctive inversion” style in formal writing, but very rarely if ever in extemporaneous, casual speaking. That’s because inversion isn’t all that normal, so it’s a marked form. Consider how stiffly formal this Steven Brust quote mentioned in this answer sounds:




        To be more precise, and state the matter in its simplest form, we believe that were[unreal] any of the events in the previous volume of such a nature that they could be omitted without severe damage to the narrative, we should have omitted[unreal] them to begin with.



                ― The Lord of Castle Black, by Steven Brust




        There instead of writing out the conditional the long way with “if any were”, to be more formal Brust wrote it with inversion: “were any”. (He’s also playing on the modal duality of should, but that’s something else again.)



        If you ever get the chance to read English literature from a couple centuries ago or better, you might even come upon conditional inversion used with the bare infinitive in what has historically been called a “present subjunctive” use:




        Be ye[unreal] man or mouse, still shall ye say nothing!




        That’s using inversion to skip the if, as though it were:




        If ye be[unreal] man or mouse, still shall ye say nothing!




        Nobody talks that way anymore, and nobody writes that way anymore, either, not unless they intend to represent the speech of centuries long past. Instead we’d just say:




        No matter whether you are a man or a mouse, you still will say nothing!






        Further Reading



        I have related answers here:




        • subjunctive in a “non-if” hypothetical clause

        • “Be them” or “be they”?

        • If I were him, I would doubt if she (is/was/were?) serious about this relationship

        • How is the English Subjunctive Composed?

        • Present subjunctive with synonyms of lest






        share|improve this answer















        SYNOPSIS: Sometimes it must be “if I was”, but at other times it can be “if I were” — and for some speakers in those cases, perhaps even must be “if I were” in their idiolect.





        Sentences with the subordinating conjunction if normally contain two
        clauses, each with its own subject and verb. The question asks what to do
        about the past-tense be verb in the “if” clause.



        Unfortunately, as it’s currently worded the question can have no answer that is
        simultaneously all of short, complete, and correct. That’s because it doesn’t
        provide enough context to know which one of many possible cases actually
        applies here. I must therefore cover them all.





        Classification schemes



        David Maule in his 1988 EFL paper titled ‘Sorry, if he comes, I go’: teaching
        conditionals

        suggested that English conditionals be broadly classified as one of four
        types depending on whether their outcomes were real vs. unreal and
        past vs. non-past. (Maule classifies these
        based on their “then” part not on their “if” part, and as we shall see,
        this is a useful way to organize them.)




        • Class A: real non-past

        • Class B: real past

        • Class C: unreal non-past

        • Class D: unreal past


        Maule discovered that most English conditionals do not fit into the
        narrow models typically presented to EFL students learning English.



        Christian Jones and Daniel Waller built on Maule’s work with their own EFL paper in 2010,
        If only it were true: the problem with the four
        conditionals
        .
        The authors sampled a random assortment of conditionals from the British
        National Corpus and classified each as being one of Maule’s four categories
        listed above. They discovered that the real cases contained patterns in
        both the past and the non-past that appeared very frequently in real
        English, but which are rarely taught to learners.



        The Reals



        The class B “real past” cases fit into three patterns:




        1. If + present simple, past continuous

        2. If + present simple, past simple

        3. If + past simple, past simple


        Of those three, the final pattern of having past simple in both
        clauses was by far the most common of the three. The sample
        provided for that case was:




        ... if you wanted[real] to know the answer ... you had[real] to keep zapping from channel to channel.




        Converting that into the first person singular to align with the asker’s question gives us:




        If I wanted[real] to know the answer, I had[real] to keep zapping from channel to channel.




        And it just one step more to swap out want for be:




        If I was[real] interested in knowing the answer, I had[real] to keep zapping from channel to channel.




        So here we discover the first of what shall prove to be several answers to
        the asker’s question:



        You use If I was in the “if” part when the “then” part is in the simple past.



        These are always conditionals from Maule’s
        class B. It would not be grammatical to use “If I were” there.



        These “real past” cases happen all the time in real speech and real
        writing, as Jones and Waller prove.



        Consider this arrangement:




        If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she took[real] the bus.




        That’s a real past case on both sides, and it would be ungrammatical to use
        “If she were” to attempt to mean the same thing. You can also use a modal perfect in the consequent along with that past simple in the “if” part:




        If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she must have taken the bus.



        If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she will have taken the bus.




        Those are all real cases, and you know by the “then” part.



        The Unreals



        For Class C, the unreal non-pasts, there are many example patterns
        provided, but the most common case by far uses “if” with past simple or
        with a modal, then some modal in the consequent.



        One provided example there is:




        ... I’d give it a good hiding if it didn’t behave.




        However, there are many other Class C patterns, such as:




        ... if we could get three or four items, that would be very nice.



        ... if two members of staff happen to fall in love and decide to marry it would be churlish to be appointing blame.




        The thing about using the past simple in something like “If it didn’t” is
        that without looking further along in the sentence, this alone is not
        enough to reveal whether it’s a Class B type that will take a real
        consequent or whether it’s a Class C type that will take an unreal one.



        “If only it were true”, “I wish it were true”



        Because we use the simple past tense in English for real and unreal conditionals, you normally cannot know whether it’s the unreal case until you hit the “then” portion. But in one unique yet common case, you can, and that is when a singular subject is governing the verb be in the past. That’s because the unreal case uses were no matter whether singular or plural.



        So we could say:




        If a staff member were to fall in love, it would be churlish to assign blame.




        That’s a Class C conditional because the “then” part has a would be in it. But you already knew it was going to be a hypothetical case when you saw the “If a staff member were” in the first half.



        Recasting that into the first person singular provides the second answer
        to the asker’s question:




        If I were to fall in love, it would be churlish to blame me for it.




        This special, modally marked form of be is used only for an unreal
        hypothetical. It is a relic of the Old English past subjunctive, and it was once used for far more than we use it today.



        Here alone can you detect through the morphology of the verb
        that it is anything other than the past simple. This is a Class C
        conditional because it has an unreal non-past in its consequent: “would be
        churlish”



        You cannot go wrong by using were for hypotheticals like this, as it has
        been the preferred use for centuries, particularly but not exclusively in America. Many careful writers still choose to
        observe this distinction: you need but read some recent issue of The Economist magazine from the UK to find plenty of examples of this. Indeed,
        English teachers at American schools have been known to mark various hypothetical uses of was as “wrong”, saying that it “should” be were.



        Optional were in Class C conditionals



        However, you should not flinch if — nay, when — you hear someone say
        “If I was... I would...” as a Class C conditional in casual speech. This sometimes happens even in educated
        speakers and writers, so you should not make anything of it. Some writers prefer not to do that, but unless the person complaining is your English teacher, you shouldn’t let it get to you. (Yes, this is ungrammatical for some people. For others, it is not.)



        It could be that those writers or speakers using “If I was...would” in their conditionals have
        chosen not to convey the nuance, or perhaps did not consider
        such a distinction meaningful in their own speech. Some are even
        unaware that the distinction exists.



        Because of the redundancy in language where the would in the “then” part gives it away, it’s not really needed anyway; everyone will still know what you mean.



        These forms are still unreal cases even when they aren’t modally marked as unreal, singular were. Because in all cases except for this unique case of was/were you cannot ever morphologically distinguish a real case from an unreal one in English, you have to decide whether it’s unreal by looking at the “then” part, not the “if” part (at least, not reliably).



        That means you need to train yourself to tell the real case:




        If she was[real] already home when he got there, then she took[real] the bus.




        From the unreal case:




        If she were[unreal] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




        Even when the unreal case uses the past simple not unreal past in the “if” part the way some speakers do:




        If she was[“unreal”] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




        That last example above is real in form but it is still unreal in sense because of the would. Some writers disapprove of that style of using was for a hypothetical, but it’s not uncommon, especially in speech.



        Moreover, you cannot somehow make it be “less hypothetical” merely by using “was...would”; that’s just as hypothetical as “were...would” for the reasons already stated.



        One final common construction uses past perfect in the “if” part and a modal perfect in the “then” part:




        If she had been[unreal] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have had[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




        Although that’s a common way to set up a unreal case with perfects on both sides, there are many other ways, including using a non-perfect unreal past in the “if”:




        If she were[unreal] already home when he got there, he wouldn’t have had[unreal] to run pick her up himself.




        Yes, it’s somehow “unbalanced” with respect to the perfect aspect, but English doesn’t have an obligatory sequence-of-tenses rule like some languages do, and we often use a simple past instead of a perfect one because it’s...simpler that way.



        Inverted Conditionals without if



        There is one relatively uncommon place where you pretty much do have to use were not was in a conditional, and that is when you use inversion to forgo the word if altogether:




        Were[unreal] there any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




        That’s the same as saying:




        If there were[unreal] any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




        or even as saying:




        If there had been[unreal] any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




        But that last one lends itself to an inverted version:




        Had there been[unreal] any other way, we would have[unreal] found it.




        The subject–verb inversion is something of a stealth conditional because it doesn’t use the word if. The inversion alone is enough to signal that it’s what used to be called a “subjunctive” use (back when English had an actual subjunctive). It doesn’t have to use be, but if you do use be for it, you should certainly use were. Other verbs in the past tense work the same, with the inversion signalling the conditional:




        Had[unreal] they but asked, we would have[unreal] gladly told them.




        You’ll find this “subjunctive inversion” style in formal writing, but very rarely if ever in extemporaneous, casual speaking. That’s because inversion isn’t all that normal, so it’s a marked form. Consider how stiffly formal this Steven Brust quote mentioned in this answer sounds:




        To be more precise, and state the matter in its simplest form, we believe that were[unreal] any of the events in the previous volume of such a nature that they could be omitted without severe damage to the narrative, we should have omitted[unreal] them to begin with.



                ― The Lord of Castle Black, by Steven Brust




        There instead of writing out the conditional the long way with “if any were”, to be more formal Brust wrote it with inversion: “were any”. (He’s also playing on the modal duality of should, but that’s something else again.)



        If you ever get the chance to read English literature from a couple centuries ago or better, you might even come upon conditional inversion used with the bare infinitive in what has historically been called a “present subjunctive” use:




        Be ye[unreal] man or mouse, still shall ye say nothing!




        That’s using inversion to skip the if, as though it were:




        If ye be[unreal] man or mouse, still shall ye say nothing!




        Nobody talks that way anymore, and nobody writes that way anymore, either, not unless they intend to represent the speech of centuries long past. Instead we’d just say:




        No matter whether you are a man or a mouse, you still will say nothing!






        Further Reading



        I have related answers here:




        • subjunctive in a “non-if” hypothetical clause

        • “Be them” or “be they”?

        • If I were him, I would doubt if she (is/was/were?) serious about this relationship

        • How is the English Subjunctive Composed?

        • Present subjunctive with synonyms of lest







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Feb 9 '18 at 1:46

























        answered Feb 4 '18 at 20:50









        tchristtchrist

        109k30295472




        109k30295472













        • re "to be deliberately archaizing Brust wrote..." When I write a formal letter (e-mail, these days) I often use inversions such as "had there been" "should you have" or "were you to" to convey a formal tone but I had no idea I would be archaizing.

          – Centaurus
          Feb 5 '18 at 12:49













        • @Centaurus You’re right, so I’ve re­moved that bit. Mere “sub­junc­tive in­ver­sion” for con­di­tion­als by it­self is not ar­chaiz­ing, al­though it is more of­ten to be found in writ­ing than in speech and so might be “for­mal­iz­ing”. Brust is writ­ing a char­ac­ter there who’s pur­pose­fully stuffy. (continued...)

          – tchrist
          Feb 5 '18 at 14:13








        • 1





          @Centaurus (continued) His word-play on we should is pos­si­ble be­cause most peo­ple would today say we would but Brust is us­ing the “old” “1st-per­son” fla­vor of we should where in mod­ern times we’d be much more likely to say we would. He did so be­cause this way he al­lows for both modal­i­ties of should — the epis­temic sense of prob­a­bil­ity and the de­on­tic sense of obli­ga­tion — to si­mul­ta­ne­ously en­ter into the read­er’s mind for the delectably sub­tle, hu­mor­ous ef­fect.

          – tchrist
          yesterday













        • There's at least one inversion which can only really be thought of as indicative in modern 21st century English, the one with should - as in Should you see Centaurus, ask him to ping me.

          – Araucaria
          11 hours ago





















        • re "to be deliberately archaizing Brust wrote..." When I write a formal letter (e-mail, these days) I often use inversions such as "had there been" "should you have" or "were you to" to convey a formal tone but I had no idea I would be archaizing.

          – Centaurus
          Feb 5 '18 at 12:49













        • @Centaurus You’re right, so I’ve re­moved that bit. Mere “sub­junc­tive in­ver­sion” for con­di­tion­als by it­self is not ar­chaiz­ing, al­though it is more of­ten to be found in writ­ing than in speech and so might be “for­mal­iz­ing”. Brust is writ­ing a char­ac­ter there who’s pur­pose­fully stuffy. (continued...)

          – tchrist
          Feb 5 '18 at 14:13








        • 1





          @Centaurus (continued) His word-play on we should is pos­si­ble be­cause most peo­ple would today say we would but Brust is us­ing the “old” “1st-per­son” fla­vor of we should where in mod­ern times we’d be much more likely to say we would. He did so be­cause this way he al­lows for both modal­i­ties of should — the epis­temic sense of prob­a­bil­ity and the de­on­tic sense of obli­ga­tion — to si­mul­ta­ne­ously en­ter into the read­er’s mind for the delectably sub­tle, hu­mor­ous ef­fect.

          – tchrist
          yesterday













        • There's at least one inversion which can only really be thought of as indicative in modern 21st century English, the one with should - as in Should you see Centaurus, ask him to ping me.

          – Araucaria
          11 hours ago



















        re "to be deliberately archaizing Brust wrote..." When I write a formal letter (e-mail, these days) I often use inversions such as "had there been" "should you have" or "were you to" to convey a formal tone but I had no idea I would be archaizing.

        – Centaurus
        Feb 5 '18 at 12:49







        re "to be deliberately archaizing Brust wrote..." When I write a formal letter (e-mail, these days) I often use inversions such as "had there been" "should you have" or "were you to" to convey a formal tone but I had no idea I would be archaizing.

        – Centaurus
        Feb 5 '18 at 12:49















        @Centaurus You’re right, so I’ve re­moved that bit. Mere “sub­junc­tive in­ver­sion” for con­di­tion­als by it­self is not ar­chaiz­ing, al­though it is more of­ten to be found in writ­ing than in speech and so might be “for­mal­iz­ing”. Brust is writ­ing a char­ac­ter there who’s pur­pose­fully stuffy. (continued...)

        – tchrist
        Feb 5 '18 at 14:13







        @Centaurus You’re right, so I’ve re­moved that bit. Mere “sub­junc­tive in­ver­sion” for con­di­tion­als by it­self is not ar­chaiz­ing, al­though it is more of­ten to be found in writ­ing than in speech and so might be “for­mal­iz­ing”. Brust is writ­ing a char­ac­ter there who’s pur­pose­fully stuffy. (continued...)

        – tchrist
        Feb 5 '18 at 14:13






        1




        1





        @Centaurus (continued) His word-play on we should is pos­si­ble be­cause most peo­ple would today say we would but Brust is us­ing the “old” “1st-per­son” fla­vor of we should where in mod­ern times we’d be much more likely to say we would. He did so be­cause this way he al­lows for both modal­i­ties of should — the epis­temic sense of prob­a­bil­ity and the de­on­tic sense of obli­ga­tion — to si­mul­ta­ne­ously en­ter into the read­er’s mind for the delectably sub­tle, hu­mor­ous ef­fect.

        – tchrist
        yesterday







        @Centaurus (continued) His word-play on we should is pos­si­ble be­cause most peo­ple would today say we would but Brust is us­ing the “old” “1st-per­son” fla­vor of we should where in mod­ern times we’d be much more likely to say we would. He did so be­cause this way he al­lows for both modal­i­ties of should — the epis­temic sense of prob­a­bil­ity and the de­on­tic sense of obli­ga­tion — to si­mul­ta­ne­ously en­ter into the read­er’s mind for the delectably sub­tle, hu­mor­ous ef­fect.

        – tchrist
        yesterday















        There's at least one inversion which can only really be thought of as indicative in modern 21st century English, the one with should - as in Should you see Centaurus, ask him to ping me.

        – Araucaria
        11 hours ago







        There's at least one inversion which can only really be thought of as indicative in modern 21st century English, the one with should - as in Should you see Centaurus, ask him to ping me.

        – Araucaria
        11 hours ago















        88














        When in doubt, always use the subjunctive mood:




        If I were you...




        It will make you sound smarter and it is technically correct since "the subjunctive mood is used to express a wish or possible situation that is currently not true."






        share|improve this answer



















        • 3





          Please provide references to support this answer. The year is now 2018 and smartypants answers are not exactly commendable :)

          – Mari-Lou A
          Feb 4 '18 at 19:05






        • 4





          Previous comments have been moved to chat, but since this answer remains accepted (and the asker apparently AWOL), this should be stated here: THIS ANSWER IS NOT CORRECT. The subjunctive mood is NOT always the right option. See Nick’s answer for a much better explanation.

