"if I were" is not subjunctive

Question

Linguist Geoff Pullum has said: "Popular discussions nearly always confuse the subjunctive construction with the one using the special 1st-singular and 3rd-singular form were in counterfactual conditionals:

[3] If he were a dog, he'd be a pitbull.

CGEL calls this use of were the irrealis form of the copula. It is often thought to be a past tense subjunctive form, but wrongly: if he were a dog is not the past tense of if he be a dog."

From that I get the idea that my teachers were wrong in telling me that "if I were" is the subjunctive.

Cool Breeze · Accepted Answer

There are all kinds of differences in terminology. Linguists and grammarians don't always use the same terms to describe verb forms or other features of grammar. No one forces anyone to accept other people's terms if they prefer their own. We all can choose what we prefer the correct terms, of course.

I remember reading a grammar book whose writer thought that relative clauses don't exist. Does that mean that those who think there are relative clauses are wrong? Even I and other members of EF use somewhat varying grammatical terms in our replies. That derives from our backgrounds. We were taught grammar differently in our youth.

CB

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousPopular discussions nearly always confuse the subjunctive construction with the one using the special 1st-singular and 3rd-singular form were in counterfactual conditionals

My guess is that it depends how "subjunctive" is defined. And how "past tense" is defined. These phenomena can be defined in terms of word forms (syntax) or in terms of meaning (semantics).

The traditional definitions say that "if he were" is the past tense of "if he be" just because of the words. Those who like the term "irrealis" are defining the subjunctive on the basis of its semantics. Since the semantics of "if he were" is different from the semantics of "if he were", they don't like to use the same term for both situations.

CJ

BillJ · Answer

It's not a case of your teachers being wrong, but just not up-to-date with developments in modern grammar. Traditionally, the "were" found in examples like "If he were a dog he'd be a pit bull" is called a past subjunctive form, though it has nothing at all to do with past time. The striking weakness of the traditional analysis is that it treats the verbs of I be and I were as present and past tenses of a single mood, the subjunctive, which is quite unjustified in terms of the contemporary language. Generally they appear in different constructions and are not in direct contrast. And that's the bit that your teachers (and mine) never quite caught up with.

The point is simply this: in examples like yours, "were", though inflected, is a non-tensed form, but it does have mood, hence the term 'irrealis' - a general term applying to verb moods associated with unreality. That means the term 'subjunctive' can now be reserved for constructions using the infinitive form of the verb, so the whole thing now becomes much tidier and understandable:

"I was very busy". (preterite or simple past tense)
"If I were less busy I would go with you". (irrealis mood)
"It is essential that I be kept informed". (subjunctive construction)

One final point: irrealis "were" is an unstable relic of an old system. There is nothing wrong with using preterite "was" instead: "If I was less busy I would go with you" is perfectly grammatical and acceptable.

BillJ

"if I were" is not subjunctive

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions