Subjunctive mood and conditionals confusion Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Past/Present tense in a conditional statementTrouble with second conditionals (with “could”)Conditional Type II and Type IIISubjunctive and conditionalsWhat's the truth about the subjunctive and conditional statements, anyway?the use of “were to” to mean “suppose” or “imagine”If that won't happen, we'll have no choice-ing in conditionalsEnglish Conditionals and “would”Difference between conditional and subjunctive
Storing hydrofluoric acid before the invention of plastics
Letter Boxed validator
Is the address of a local variable a constexpr?
When -s is used with third person singular. What's its use in this context?
List *all* the tuples!
Does accepting a pardon have any bearing on trying that person for the same crime in a sovereign jurisdiction?
Why did the IBM 650 use bi-quinary?
What are the motives behind Cersei's orders given to Bronn?
If Jon Snow became King of the Seven Kingdoms what would his regnal number be?
What are the pros and cons of Aerospike nosecones?
"Seemed to had" is it correct?
What LEGO pieces have "real-world" functionality?
How to find all the available tools in macOS terminal?
How to recreate this effect in Photoshop?
Examples of mediopassive verb constructions
How discoverable are IPv6 addresses and AAAA names by potential attackers?
Why does Python start at index 1 when iterating an array backwards?
What happens to sewage if there is no river near by?
Withdrew £2800, but only £2000 shows as withdrawn on online banking; what are my obligations?
Why is "Consequences inflicted." not a sentence?
The logistics of corpse disposal
Antler Helmet: Can it work?
How do I determine if the rules for a long jump or high jump are applicable for Monks?
Is there a service that would inform me whenever a new direct route is scheduled from a given airport?
Subjunctive mood and conditionals confusion
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Past/Present tense in a conditional statementTrouble with second conditionals (with “could”)Conditional Type II and Type IIISubjunctive and conditionalsWhat's the truth about the subjunctive and conditional statements, anyway?the use of “were to” to mean “suppose” or “imagine”If that won't happen, we'll have no choice-ing in conditionalsEnglish Conditionals and “would”Difference between conditional and subjunctive
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
I know the type 2 conditional where you have to change thhe verb from the if clause to the simple past. However this sentence confuses me.
If it wasn’t for them, we wouldn’t be enjoying the priveleges that we have right now.
From this we know that the main clause is right, since it is on the present continious conditional. Im not sure with the main clause though. They existed, so we cannot use “were”. Please help me.
conditionals subjunctive-mood
asked Oct 17 '18 at 2:30
NathanNathan
9515
add a comment |
I know the type 2 conditional where you have to change thhe verb from the if clause to the simple past. However this sentence confuses me.
If it wasn’t for them, we wouldn’t be enjoying the priveleges that we have right now.
From this we know that the main clause is right, since it is on the present continious conditional. Im not sure with the main clause though. They existed, so we cannot use “were”. Please help me.
conditionals subjunctive-mood
asked Oct 17 '18 at 2:30
NathanNathan
9515
4
If it weren’t for them sounds perfectly good to me.
– iBug
Oct 17 '18 at 4:30
add a comment |
I know the type 2 conditional where you have to change thhe verb from the if clause to the simple past. However this sentence confuses me.
If it wasn’t for them, we wouldn’t be enjoying the priveleges that we have right now.
From this we know that the main clause is right, since it is on the present continious conditional. Im not sure with the main clause though. They existed, so we cannot use “were”. Please help me.
conditionals subjunctive-mood
asked Oct 17 '18 at 2:30
NathanNathan
9515
I know the type 2 conditional where you have to change thhe verb from the if clause to the simple past. However this sentence confuses me.
If it wasn’t for them, we wouldn’t be enjoying the priveleges that we have right now.
From this we know that the main clause is right, since it is on the present continious conditional. Im not sure with the main clause though. They existed, so we cannot use “were”. Please help me.
conditionals subjunctive-mood
conditionals subjunctive-mood
asked Oct 17 '18 at 2:30
NathanNathan
9515
asked Oct 17 '18 at 2:30
NathanNathan
9515
asked Oct 17 '18 at 2:30
NathanNathan
9515
asked Oct 17 '18 at 2:30
NathanNathan
9515
asked Oct 17 '18 at 2:30
NathanNathan
9515
9515
4
If it weren’t for them sounds perfectly good to me.
– iBug
Oct 17 '18 at 4:30
add a comment |
4
If it weren’t for them sounds perfectly good to me.
– iBug
Oct 17 '18 at 4:30
4
4
If it weren’t for them sounds perfectly good to me.
– iBug
Oct 17 '18 at 4:30
If it weren’t for them sounds perfectly good to me.