          – Janus Bahs Jacquet
          Feb 4 '18 at 23:14











        • MODERATOR NOTE: Aw gee, can't you guys ᴘʀᴇᴛᴛʏ ᴘʟᴇᴀsᴇ ᴡɪᴛʜ sᴜɢᴀʀ ᴏɴ ɪᴛ carry on your discussion either in this answer’s chatroom, or in this question’s chatroom, or even in the main ELU chatroom where people actually hang out? I've manually copied your comments into this answer’s chatroom.

          – tchrist
          Feb 5 '18 at 14:22








        • 4





          This answer appears to be a bit of satire that was so successful that it got taken for a real piece of advice, and irritated some people. Repeatedly. Rather like Macchiavelli.

          – John Lawler
          Aug 31 '18 at 23:01
















        88














        When in doubt, always use the subjunctive mood:




        If I were you...




        It will make you sound smarter and it is technically correct since "the subjunctive mood is used to express a wish or possible situation that is currently not true."






        share|improve this answer



















        • 3





          Please provide references to support this answer. The year is now 2018 and smartypants answers are not exactly commendable :)

          – Mari-Lou A
          Feb 4 '18 at 19:05






        • 4





          Previous comments have been moved to chat, but since this answer remains accepted (and the asker apparently AWOL), this should be stated here: THIS ANSWER IS NOT CORRECT. The subjunctive mood is NOT always the right option. See Nick’s answer for a much better explanation.

          – Janus Bahs Jacquet
          Feb 4 '18 at 23:14











        • MODERATOR NOTE: Aw gee, can't you guys ᴘʀᴇᴛᴛʏ ᴘʟᴇᴀsᴇ ᴡɪᴛʜ sᴜɢᴀʀ ᴏɴ ɪᴛ carry on your discussion either in this answer’s chatroom, or in this question’s chatroom, or even in the main ELU chatroom where people actually hang out? I've manually copied your comments into this answer’s chatroom.

          – tchrist
          Feb 5 '18 at 14:22








        • 4





          This answer appears to be a bit of satire that was so successful that it got taken for a real piece of advice, and irritated some people. Repeatedly. Rather like Macchiavelli.

          – John Lawler
          Aug 31 '18 at 23:01














        88












        88








        88







        When in doubt, always use the subjunctive mood:




        If I were you...




        It will make you sound smarter and it is technically correct since "the subjunctive mood is used to express a wish or possible situation that is currently not true."






        share|improve this answer













        When in doubt, always use the subjunctive mood:




        If I were you...




        It will make you sound smarter and it is technically correct since "the subjunctive mood is used to express a wish or possible situation that is currently not true."







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Aug 13 '10 at 8:18









        Edward TanguayEdward Tanguay

        10.9k165364




        10.9k165364








        • 3





          Please provide references to support this answer. The year is now 2018 and smartypants answers are not exactly commendable :)

          – Mari-Lou A
          Feb 4 '18 at 19:05






        • 4





          Previous comments have been moved to chat, but since this answer remains accepted (and the asker apparently AWOL), this should be stated here: THIS ANSWER IS NOT CORRECT. The subjunctive mood is NOT always the right option. See Nick’s answer for a much better explanation.

          – Janus Bahs Jacquet
          Feb 4 '18 at 23:14











        • MODERATOR NOTE: Aw gee, can't you guys ᴘʀᴇᴛᴛʏ ᴘʟᴇᴀsᴇ ᴡɪᴛʜ sᴜɢᴀʀ ᴏɴ ɪᴛ carry on your discussion either in this answer’s chatroom, or in this question’s chatroom, or even in the main ELU chatroom where people actually hang out? I've manually copied your comments into this answer’s chatroom.

          – tchrist
          Feb 5 '18 at 14:22








        • 4





          This answer appears to be a bit of satire that was so successful that it got taken for a real piece of advice, and irritated some people. Repeatedly. Rather like Macchiavelli.

          – John Lawler
          Aug 31 '18 at 23:01














        • 3





          Please provide references to support this answer. The year is now 2018 and smartypants answers are not exactly commendable :)

          – Mari-Lou A
          Feb 4 '18 at 19:05






        • 4





          Previous comments have been moved to chat, but since this answer remains accepted (and the asker apparently AWOL), this should be stated here: THIS ANSWER IS NOT CORRECT. The subjunctive mood is NOT always the right option. See Nick’s answer for a much better explanation.

          – Janus Bahs Jacquet
          Feb 4 '18 at 23:14











        • MODERATOR NOTE: Aw gee, can't you guys ᴘʀᴇᴛᴛʏ ᴘʟᴇᴀsᴇ ᴡɪᴛʜ sᴜɢᴀʀ ᴏɴ ɪᴛ carry on your discussion either in this answer’s chatroom, or in this question’s chatroom, or even in the main ELU chatroom where people actually hang out? I've manually copied your comments into this answer’s chatroom.

          – tchrist
          Feb 5 '18 at 14:22








        • 4





          This answer appears to be a bit of satire that was so successful that it got taken for a real piece of advice, and irritated some people. Repeatedly. Rather like Macchiavelli.

          – John Lawler
          Aug 31 '18 at 23:01








        3




        3





        Please provide references to support this answer. The year is now 2018 and smartypants answers are not exactly commendable :)

        – Mari-Lou A
        Feb 4 '18 at 19:05





        Please provide references to support this answer. The year is now 2018 and smartypants answers are not exactly commendable :)

        – Mari-Lou A
        Feb 4 '18 at 19:05




        4




        4





        Previous comments have been moved to chat, but since this answer remains accepted (and the asker apparently AWOL), this should be stated here: THIS ANSWER IS NOT CORRECT. The subjunctive mood is NOT always the right option. See Nick’s answer for a much better explanation.

        – Janus Bahs Jacquet
        Feb 4 '18 at 23:14





        Previous comments have been moved to chat, but since this answer remains accepted (and the asker apparently AWOL), this should be stated here: THIS ANSWER IS NOT CORRECT. The subjunctive mood is NOT always the right option. See Nick’s answer for a much better explanation.

        – Janus Bahs Jacquet
        Feb 4 '18 at 23:14













        MODERATOR NOTE: Aw gee, can't you guys ᴘʀᴇᴛᴛʏ ᴘʟᴇᴀsᴇ ᴡɪᴛʜ sᴜɢᴀʀ ᴏɴ ɪᴛ carry on your discussion either in this answer’s chatroom, or in this question’s chatroom, or even in the main ELU chatroom where people actually hang out? I've manually copied your comments into this answer’s chatroom.

        – tchrist
        Feb 5 '18 at 14:22







        MODERATOR NOTE: Aw gee, can't you guys ᴘʀᴇᴛᴛʏ ᴘʟᴇᴀsᴇ ᴡɪᴛʜ sᴜɢᴀʀ ᴏɴ ɪᴛ carry on your discussion either in this answer’s chatroom, or in this question’s chatroom, or even in the main ELU chatroom where people actually hang out? I've manually copied your comments into this answer’s chatroom.

        – tchrist
        Feb 5 '18 at 14:22






        4




        4





        This answer appears to be a bit of satire that was so successful that it got taken for a real piece of advice, and irritated some people. Repeatedly. Rather like Macchiavelli.

        – John Lawler
        Aug 31 '18 at 23:01





        This answer appears to be a bit of satire that was so successful that it got taken for a real piece of advice, and irritated some people. Repeatedly. Rather like Macchiavelli.

        – John Lawler
        Aug 31 '18 at 23:01











        71














        It's if I were for hypothetical in the present or future and if I was when talking about something presumed true in the PAST. "IF" then means something likened to "since".




        If I were class president, I would represent our class very well for the next four years.



        If I was at the party last night, I don't remember.




        It's an old, residual rule from the days of yore when English verbs conjugated differently for person and singular/plural in both the past and present tense indicative and subjunctive. While I may not have enough knowledge on Old and Middle English, I can show you the conjugation for to do for the 2nd person singular form of "thou" in Early Modern English:




        present indicative - thou dost

        present subjunctive - thou do

        past indicative - thou didst

        past subjunctive - thou did




        It's why it should be "if I be" for things possible and one could still say it. We see "if truth be told" and "whether it be" and others, all residual subjunctives from the days of Chaucer and even Shakespeare wherein it was already disappearing. In Modern English, the past tense is uniform for every person (I, you, he, we, you, they did) except for "to be" (I, he was, but you, we, you, they were), but it wasn't always that way.



        Anyway, if I were you, I would learn it because it usually separates the intelligent from ignoramuses. It's correct English even if it be a little old.






        share|improve this answer






























          71














          It's if I were for hypothetical in the present or future and if I was when talking about something presumed true in the PAST. "IF" then means something likened to "since".




