would

AnonymousIt means I am standing on a stage, right?

Yes, and it also means that you are a superstar!

AlpheccaStars AnonymousIt means I am standing on a stage, right?Yes, and it also means that you are a superstar!

If that is the case, to me the indicative, " If I was not a superstar..." should be more appropriate because in the mind of the speaker, he is a superstar, not wishing to me one. Compare with " If I were a

grammarfreakIf that is the case, to me the indicative, " If I was not a superstar..." should be more appropriate because in the mind of the speaker, he is a superstar, not wishing to me one. Compare with " If I were a king..." which is unlikely to become true. Just my interpretation....

Well... if the speaker is in fact a superstar, then not being one is the u

ozzourtiWell... if the speaker is in fact a superstar, then not being one is the unlikely scenario.

Whether or not he is a superstar in the eyes of the audience, he may see himself "one" in his mind, as I had described earlier, and in such scenario, it is not "unreal", compared to " If I were a king / Bill Gate..". Therefore according to traditional grammar, b

grammarfreakTherefore according to traditional grammar, between the subjunctive and indicative moods, " If I was ...." seems to me a better linguistic choice.

I disagree. The subjunctive "were" is the better choice in my opinion following an if clause. By it's very nature the "if"', and the "not" are expressing an unreal situation.

The subjunctive

KJinCali79Using "was" has no such impact.

As a modal preterite (a past tense expressing modal remoteness rather than past time), it most certainly does. Both was and were are equally appropriate for the intended meaning.

Aspara GusBoth was and were are equally appropriate for the intended meaning.

Yes. But we have two words and two meanings distributed asymmetrically (for the third person singular) thus:

were : modal preterite only.
was : indicative OR modal preterite

It seems to me that communication is clearer when we use the less ambigu

CalifJimIt seems to me that communication is clearer when we use the less ambiguous word.

CJ,
As I am trying to digest all the threads, it is clear that the consensus favors "were" rather than "was". Your comment kind of stuck me funny as I don't know exactly what it meant. Can you elaborate? Thanks

CalifJim(for the third person singular)

And the first person singular.

CalifJimwas : indicative OR modal preterite

OK, if you bother with the term ‘indicative’. I prefer ‘ordinary preterite’.

CalifJimwere : modal preterite only.

Were also expresses modal remoteness, but it’s not a p

"modal preterite (a past tense expressing modal remoteness rather than past time)"

"Were also expresses modal remoteness, but it’s not a preterite here."

I'm not even going to ask, because it will just confuse me even more.