– iBug
Oct 17 '18 at 4:30
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
It is worth remembering that language in use is a live and varied thing, and the use of 'was' and 'were' varies regionally etc.
For example, where I come from 'was' often forms the singular (I/you/he/she/it was) and 'were' the plural (we/you/they were). This also influences the use of the conditional.
The sense of your sentence comes from recognising that it is a conditional by its use of 'if' and 'would', and the progression of the tenses from past to present, rather than any differences in the use of 'was' and 'were'.
answered Oct 17 '18 at 7:17
Trevor Christopher ButcherTrevor Christopher Butcher
1,562412
add a comment |
The formal grammatically correct answer would be the following-
If it weren’t for them, we wouldn’t be enjoying the privileges that we have right now
This is because this is one of the few uses of the past subjunctive as per Wikipedia
The only distinct past subjunctive form in English (i.e., form that differs from the corresponding past indicative) is were, which differs when used with a first or third person singular subject (where the indicative form is was).
The main use of the past subjunctive form, were, which is also known
as the irrealis is in counterfactual if clauses
Irrealis is another way of saying counterfactual- that is what is being emphasized is that this WAS and IS NOT in that state.
This being said, this rule only refers only to FORMAL speech because the subjunctive in daily use is dying. Most native speakers would recognize it as being necessary because the so-called "counter-factuality" is already indicated by using if.
Many grammarians wail and gnash teeth for this loss, and try to
explain how important the subjunctive is.** Some explain that the
subjunctive stresses the counterfactual nature of the situation, as
though if you saw “if Alicia was president” in (1), you’d be thinking
“I don’t know Alicia was president!”. Of course no one thinks this,
because the counterfactuality is already established by the use of if.
answered 6 hours ago
KarlomanioKarlomanio
863311
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f468743%2fsubjunctive-mood-and-conditionals-confusion%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It is worth remembering that language in use is a live and varied thing, and the use of 'was' and 'were' varies regionally etc.
For example, where I come from 'was' often forms the singular (I/you/he/she/it was) and 'were' the plural (we/you/they were). This also influences the use of the conditional.
The sense of your sentence comes from recognising that it is a conditional by its use of 'if' and 'would', and the progression of the tenses from past to present, rather than any differences in the use of 'was' and 'were'.
answered Oct 17 '18 at 7:17
Trevor Christopher ButcherTrevor Christopher Butcher
1,562412
add a comment |
It is worth remembering that language in use is a live and varied thing, and the use of 'was' and 'were' varies regionally etc.
For example, where I come from 'was' often forms the singular (I/you/he/she/it was) and 'were' the plural (we/you/they were). This also influences the use of the conditional.
The sense of your sentence comes from recognising that it is a conditional by its use of 'if' and 'would', and the progression of the tenses from past to present, rather than any differences in the use of 'was' and 'were'.
answered Oct 17 '18 at 7:17
Trevor Christopher ButcherTrevor Christopher Butcher
1,562412
add a comment |
It is worth remembering that language in use is a live and varied thing, and the use of 'was' and 'were' varies regionally etc.
For example, where I come from 'was' often forms the singular (I/you/he/she/it was) and 'were' the plural (we/you/they were). This also influences the use of the conditional.
The sense of your sentence comes from recognising that it is a conditional by its use of 'if' and 'would', and the progression of the tenses from past to present, rather than any differences in the use of 'was' and 'were'.
answered Oct 17 '18 at 7:17
Trevor Christopher ButcherTrevor Christopher Butcher
1,562412
It is worth remembering that language in use is a live and varied thing, and the use of 'was' and 'were' varies regionally etc.
For example, where I come from 'was' often forms the singular (I/you/he/she/it was) and 'were' the plural (we/you/they were). This also influences the use of the conditional.
The sense of your sentence comes from recognising that it is a conditional by its use of 'if' and 'would', and the progression of the tenses from past to present, rather than any differences in the use of 'was' and 'were'.
answered Oct 17 '18 at 7:17
Trevor Christopher ButcherTrevor Christopher Butcher
1,562412
answered Oct 17 '18 at 7:17
Trevor Christopher ButcherTrevor Christopher Butcher
1,562412
answered Oct 17 '18 at 7:17
Trevor Christopher ButcherTrevor Christopher Butcher
1,562412
answered Oct 17 '18 at 7:17
Trevor Christopher ButcherTrevor Christopher Butcher
1,562412
1,562412
add a comment |
add a comment |
The formal grammatically correct answer would be the following-
If it weren’t for them, we wouldn’t be enjoying the privileges that we have right now
This is because this is one of the few uses of the past subjunctive as per Wikipedia
The only distinct past subjunctive form in English (i.e., form that differs from the corresponding past indicative) is were, which differs when used with a first or third person singular subject (where the indicative form is was).