          If I were class president, I would represent our class very well for the next four years.



          If I was at the party last night, I don't remember.




          It's an old, residual rule from the days of yore when English verbs conjugated differently for person and singular/plural in both the past and present tense indicative and subjunctive. While I may not have enough knowledge on Old and Middle English, I can show you the conjugation for to do for the 2nd person singular form of "thou" in Early Modern English:




          present indicative - thou dost

          present subjunctive - thou do

          past indicative - thou didst

          past subjunctive - thou did




          It's why it should be "if I be" for things possible and one could still say it. We see "if truth be told" and "whether it be" and others, all residual subjunctives from the days of Chaucer and even Shakespeare wherein it was already disappearing. In Modern English, the past tense is uniform for every person (I, you, he, we, you, they did) except for "to be" (I, he was, but you, we, you, they were), but it wasn't always that way.



          Anyway, if I were you, I would learn it because it usually separates the intelligent from ignoramuses. It's correct English even if it be a little old.






          share|improve this answer




























            71












            71








            71







            It's if I were for hypothetical in the present or future and if I was when talking about something presumed true in the PAST. "IF" then means something likened to "since".




            If I were class president, I would represent our class very well for the next four years.



            If I was at the party last night, I don't remember.




            It's an old, residual rule from the days of yore when English verbs conjugated differently for person and singular/plural in both the past and present tense indicative and subjunctive. While I may not have enough knowledge on Old and Middle English, I can show you the conjugation for to do for the 2nd person singular form of "thou" in Early Modern English:




            present indicative - thou dost

            present subjunctive - thou do

            past indicative - thou didst

            past subjunctive - thou did




            It's why it should be "if I be" for things possible and one could still say it. We see "if truth be told" and "whether it be" and others, all residual subjunctives from the days of Chaucer and even Shakespeare wherein it was already disappearing. In Modern English, the past tense is uniform for every person (I, you, he, we, you, they did) except for "to be" (I, he was, but you, we, you, they were), but it wasn't always that way.



            Anyway, if I were you, I would learn it because it usually separates the intelligent from ignoramuses. It's correct English even if it be a little old.






            share|improve this answer















            It's if I were for hypothetical in the present or future and if I was when talking about something presumed true in the PAST. "IF" then means something likened to "since".




            If I were class president, I would represent our class very well for the next four years.



            If I was at the party last night, I don't remember.




            It's an old, residual rule from the days of yore when English verbs conjugated differently for person and singular/plural in both the past and present tense indicative and subjunctive. While I may not have enough knowledge on Old and Middle English, I can show you the conjugation for to do for the 2nd person singular form of "thou" in Early Modern English:




            present indicative - thou dost

            present subjunctive - thou do

            past indicative - thou didst

            past subjunctive - thou did




            It's why it should be "if I be" for things possible and one could still say it. We see "if truth be told" and "whether it be" and others, all residual subjunctives from the days of Chaucer and even Shakespeare wherein it was already disappearing. In Modern English, the past tense is uniform for every person (I, you, he, we, you, they did) except for "to be" (I, he was, but you, we, you, they were), but it wasn't always that way.



            Anyway, if I were you, I would learn it because it usually separates the intelligent from ignoramuses. It's correct English even if it be a little old.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Apr 9 '11 at 3:19









            Uticensis

            13.3k60131231




            13.3k60131231










            answered Dec 13 '10 at 6:56









            NickNick

            80772




            80772























                30














                Well, "if I was" can be valid for the past, I guess.




                If I was wrong, please forgive me.




                That aside, I think one of the other answers is right that in British English — at least spoken — both are acceptable and probably equally common. (The 'were' version sounds more 'educated'.)






                share|improve this answer


























                • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

                  – tchrist
                  Feb 4 '18 at 17:20
















                30














                Well, "if I was" can be valid for the past, I guess.




                If I was wrong, please forgive me.




                That aside, I think one of the other answers is right that in British English — at least spoken — both are acceptable and probably equally common. (The 'were' version sounds more 'educated'.)






                share|improve this answer


























                • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

                  – tchrist
                  Feb 4 '18 at 17:20














                30












                30








                30







                Well, "if I was" can be valid for the past, I guess.




                If I was wrong, please forgive me.




                That aside, I think one of the other answers is right that in British English — at least spoken — both are acceptable and probably equally common. (The 'were' version sounds more 'educated'.)






                share|improve this answer















                Well, "if I was" can be valid for the past, I guess.




                If I was wrong, please forgive me.




                That aside, I think one of the other answers is right that in British English — at least spoken — both are acceptable and probably equally common. (The 'were' version sounds more 'educated'.)







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited May 22 '12 at 11:19









                RegDwigнt

                83.4k31281382




                83.4k31281382










                answered Sep 8 '10 at 5:41









                BenjolBenjol

                3,77022332




                3,77022332













                • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

                  – tchrist
                  Feb 4 '18 at 17:20



















                • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

                  – tchrist
                  Feb 4 '18 at 17:20

















                Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

                – tchrist
                Feb 4 '18 at 17:20





                Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

                – tchrist
                Feb 4 '18 at 17:20











                15















                The rule that I was taught is that was
                is for things that could be true but
                aren't, and were is for things that
                could never be true.



                So, if I was an airline pilot is OK
                because conceivably I could retrain as
                a pilot, if I wanted.



                But if I were you is right because I
                will never be you.




                The rule you were taught is wrong, Daniel.



                The few subjunctive forms that are left can all be stated in other fashions using language that isn't subjunctive in form. We use lexical verbs to state subjunctive/contrary to fact situations all the time.



                If I lived in Bangkok, ... // If I had a million dollars, ... // If I hadn't been born, ... .



                Just as we can use the past time FORM of lexical verbs to describe contrary to fact situations, so too we can use 'was'. It's not as formal as the subjunctive form 'were' but it means the same thing.



                There's not a speaker of English anywhere who thinks that "If I was you" means that the speaker is saying "I am you".



                "If I were you" means the same thing as "If I was you". They both entail that I am not you.



                Of course, we can and do use 'was' to state "allowing that that's true":



                If she was at the party, she sure was quiet.






                share|improve this answer





















                • 1





                  As you indicate, saying, "If I was you" would almost certainly not cause confusion (except perhaps some confusion about this rule), but it would make people think you didn't finish high school.

                  – Kai Maxfield
                  May 21 '16 at 3:46
















                15















                The rule that I was taught is that was
                is for things that could be true but
                aren't, and were is for things that
                could never be true.



                So, if I was an airline pilot is OK
                because conceivably I could retrain as
                a pilot, if I wanted.



                But if I were you is right because I
                will never be you.




                The rule you were taught is wrong, Daniel.



                The few subjunctive forms that are left can all be stated in other fashions using language that isn't subjunctive in form. We use lexical verbs to state subjunctive/contrary to fact situations all the time.



                If I lived in Bangkok, ... // If I had a million dollars, ... // If I hadn't been born, ... .



                Just as we can use the past time FORM of lexical verbs to describe contrary to fact situations, so too we can use 'was'. It's not as formal as the subjunctive form 'were' but it means the same thing.



                There's not a speaker of English anywhere who thinks that "If I was you" means that the speaker is saying "I am you".



                "If I were you" means the same thing as "If I was you". They both entail that I am not you.



                Of course, we can and do use 'was' to state "allowing that that's true":



                If she was at the party, she sure was quiet.






                share|improve this answer





















                • 1





                  As you indicate, saying, "If I was you" would almost certainly not cause confusion (except perhaps some confusion about this rule), but it would make people think you didn't finish high school.

                  – Kai Maxfield
                  May 21 '16 at 3:46














                15












                15








                15








                The rule that I was taught is that was
                is for things that could be true but
                aren't, and were is for things that
                could never be true.



                So, if I was an airline pilot is OK
                because conceivably I could retrain as
                a pilot, if I wanted.



                But if I were you is right because I
                will never be you.




                The rule you were taught is wrong, Daniel.



                The few subjunctive forms that are left can all be stated in other fashions using language that isn't subjunctive in form. We use lexical verbs to state subjunctive/contrary to fact situations all the time.



                If I lived in Bangkok, ... // If I had a million dollars, ... // If I hadn't been born, ... .



                Just as we can use the past time FORM of lexical verbs to describe contrary to fact situations, so too we can use 'was'. It's not as formal as the subjunctive form 'were' but it means the same thing.



                There's not a speaker of English anywhere who thinks that "If I was you" means that the speaker is saying "I am you".



                "If I were you" means the same thing as "If I was you". They both entail that I am not you.



                Of course, we can and do use 'was' to state "allowing that that's true":



                If she was at the party, she sure was quiet.






                share|improve this answer
















                The rule that I was taught is that was
                is for things that could be true but
                aren't, and were is for things that
                could never be true.



