0
Magda Posted 20 years ago
Grammar
Were to/should
Hi,
I've got a question concerning the use of 'were to' and 'should' in conditional sentences. Could you tell me when do you use it and whether they are interchangeable?
Thank you.
I've got a question concerning the use of 'were to' and 'should' in conditional sentences. Could you tell me when do you use it and whether they are interchangeable?
Thank you.
Top answer
Hi Magda Were to and should are indeed interchangeable; were to may sound a little more stilted. They are used in if-clauses: If he were to call / should call, tell him I'll be back soon. This is very close in meaning to If he called, tell him I'll be back soon.
- Hi Magda Were to and should are indeed interchangeable; were to may sound a little more stilted.
- They are used in if-clauses: If he were to call / should call, tell him I'll be back soon.
- This is very close in meaning to If he called, tell him I'll be back soon.
- However, if you say were to or should, you think it very unlikely that he will call.
- Heja Sverige CB
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
20 Answers
0
Hi Magda
Were to and should are indeed interchangeable; were to may sound a little more stilted. They are used in if-clauses:
If he were to call / should call, tell him I'll be back soon.
This is very close in meaning to If he called, tell him I'll be back soon. However, if you say were to or should, you think it very un
Were to and should are indeed interchangeable; were to may sound a little more stilted. They are used in if-clauses:
If he were to call / should call, tell him I'll be back soon.
This is very close in meaning to If he called, tell him I'll be back soon. However, if you say were to or should, you think it very un
00
0
I think that for some writers/grammarians, were is more connected to the contrary-to-the-fact, the impossible, than should is. Should is more related to the improbable.
00
Hi,
Do you think in your examples above, should = were to = happended to ?
(If he were to call / should call, tell him I'll be back soon. (1)
=If he happened to call, tell him I'll be back soon. (2) ?)
If not, what is the difference betwwen them?
Q
Do you think in your examples above, should = were to = happended to ?
(If he were to call / should call, tell him I'll be back soon. (1)
=If he happened to call, tell him I'll be back soon. (2) ?)
If not, what is the difference betwwen them?
Q
00
Tung QuocHi,Yes, happened to call is just
Do you think in your examples above, should = were to = happended to ?
(If he were to call / should call, tell him I'll be back soon. (1)
=If he happened to call, tell him I'll be back soon. (2) ?)
If not, what is the difference betwwen them?
Q
00
Cool Breeze wrote: This is very close in meaning to If he called, tell him I'll be back soon. However, if you say were to or should, you think it very unlikely that he will call.
From what I've read from books on English usage, If he called, tell him I'll be back soon indicates that the speaker thinks it is very unlikely that the other person will call.
From what I've read from books on English usage, If he called, tell him I'll be back soon indicates that the speaker thinks it is very unlikely that the other person will call.
00
I see this a little differently.
If he [calls / should call / happens to call], tell him I'll be back soon.
If he [ called / were to call / happened to call], [I / you / ...] would ...
The imperative (tell him) goes with the non-past if clause.
To me, should belongs with the first conditional structure; were to, with the seco
If he [calls / should call / happens to call], tell him I'll be back soon.
If he [ called / were to call / happened to call], [I / you / ...] would ...
The imperative (tell him) goes with the non-past if clause.
To me, should belongs with the first conditional structure; were to, with the seco
00
Thank you all for your answers. I found in "A proficiency course in English" a rule that "were to can be used only with a verb suggesting action, not state." I have many grammar books, however only this book gives this rule. What does your native speaker experience tell? Do you use "were to" as described above?
Thank you.
Thank you.
00
Do you use "were to" as described above?
More or less, yes.
If I were to be sad seems an awkward way to say If I were sad, for example.
And If I were to have a shiny new car does not strike me as the best way to say If I had a shiny new car.
The rule you mention seems logical to me.
CJ
00
Related Questions