The main use of the past subjunctive form, were, which is also known
as the irrealis is in counterfactual if clauses
Irrealis is another way of saying counterfactual- that is what is being emphasized is that this WAS and IS NOT in that state.
This being said, this rule only refers only to FORMAL speech because the subjunctive in daily use is dying. Most native speakers would recognize it as being necessary because the so-called "counter-factuality" is already indicated by using if.
Many grammarians wail and gnash teeth for this loss, and try to
explain how important the subjunctive is.** Some explain that the
subjunctive stresses the counterfactual nature of the situation, as
though if you saw “if Alicia was president” in (1), you’d be thinking
“I don’t know Alicia was president!”. Of course no one thinks this,
because the counterfactuality is already established by the use of if.
answered 6 hours ago
KarlomanioKarlomanio
863311
add a comment |
The formal grammatically correct answer would be the following-
If it weren’t for them, we wouldn’t be enjoying the privileges that we have right now
This is because this is one of the few uses of the past subjunctive as per Wikipedia
The only distinct past subjunctive form in English (i.e., form that differs from the corresponding past indicative) is were, which differs when used with a first or third person singular subject (where the indicative form is was).
The main use of the past subjunctive form, were, which is also known
as the irrealis is in counterfactual if clauses
Irrealis is another way of saying counterfactual- that is what is being emphasized is that this WAS and IS NOT in that state.
This being said, this rule only refers only to FORMAL speech because the subjunctive in daily use is dying. Most native speakers would recognize it as being necessary because the so-called "counter-factuality" is already indicated by using if.
Many grammarians wail and gnash teeth for this loss, and try to
explain how important the subjunctive is.** Some explain that the
subjunctive stresses the counterfactual nature of the situation, as
though if you saw “if Alicia was president” in (1), you’d be thinking
“I don’t know Alicia was president!”. Of course no one thinks this,
because the counterfactuality is already established by the use of if.
answered 6 hours ago
KarlomanioKarlomanio
863311
add a comment |
The formal grammatically correct answer would be the following-
If it weren’t for them, we wouldn’t be enjoying the privileges that we have right now
This is because this is one of the few uses of the past subjunctive as per Wikipedia
The only distinct past subjunctive form in English (i.e., form that differs from the corresponding past indicative) is were, which differs when used with a first or third person singular subject (where the indicative form is was).
The main use of the past subjunctive form, were, which is also known
as the irrealis is in counterfactual if clauses
Irrealis is another way of saying counterfactual- that is what is being emphasized is that this WAS and IS NOT in that state.
This being said, this rule only refers only to FORMAL speech because the subjunctive in daily use is dying. Most native speakers would recognize it as being necessary because the so-called "counter-factuality" is already indicated by using if.
Many grammarians wail and gnash teeth for this loss, and try to
explain how important the subjunctive is.** Some explain that the
subjunctive stresses the counterfactual nature of the situation, as
though if you saw “if Alicia was president” in (1), you’d be thinking
“I don’t know Alicia was president!”. Of course no one thinks this,
because the counterfactuality is already established by the use of if.
answered 6 hours ago
KarlomanioKarlomanio
863311
The formal grammatically correct answer would be the following-
If it weren’t for them, we wouldn’t be enjoying the privileges that we have right now
This is because this is one of the few uses of the past subjunctive as per Wikipedia
The only distinct past subjunctive form in English (i.e., form that differs from the corresponding past indicative) is were, which differs when used with a first or third person singular subject (where the indicative form is was).
The main use of the past subjunctive form, were, which is also known
as the irrealis is in counterfactual if clauses
Irrealis is another way of saying counterfactual- that is what is being emphasized is that this WAS and IS NOT in that state.
This being said, this rule only refers only to FORMAL speech because the subjunctive in daily use is dying. Most native speakers would recognize it as being necessary because the so-called "counter-factuality" is already indicated by using if.
Many grammarians wail and gnash teeth for this loss, and try to
explain how important the subjunctive is.** Some explain that the
subjunctive stresses the counterfactual nature of the situation, as
though if you saw “if Alicia was president” in (1), you’d be thinking
“I don’t know Alicia was president!”. Of course no one thinks this,
because the counterfactuality is already established by the use of if.
answered 6 hours ago
KarlomanioKarlomanio
863311
answered 6 hours ago
KarlomanioKarlomanio
863311
answered 6 hours ago
KarlomanioKarlomanio
863311
answered 6 hours ago
KarlomanioKarlomanio
863311
863311
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f468743%2fsubjunctive-mood-and-conditionals-confusion%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
If it weren’t for them sounds perfectly good to me.
– iBug
Oct 17 '18 at 4:30