                So, if I was an airline pilot is OK
                because conceivably I could retrain as
                a pilot, if I wanted.



                But if I were you is right because I
                will never be you.




                The rule you were taught is wrong, Daniel.



                The few subjunctive forms that are left can all be stated in other fashions using language that isn't subjunctive in form. We use lexical verbs to state subjunctive/contrary to fact situations all the time.



                If I lived in Bangkok, ... // If I had a million dollars, ... // If I hadn't been born, ... .



                Just as we can use the past time FORM of lexical verbs to describe contrary to fact situations, so too we can use 'was'. It's not as formal as the subjunctive form 'were' but it means the same thing.



                There's not a speaker of English anywhere who thinks that "If I was you" means that the speaker is saying "I am you".



                "If I were you" means the same thing as "If I was you". They both entail that I am not you.



                Of course, we can and do use 'was' to state "allowing that that's true":



                If she was at the party, she sure was quiet.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Feb 3 '18 at 2:55









                aparente001

                14.9k43671




                14.9k43671










                answered Apr 18 '11 at 17:26









                DanDan

                74454




                74454








                • 1





                  As you indicate, saying, "If I was you" would almost certainly not cause confusion (except perhaps some confusion about this rule), but it would make people think you didn't finish high school.

                  – Kai Maxfield
                  May 21 '16 at 3:46














                • 1





                  As you indicate, saying, "If I was you" would almost certainly not cause confusion (except perhaps some confusion about this rule), but it would make people think you didn't finish high school.

                  – Kai Maxfield
                  May 21 '16 at 3:46








                1




                1





                As you indicate, saying, "If I was you" would almost certainly not cause confusion (except perhaps some confusion about this rule), but it would make people think you didn't finish high school.

                – Kai Maxfield
                May 21 '16 at 3:46





                As you indicate, saying, "If I was you" would almost certainly not cause confusion (except perhaps some confusion about this rule), but it would make people think you didn't finish high school.

                – Kai Maxfield
                May 21 '16 at 3:46











                13














                The rule that I was taught is that was is for things that could be true but aren't, and were is for things that could never be true.



                So, if I was an airline pilot is OK because conceivably I could retrain as a pilot, if I wanted.



                But if I were you is right because I will never be you.






                share|improve this answer





















                • 23





                  "If I was an airline pilot" and "If I were an airline pilot" have different meanings. The latter is the subjunctive case (and presumably what most people mean, even if they say the former). The former is talking about the past tense - "if I was an airline pilot 10 years ago..."

                  – Marthaª
                  Oct 12 '10 at 17:28











                • Before I had ever heard of Martha and had seen the caliber of her contributions, one of my first questions as a novice was inspired by the comment above. She is very good, and she writes impeccably well. But here she is wrong.

                  – Mari-Lou A
                  Jun 28 '18 at 10:23
















                13














                The rule that I was taught is that was is for things that could be true but aren't, and were is for things that could never be true.



                So, if I was an airline pilot is OK because conceivably I could retrain as a pilot, if I wanted.



                But if I were you is right because I will never be you.






                share|improve this answer





















                • 23





                  "If I was an airline pilot" and "If I were an airline pilot" have different meanings. The latter is the subjunctive case (and presumably what most people mean, even if they say the former). The former is talking about the past tense - "if I was an airline pilot 10 years ago..."

                  – Marthaª
                  Oct 12 '10 at 17:28











                • Before I had ever heard of Martha and had seen the caliber of her contributions, one of my first questions as a novice was inspired by the comment above. She is very good, and she writes impeccably well. But here she is wrong.

                  – Mari-Lou A
                  Jun 28 '18 at 10:23














                13












                13








                13







                The rule that I was taught is that was is for things that could be true but aren't, and were is for things that could never be true.



                So, if I was an airline pilot is OK because conceivably I could retrain as a pilot, if I wanted.



                But if I were you is right because I will never be you.






                share|improve this answer















                The rule that I was taught is that was is for things that could be true but aren't, and were is for things that could never be true.



                So, if I was an airline pilot is OK because conceivably I could retrain as a pilot, if I wanted.



                But if I were you is right because I will never be you.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Aug 29 '10 at 23:43









                kiamlaluno

                43.8k57183296




                43.8k57183296










                answered Aug 13 '10 at 8:41









                Daniel RosemanDaniel Roseman

                1,9531013




                1,9531013








                • 23





                  "If I was an airline pilot" and "If I were an airline pilot" have different meanings. The latter is the subjunctive case (and presumably what most people mean, even if they say the former). The former is talking about the past tense - "if I was an airline pilot 10 years ago..."

                  – Marthaª
                  Oct 12 '10 at 17:28











                • Before I had ever heard of Martha and had seen the caliber of her contributions, one of my first questions as a novice was inspired by the comment above. She is very good, and she writes impeccably well. But here she is wrong.

                  – Mari-Lou A
                  Jun 28 '18 at 10:23














                • 23





                  "If I was an airline pilot" and "If I were an airline pilot" have different meanings. The latter is the subjunctive case (and presumably what most people mean, even if they say the former). The former is talking about the past tense - "if I was an airline pilot 10 years ago..."

                  – Marthaª
                  Oct 12 '10 at 17:28











                • Before I had ever heard of Martha and had seen the caliber of her contributions, one of my first questions as a novice was inspired by the comment above. She is very good, and she writes impeccably well. But here she is wrong.

                  – Mari-Lou A
                  Jun 28 '18 at 10:23








                23




                23





                "If I was an airline pilot" and "If I were an airline pilot" have different meanings. The latter is the subjunctive case (and presumably what most people mean, even if they say the former). The former is talking about the past tense - "if I was an airline pilot 10 years ago..."

                – Marthaª
                Oct 12 '10 at 17:28





                "If I was an airline pilot" and "If I were an airline pilot" have different meanings. The latter is the subjunctive case (and presumably what most people mean, even if they say the former). The former is talking about the past tense - "if I was an airline pilot 10 years ago..."

                – Marthaª
                Oct 12 '10 at 17:28













                Before I had ever heard of Martha and had seen the caliber of her contributions, one of my first questions as a novice was inspired by the comment above. She is very good, and she writes impeccably well. But here she is wrong.

                – Mari-Lou A
                Jun 28 '18 at 10:23





                Before I had ever heard of Martha and had seen the caliber of her contributions, one of my first questions as a novice was inspired by the comment above. She is very good, and she writes impeccably well. But here she is wrong.

                – Mari-Lou A
                Jun 28 '18 at 10:23











                13














                Younger people would never use 'were', here in Australia at least. From the point of view of grammar, both are OK nowadays. It's interesting to note, that IELTS would accept both while TOEFL would be very reluctant to accept 'was'.






                share|improve this answer
























                • re "younger people would never use "were"". Do they say "If I was you"?

                  – Centaurus
                  Feb 5 '18 at 14:49






                • 2





                  @Centaurus Yes, in my region of Australia. You might also hear "I goes" and "Should have went".

                  – geometrikal
                  Apr 26 '18 at 15:17


















                13














                Younger people would never use 'were', here in Australia at least. From the point of view of grammar, both are OK nowadays. It's interesting to note, that IELTS would accept both while TOEFL would be very reluctant to accept 'was'.






                share|improve this answer
























                • re "younger people would never use "were"". Do they say "If I was you"?

                  – Centaurus
                  Feb 5 '18 at 14:49






                • 2





                  @Centaurus Yes, in my region of Australia. You might also hear "I goes" and "Should have went".

                  – geometrikal
                  Apr 26 '18 at 15:17
















                13












                13








                13







                Younger people would never use 'were', here in Australia at least. From the point of view of grammar, both are OK nowadays. It's interesting to note, that IELTS would accept both while TOEFL would be very reluctant to accept 'was'.






                share|improve this answer













                Younger people would never use 'were', here in Australia at least. From the point of view of grammar, both are OK nowadays. It's interesting to note, that IELTS would accept both while TOEFL would be very reluctant to accept 'was'.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Sep 8 '10 at 7:17









                asilasil

                22512




                22512













                • re "younger people would never use "were"". Do they say "If I was you"?

                  – Centaurus
                  Feb 5 '18 at 14:49






                • 2





                  @Centaurus Yes, in my region of Australia. You might also hear "I goes" and "Should have went".

                  – geometrikal
                  Apr 26 '18 at 15:17





















                • re "younger people would never use "were"". Do they say "If I was you"?

                  – Centaurus
                  Feb 5 '18 at 14:49






                • 2





                  @Centaurus Yes, in my region of Australia. You might also hear "I goes" and "Should have went".

                  – geometrikal
                  Apr 26 '18 at 15:17



















                re "younger people would never use "were"". Do they say "If I was you"?

