I found the following sentence on a Youtube video. I think the reason that they use "were" in the following sentence is to express a second conditional meaning. However, I am not one hundred percent sure about it. Therefore, I would really appreciate it if someone let me know whether my understanding about this sentence is correct or not. What's more, is it grammatically correct if I replaced the "were" with "was" in the following sentence because while I was studying second conditionals, I heard that it is feasible to use "were" or "was" regardless of the singularity of the subject.
If something is or sounds poetic, it expresses emotions and ideas, as if it were coming from a poem.
Reference:-
dileepa I think the reason that they use "were" in the following sentence is to express a second conditional meaning. Right. It expresses a situation that does not really exist.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
dileepaI think the reason that they use "were" in the following sentence is to express a second conditional meaning.
Right. It expresses a situation that does not really exist. It isn't coming from a poem, but it sounds the same as if it were coming from a poem. (If it were coming from a poem, it would sound like that.)
dileep
dileepaIf something is or sounds poetic, it expresses emotions and ideas, as if it were coming from a poem.
I'm a bit troubled by the conditionality in the sentence above. What I see is the zero conditional in the shape of If something is or sounds poetic, it expresses emotions and ideas. Now, the problem I have is how the truncated part of the secon