                – Centaurus
                Feb 5 '18 at 14:49





                re "younger people would never use "were"". Do they say "If I was you"?

                – Centaurus
                Feb 5 '18 at 14:49




                2




                2





                @Centaurus Yes, in my region of Australia. You might also hear "I goes" and "Should have went".

                – geometrikal
                Apr 26 '18 at 15:17







                @Centaurus Yes, in my region of Australia. You might also hear "I goes" and "Should have went".

                – geometrikal
                Apr 26 '18 at 15:17













                9














                The rule is, if your hypothetical scenario suggests something that isn't true, use were:




                If I were stronger, I'd break your arm!




                (I'm not stronger.)




                If I were a flower, I'd go crazy!




                (I'm not really a flower, though I've been called a pansy before.)




                If my room were clean, it would be a first.




                (My room isn't clean.)



                If it may be true, use was:




                If this answer was poorly constructed, it may have been due to the fact that I was really tired.




                (It may be poorly written.)



                The same rules apply to sentences with though:




                He appears as though he were homeless.




                (He's not homeless, yet, although keeping up his current dressing habits could result in such.)



                This is addressed, among other places, on pages 56-57 of my favorite reference book, "Woe Is I" by Patricia O' Conner.



                Also see
                http://m.grammarbook.com/grammar-rules/subject-and-verb-agreement.aspx from which I quote:




                Rule 10. The word were replaces was in sentences that express a wish or are contrary to fact:



                Example: If Joe were here, you'd be sorry.



                Shouldn't Joe be followed by was, not were, given that Joe is singular? But Joe isn't actually here, so we say were, not was. The sentence demonstrates the subjunctive mood, which is used to express things that are hypothetical, wishful, imaginary, or factually contradictory. The subjunctive mood pairs singular subjects with what we usually think of as plural verbs.



                Examples:
                I wish it were Friday.
                She requested that he raise his hand.



                In the first example, a wishful statement, not a fact, is being expressed; therefore, were, which we usually think of as a plural verb, is used with the singular subject I.



                Normally, he raise would sound terrible to us. However, in the second example, where a request is being expressed, the subjunctive mood is correct.



                Note: The subjunctive mood is losing ground in spoken English but should still be used in formal speech and writing.







                share|improve this answer






























                  9














                  The rule is, if your hypothetical scenario suggests something that isn't true, use were:




                  If I were stronger, I'd break your arm!




                  (I'm not stronger.)




                  If I were a flower, I'd go crazy!




                  (I'm not really a flower, though I've been called a pansy before.)




                  If my room were clean, it would be a first.




                  (My room isn't clean.)



                  If it may be true, use was:




                  If this answer was poorly constructed, it may have been due to the fact that I was really tired.




                  (It may be poorly written.)



                  The same rules apply to sentences with though:




                  He appears as though he were homeless.




                  (He's not homeless, yet, although keeping up his current dressing habits could result in such.)



                  This is addressed, among other places, on pages 56-57 of my favorite reference book, "Woe Is I" by Patricia O' Conner.



                  Also see
                  http://m.grammarbook.com/grammar-rules/subject-and-verb-agreement.aspx from which I quote:




                  Rule 10. The word were replaces was in sentences that express a wish or are contrary to fact:



                  Example: If Joe were here, you'd be sorry.



                  Shouldn't Joe be followed by was, not were, given that Joe is singular? But Joe isn't actually here, so we say were, not was. The sentence demonstrates the subjunctive mood, which is used to express things that are hypothetical, wishful, imaginary, or factually contradictory. The subjunctive mood pairs singular subjects with what we usually think of as plural verbs.



                  Examples:
                  I wish it were Friday.
                  She requested that he raise his hand.



                  In the first example, a wishful statement, not a fact, is being expressed; therefore, were, which we usually think of as a plural verb, is used with the singular subject I.



                  Normally, he raise would sound terrible to us. However, in the second example, where a request is being expressed, the subjunctive mood is correct.



                  Note: The subjunctive mood is losing ground in spoken English but should still be used in formal speech and writing.







                  share|improve this answer




























                    9












                    9








                    9







                    The rule is, if your hypothetical scenario suggests something that isn't true, use were:




                    If I were stronger, I'd break your arm!




                    (I'm not stronger.)




                    If I were a flower, I'd go crazy!




                    (I'm not really a flower, though I've been called a pansy before.)




                    If my room were clean, it would be a first.




                    (My room isn't clean.)



                    If it may be true, use was:




                    If this answer was poorly constructed, it may have been due to the fact that I was really tired.




                    (It may be poorly written.)



                    The same rules apply to sentences with though:




                    He appears as though he were homeless.




                    (He's not homeless, yet, although keeping up his current dressing habits could result in such.)



                    This is addressed, among other places, on pages 56-57 of my favorite reference book, "Woe Is I" by Patricia O' Conner.



                    Also see
                    http://m.grammarbook.com/grammar-rules/subject-and-verb-agreement.aspx from which I quote:




                    Rule 10. The word were replaces was in sentences that express a wish or are contrary to fact:



                    Example: If Joe were here, you'd be sorry.



                    Shouldn't Joe be followed by was, not were, given that Joe is singular? But Joe isn't actually here, so we say were, not was. The sentence demonstrates the subjunctive mood, which is used to express things that are hypothetical, wishful, imaginary, or factually contradictory. The subjunctive mood pairs singular subjects with what we usually think of as plural verbs.



                    Examples:
                    I wish it were Friday.
                    She requested that he raise his hand.



                    In the first example, a wishful statement, not a fact, is being expressed; therefore, were, which we usually think of as a plural verb, is used with the singular subject I.



                    Normally, he raise would sound terrible to us. However, in the second example, where a request is being expressed, the subjunctive mood is correct.



                    Note: The subjunctive mood is losing ground in spoken English but should still be used in formal speech and writing.







                    share|improve this answer















                    The rule is, if your hypothetical scenario suggests something that isn't true, use were:




                    If I were stronger, I'd break your arm!




                    (I'm not stronger.)




                    If I were a flower, I'd go crazy!




                    (I'm not really a flower, though I've been called a pansy before.)




                    If my room were clean, it would be a first.




                    (My room isn't clean.)



                    If it may be true, use was:




                    If this answer was poorly constructed, it may have been due to the fact that I was really tired.




                    (It may be poorly written.)



                    The same rules apply to sentences with though:




                    He appears as though he were homeless.




                    (He's not homeless, yet, although keeping up his current dressing habits could result in such.)



                    This is addressed, among other places, on pages 56-57 of my favorite reference book, "Woe Is I" by Patricia O' Conner.



                    Also see
                    http://m.grammarbook.com/grammar-rules/subject-and-verb-agreement.aspx from which I quote:




                    Rule 10. The word were replaces was in sentences that express a wish or are contrary to fact:



                    Example: If Joe were here, you'd be sorry.



                    Shouldn't Joe be followed by was, not were, given that Joe is singular? But Joe isn't actually here, so we say were, not was. The sentence demonstrates the subjunctive mood, which is used to express things that are hypothetical, wishful, imaginary, or factually contradictory. The subjunctive mood pairs singular subjects with what we usually think of as plural verbs.



                    Examples:
                    I wish it were Friday.
                    She requested that he raise his hand.



                    In the first example, a wishful statement, not a fact, is being expressed; therefore, were, which we usually think of as a plural verb, is used with the singular subject I.



                    Normally, he raise would sound terrible to us. However, in the second example, where a request is being expressed, the subjunctive mood is correct.



                    Note: The subjunctive mood is losing ground in spoken English but should still be used in formal speech and writing.








                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited May 21 '16 at 4:20

























                    answered Feb 26 '16 at 8:11









                    Kai MaxfieldKai Maxfield

                    484413




                    484413























                        4














                        I think both can be said to be standard uses nowadays. I have read that American English uses the subjunctive ("If I were you") more than British English. I never use "If I were you" but always the "was" formation. In the same way I would never say "If he be right", etc.






                        share|improve this answer



















                        • 5





                          An American would not say if he be right too.

                          – kiamlaluno
                          Aug 29 '10 at 23:45






                        • 2





                          @Shinto Sherlock: the past tense of the subjunctive moode is used to express an imaginary or hypothetical condition, as far as I know. I have never heard somebody saying if I be rich, I would live in Hawaii, or if I am rich, I would be live in Hawaii.

                          – kiamlaluno
                          Sep 5 '10 at 21:26











                        • Compare the previous sentence with "I request that Jill pick up the ball," which uses the present subjunctive to express a mandative statement. Subjunctive mood is used in the same way in both American and British English.

                          – kiamlaluno
                          Apr 3 '11 at 1:38






                        • 2





                          For this form of the subjunctive, Ngrams doesn't show a marked American/British difference.

                          – Peter Shor
                          Feb 9 '12 at 17:35
















                        4














                        I think both can be said to be standard uses nowadays. I have read that American English uses the subjunctive ("If I were you") more than British English. I never use "If I were you" but always the "was" formation. In the same way I would never say "If he be right", etc.






                        share|improve this answer



















                        • 5





                          An American would not say if he be right too.

                          – kiamlaluno
                          Aug 29 '10 at 23:45






                        • 2





                          @Shinto Sherlock: the past tense of the subjunctive moode is used to express an imaginary or hypothetical condition, as far as I know. I have never heard somebody saying if I be rich, I would live in Hawaii, or if I am rich, I would be live in Hawaii.

                          – kiamlaluno
                          Sep 5 '10 at 21:26











                        • Compare the previous sentence with "I request that Jill pick up the ball," which uses the present subjunctive to express a mandative statement. Subjunctive mood is used in the same way in both American and British English.

                          – kiamlaluno
                          Apr 3 '11 at 1:38






                        • 2





                          For this form of the subjunctive, Ngrams doesn't show a marked American/British difference.

                          – Peter Shor
                          Feb 9 '12 at 17:35














                        4












                        4








                        4







                        I think both can be said to be standard uses nowadays. I have read that American English uses the subjunctive ("If I were you") more than British English. I never use "If I were you" but always the "was" formation. In the same way I would never say "If he be right", etc.






                        share|improve this answer













                        I think both can be said to be standard uses nowadays. I have read that American English uses the subjunctive ("If I were you") more than British English. I never use "If I were you" but always the "was" formation. In the same way I would never say "If he be right", etc.







                        share|improve this answer












                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer










                        answered Aug 13 '10 at 8:39







                        delete















                        • 5





                          An American would not say if he be right too.

                          – kiamlaluno
                          Aug 29 '10 at 23:45






                        • 2





                          @Shinto Sherlock: the past tense of the subjunctive moode is used to express an imaginary or hypothetical condition, as far as I know. I have never heard somebody saying if I be rich, I would live in Hawaii, or if I am rich, I would be live in Hawaii.

                          – kiamlaluno
                          Sep 5 '10 at 21:26











                        • Compare the previous sentence with "I request that Jill pick up the ball," which uses the present subjunctive to express a mandative statement. Subjunctive mood is used in the same way in both American and British English.

                          – kiamlaluno
                          Apr 3 '11 at 1:38






                        • 2





                          For this form of the subjunctive, Ngrams doesn't show a marked American/British difference.

                          – Peter Shor
                          Feb 9 '12 at 17:35














                        • 5





                          An American would not say if he be right too.

                          – kiamlaluno
                          Aug 29 '10 at 23:45






                        • 2





                          @Shinto Sherlock: the past tense of the subjunctive moode is used to express an imaginary or hypothetical condition, as far as I know. I have never heard somebody saying if I be rich, I would live in Hawaii, or if I am rich, I would be live in Hawaii.

                          – kiamlaluno
                          Sep 5 '10 at 21:26











                        • Compare the previous sentence with "I request that Jill pick up the ball," which uses the present subjunctive to express a mandative statement. Subjunctive mood is used in the same way in both American and British English.

                          – kiamlaluno
                          Apr 3 '11 at 1:38






                        • 2





                          For this form of the subjunctive, Ngrams doesn't show a marked American/British difference.

                          – Peter Shor
                          Feb 9 '12 at 17:35








                        5




                        5





                        An American would not say if he be right too.

                        – kiamlaluno
                        Aug 29 '10 at 23:45





                        An American would not say if he be right too.

                        – kiamlaluno
                        Aug 29 '10 at 23:45




                        2




                        2





                        @Shinto Sherlock: the past tense of the subjunctive moode is used to express an imaginary or hypothetical condition, as far as I know. I have never heard somebody saying if I be rich, I would live in Hawaii, or if I am rich, I would be live in Hawaii.

                        – kiamlaluno
                        Sep 5 '10 at 21:26





                        @Shinto Sherlock: the past tense of the subjunctive moode is used to express an imaginary or hypothetical condition, as far as I know. I have never heard somebody saying if I be rich, I would live in Hawaii, or if I am rich, I would be live in Hawaii.

                        – kiamlaluno
                        Sep 5 '10 at 21:26













                        Compare the previous sentence with "I request that Jill pick up the ball," which uses the present subjunctive to express a mandative statement. Subjunctive mood is used in the same way in both American and British English.

                        – kiamlaluno
                        Apr 3 '11 at 1:38





                        Compare the previous sentence with "I request that Jill pick up the ball," which uses the present subjunctive to express a mandative statement. Subjunctive mood is used in the same way in both American and British English.

                        – kiamlaluno
                        Apr 3 '11 at 1:38




                        2




                        2





                        For this form of the subjunctive, Ngrams doesn't show a marked American/British difference.

                        – Peter Shor
                        Feb 9 '12 at 17:35





                        For this form of the subjunctive, Ngrams doesn't show a marked American/British difference.

                        – Peter Shor
                        Feb 9 '12 at 17:35











                        3














                        Real Past



                        If I was: This phrase uses the past indicative mood, and it is used to state a fact that could be true. Have you ever gotten an e-mail from Twitter telling you about a suspicious login? They say, "If this was your login, don't worry about it," because that login to your account the other day could be yours, but Twitter isn't sure.



                        Unreal Past



                        If I were: This phrase uses the past subjunctive mood, and it is used in situations in which the speaker is wishfully thinking. I want to be taller, so I sometimes I say, "If I were taller, my life would be easier," but the fact of the matter is I'm not taller than I already am. I'm wishfully thinking about a situation that isn't true.



                        Present



                        If I be/If I am: These phrases can be used interchangeably when the sentence refers to a future situation that could happen. The archaic If I be uses the present subjunctive while If I am uses the present indicative. Here are a few examples.




                        1. If you be good tomorrow, Mommy will buy you a cookie. (archaic)

                        2. If I am great during my speech for school president, maybe I will be elected.

                        3. Whether my future be promising or not, I know it will work out in the end. (archaic)


                        Google Ngrams shows that using the present subjunctive in this case is rather archaic, but it is still far from being incorrect. Again, the two moods can be used interchangeably in these cases.






                        share|improve this answer


























                        • Please provide authoritative sources that support your claim.

                          – Mari-Lou A
                          Jun 28 '18 at 23:30











                        • No one today or in the last twenty (30?) years says "If you be taller" or "If I be wealthier". No one.

                          – Mari-Lou A
                          Mar 20 at 19:18











                        • @Mari-LouA And?

                          – Black and White
                          Mar 21 at 2:58
















                        3














                        Real Past



                        If I was: This phrase uses the past indicative mood, and it is used to state a fact that could be true. Have you ever gotten an e-mail from Twitter telling you about a suspicious login? They say, "If this was your login, don't worry about it," because that login to your account the other day could be yours, but Twitter isn't sure.



                        Unreal Past



                        If I were: This phrase uses the past subjunctive mood, and it is used in situations in which the speaker is wishfully thinking. I want to be taller, so I sometimes I say, "If I were taller, my life would be easier," but the fact of the matter is I'm not taller than I already am. I'm wishfully thinking about a situation that isn't true.



                        Present



                        If I be/If I am: These phrases can be used interchangeably when the sentence refers to a future situation that could happen. The archaic If I be uses the present subjunctive while If I am uses the present indicative. Here are a few examples.




                        1. If you be good tomorrow, Mommy will buy you a cookie. (archaic)

                        2. If I am great during my speech for school president, maybe I will be elected.

                        3. Whether my future be promising or not, I know it will work out in the end. (archaic)


                        Google Ngrams shows that using the present subjunctive in this case is rather archaic, but it is still far from being incorrect. Again, the two moods can be used interchangeably in these cases.






                        share|improve this answer


























                        • Please provide authoritative sources that support your claim.

                          – Mari-Lou A
                          Jun 28 '18 at 23:30











                        • No one today or in the last twenty (30?) years says "If you be taller" or "If I be wealthier". No one.

                          – Mari-Lou A
                          Mar 20 at 19:18











                        • @Mari-LouA And?

                          – Black and White
                          Mar 21 at 2:58














                        3












                        3








                        3







                        Real Past



                        If I was: This phrase uses the past indicative mood, and it is used to state a fact that could be true. Have you ever gotten an e-mail from Twitter telling you about a suspicious login? They say, "If this was your login, don't worry about it," because that login to your account the other day could be yours, but Twitter isn't sure.



                        Unreal Past



                        If I were: This phrase uses the past subjunctive mood, and it is used in situations in which the speaker is wishfully thinking. I want to be taller, so I sometimes I say, "If I were taller, my life would be easier," but the fact of the matter is I'm not taller than I already am. I'm wishfully thinking about a situation that isn't true.



                        Present



                        If I be/If I am: These phrases can be used interchangeably when the sentence refers to a future situation that could happen. The archaic If I be uses the present subjunctive while If I am uses the present indicative. Here are a few examples.




                        1. If you be good tomorrow, Mommy will buy you a cookie. (archaic)

                        2. If I am great during my speech for school president, maybe I will be elected.

                        3. Whether my future be promising or not, I know it will work out in the end. (archaic)


                        Google Ngrams shows that using the present subjunctive in this case is rather archaic, but it is still far from being incorrect. Again, the two moods can be used interchangeably in these cases.






                        share|improve this answer















                        Real Past



                        If I was: This phrase uses the past indicative mood, and it is used to state a fact that could be true. Have you ever gotten an e-mail from Twitter telling you about a suspicious login? They say, "If this was your login, don't worry about it," because that login to your account the other day could be yours, but Twitter isn't sure.



                        Unreal Past



                        If I were: This phrase uses the past subjunctive mood, and it is used in situations in which the speaker is wishfully thinking. I want to be taller, so I sometimes I say, "If I were taller, my life would be easier," but the fact of the matter is I'm not taller than I already am. I'm wishfully thinking about a situation that isn't true.



                        Present



                        If I be/If I am: These phrases can be used interchangeably when the sentence refers to a future situation that could happen. The archaic If I be uses the present subjunctive while If I am uses the present indicative. Here are a few examples.




                        1. If you be good tomorrow, Mommy will buy you a cookie. (archaic)

                        2. If I am great during my speech for school president, maybe I will be elected.

                        3. Whether my future be promising or not, I know it will work out in the end. (archaic)


                        Google Ngrams shows that using the present subjunctive in this case is rather archaic, but it is still far from being incorrect. Again, the two moods can be used interchangeably in these cases.







                        share|improve this answer














                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer








                        edited Feb 4 '18 at 17:05









                        tchrist

                        109k30295472




                        109k30295472










                        answered Jul 29 '17 at 2:34









                        Black and WhiteBlack and White

                        346413




                        346413













                        • Please provide authoritative sources that support your claim.

                          – Mari-Lou A
                          Jun 28 '18 at 23:30











                        • No one today or in the last twenty (30?) years says "If you be taller" or "If I be wealthier". No one.

                          – Mari-Lou A
                          Mar 20 at 19:18











                        • @Mari-LouA And?

                          – Black and White
                          Mar 21 at 2:58



















                        • Please provide authoritative sources that support your claim.

                          – Mari-Lou A
                          Jun 28 '18 at 23:30











                        • No one today or in the last twenty (30?) years says "If you be taller" or "If I be wealthier". No one.

                          – Mari-Lou A
                          Mar 20 at 19:18











                        • @Mari-LouA And?

                          – Black and White
                          Mar 21 at 2:58

















                        Please provide authoritative sources that support your claim.

                        – Mari-Lou A
                        Jun 28 '18 at 23:30





                        Please provide authoritative sources that support your claim.

                        – Mari-Lou A
                        Jun 28 '18 at 23:30













                        No one today or in the last twenty (30?) years says "If you be taller" or "If I be wealthier". No one.

                        – Mari-Lou A
                        Mar 20 at 19:18





                        No one today or in the last twenty (30?) years says "If you be taller" or "If I be wealthier". No one.

                        – Mari-Lou A
                        Mar 20 at 19:18













                        @Mari-LouA And?

                        – Black and White
                        Mar 21 at 2:58





                        @Mari-LouA And?

                        – Black and White
                        Mar 21 at 2:58











                        3














                        First things first.



                        When you're talking about a real situation, you should stick to either:




                        (1) If I was...




                        [for the past time]



                        Or:




                        (1') If I am...




                        [for the present or future time]



                        When you're talking about a hypothetical situation, you'll most likely be okay with:




                        (2) If I were...




                        [for the present or future time]



                        The beauty of (2) is that it can be used even for the past time of a hypothetical situation. Yes, the original form for this would be:




                        (3) If I had been...




                        But I've seen native speakers prefer to use (2) instead of (3) for the past time of a hypothetical situation, time and time again, especially in spoken English.



                        So much for the basics...



                        There's a little but important twist in all this.



                        Although being correct, using (2) for a hypothetical situation in an informal context might make it sound a tad stronger than you want it to. I suppose this might be because were sounds stronger than was.



                        Whatever the real reason may be, therefore, you might want to use (1) instead of (2) for a hypothetical situation in an informal context, unless of course you want to make it sound stronger for some contextual reason.



                        Sometimes, using (1) for a hypothetical situation might also make the speaker sound "cooler" as might be the case in this clip of the movie 'KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE', where Charlie says:




                        If I was you, I'd unlock your cab.







                        share|improve this answer






























                          3














                          First things first.



                          When you're talking about a real situation, you should stick to either:




                          (1) If I was...




                          [for the past time]



                          Or:




                          (1') If I am...




                          [for the present or future time]



                          When you're talking about a hypothetical situation, you'll most likely be okay with:




                          (2) If I were...




                          [for the present or future time]



                          The beauty of (2) is that it can be used even for the past time of a hypothetical situation. Yes, the original form for this would be:




                          (3) If I had been...




                          But I've seen native speakers prefer to use (2) instead of (3) for the past time of a hypothetical situation, time and time again, especially in spoken English.



                          So much for the basics...



                          There's a little but important twist in all this.



                          Although being correct, using (2) for a hypothetical situation in an informal context might make it sound a tad stronger than you want it to. I suppose this might be because were sounds stronger than was.



                          Whatever the real reason may be, therefore, you might want to use (1) instead of (2) for a hypothetical situation in an informal context, unless of course you want to make it sound stronger for some contextual reason.



                          Sometimes, using (1) for a hypothetical situation might also make the speaker sound "cooler" as might be the case in this clip of the movie 'KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE', where Charlie says:




                          If I was you, I'd unlock your cab.







                          share|improve this answer




























                            3












                            3








                            3







                            First things first.



                            When you're talking about a real situation, you should stick to either:




                            (1) If I was...




                            [for the past time]



                            Or:




                            (1') If I am...




                            [for the present or future time]



                            When you're talking about a hypothetical situation, you'll most likely be okay with:




                            (2) If I were...




                            [for the present or future time]



                            The beauty of (2) is that it can be used even for the past time of a hypothetical situation. Yes, the original form for this would be:




                            (3) If I had been...




                            But I've seen native speakers prefer to use (2) instead of (3) for the past time of a hypothetical situation, time and time again, especially in spoken English.



                            So much for the basics...



                            There's a little but important twist in all this.



                            Although being correct, using (2) for a hypothetical situation in an informal context might make it sound a tad stronger than you want it to. I suppose this might be because were sounds stronger than was.



                            Whatever the real reason may be, therefore, you might want to use (1) instead of (2) for a hypothetical situation in an informal context, unless of course you want to make it sound stronger for some contextual reason.



                            Sometimes, using (1) for a hypothetical situation might also make the speaker sound "cooler" as might be the case in this clip of the movie 'KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE', where Charlie says:




                            If I was you, I'd unlock your cab.







                            share|improve this answer















                            First things first.



                            When you're talking about a real situation, you should stick to either:




                            (1) If I was...




                            [for the past time]



                            Or:




                            (1') If I am...




                            [for the present or future time]



                            When you're talking about a hypothetical situation, you'll most likely be okay with:




                            (2) If I were...




                            [for the present or future time]



                            The beauty of (2) is that it can be used even for the past time of a hypothetical situation. Yes, the original form for this would be:




                            (3) If I had been...




                            But I've seen native speakers prefer to use (2) instead of (3) for the past time of a hypothetical situation, time and time again, especially in spoken English.



                            So much for the basics...



                            There's a little but important twist in all this.



                            Although being correct, using (2) for a hypothetical situation in an informal context might make it sound a tad stronger than you want it to. I suppose this might be because were sounds stronger than was.



                            Whatever the real reason may be, therefore, you might want to use (1) instead of (2) for a hypothetical situation in an informal context, unless of course you want to make it sound stronger for some contextual reason.



                            Sometimes, using (1) for a hypothetical situation might also make the speaker sound "cooler" as might be the case in this clip of the movie 'KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE', where Charlie says:




                            If I was you, I'd unlock your cab.








                            share|improve this answer














                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer








                            edited Feb 5 '18 at 3:52

























                            answered Feb 5 '18 at 3:43









                            JK2JK2

                            39311752




                            39311752

















                                protected by Mari-Lou A Aug 13 '18 at 23:23



                                Thank you for your interest in this question.
                                Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



                                Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                                He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                                Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029