ira

Hi all,

In a recent article in The Guardian (http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/art...256469,00.html), decrying gmmatical mistakes, the following appears:

"People are increasingly writing on the internet as if it was a spoken rather than a written medium, with all the mistakes which arise through doing that," ...

Shouldn't that be "as if it **were** a..."?

m_kingdom2

No, was is the correct word, anyway who cares? This is a travel not English literature forum I"m afraid.

NYCFoodSnob

<i>&quot; Although many irregular verbs in English once had different singular and plural forms in the past tense, only one still does todaybe, which uses the form was with singular subjects and the form were with plural subjects, as well as with singular you. The relative simplicity in the forms of most verbs reflects the long-standing tendency of English speakers to make irregular verbs more regular by reducing the number of forms used with different persons, numbers, and tenses. Since past be is so irregular, speakers of different vernacular dialects have regularized it in several ways. In the United States, most vernacular speakers regularize past be by using was with all subjects, whether singular or plural. This pattern is most common in Southern-based dialects, particularly African American Vernacular English (AAVE). Some speakers use were with both singular and plural subjects; thus, one may hear she were alongside we were. However, this usage has been much less widespread than the use of was with plural subjects and appears to be fading. ? In some scattered regions in the South, particularly in coastal areas of North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland, vernacular speakers may regularize past be as was in positive contexts and regularize it as weren't in negative contexts, as in He was a good man, weren't he? or They sure was nice people, weren't they? At first glance, the was/weren't pattern appears to come from England, where it is fairly commonplace. However, in-depth study of the was/weren't pattern in coastal North Carolina indicates that it may have developed independently, for it is found to a greater extent in the speech of younger speakers than in that of older coastal residents. ?Other forms of negative past be include warn't, common in American folk speech in the 18th and 19th centuries, and wont, as in It wont me or They wont home. Wont, which often sounds just like the contraction won't, historically has been concentrated in New England and is also found in scattered areas of the South.</i>

Source: The American Heritage&reg; Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright &copy; 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

ilovelabs2003

Actually, the correct word is &quot;were.&quot; &quot;If&quot; begins a conditional clause, and with the conditional, one needs to use the subjunctive voice, and &quot;were&quot; is the subjunctive. &quot;Was&quot; is a past tense verb, which is the correct tense for the verb, but &quot;was&quot; is in the active voice, not the subjunctive voice.

Ira, you are correct.

111op

I think that the indicative and the subjunctive moods are increasingly conflated, so much so that pretty much both are accepted; cf.

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html

The rules for the subjunctive mood and conditional clauses are much stricter in French, for example.

ilovelabs2003

OOOPS! I am sorry, I meant the subjunctive mood, not the subjunctive voice. I got my voices and moods mixed up! &quot;If&quot; clauses take the subjunctive MOOD, and &quot;was&quot; is a verb in the indicative MOOD. Technically, the verb should be &quot;were,&quot; but many Americans (and this is coming from an American!) are so lax when it comes to grammar in the written word that &quot;was&quot; is probably acceptable by most editors. I personally disagree, but that is the trend!

Kate

But as The Guardian is a British newspaper, that endless monologue on Amercianised English is irrelevant .

Standard (British) English: it was, they were.

111op

Also, it's possible that British English and American English may differ between what's conventional and traditional and what's not. I'm not an expert in this matter, but I've definitely read in American grammar books (see the reference I just cited) that there's now conflation between the subjunctive and indicative moods.

This isn't quite the same thing, but consider the use of the serial/Oxford comma. I don't use it these days (neither does the New York Times), yet there'll be a school that tells you that omission of this comma is incorrect.

ilovelabs2003

Kate, it is not an issue of just singular versus plural. It is about mood. &quot;Were&quot; can be either singular or plural in the subjunctive mood.

111op

Yes, Kate, it's a question of mood -- but British English may be more lax in this matter. That I wouldn't know (now, now, no need to jump on this sentence fragment). I'd have to check Fowler's (?), which I don't have.

NYCFoodSnob

<i>&quot;A verb is in the subjunctive mood when it expresses a condition which is doubtful or not factual. It is most often found in a clause beginning with the word if. It is also found in clauses following a verb that expresses a doubt, a wish, regret, request, demand, or proposal.&quot;</i>

&copy;1997-2001 English Plus

TopMan

Well since it seems to be a question of &quot;mood&quot; then perhaps we should take into account the apparent &quot;mood&quot; of the original poster...

could it have been a

&quot;bad&quot; mood

or a
&quot;constipated&quot; mood

or a

&quot;pissy&quot; mood

or whatever

and like, who gives a big one anyway?

ira

Thank you all for responding.

I thought it was amusing that such an error would appear in an article discussing proper grammatical useage.

111op

Well, ira, maybe it's not a mistake. One would have to research British English usage to be sure. In any case, this seems acceptable in American English (i.e., if this were published in an American paper, we would probably have accepted it).

Xenos

Reading this brought to my mind the quotation from Macbeth - If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly. We had that repeated to us many times when I was at school, in order to make the point.

111op

Ah well, but English usage has changed since Shakespearean times. Just look at the spelling.

StCirq

Although the subjunctive mood is rapidly disappearing in the English language, unlike in most of the romance languages, this is one case where &quot;were&quot; is absolutely, without any question, correct.

And for pickiness' sake, I'll point out a difference in British and American usage: &quot;all the mistakes which arise.....&quot; in the USA would, and should, be &quot;all the mistakes that arise...&quot;

Blacktie

Oh, speak english, will you. And stop inserting these technical grammar rules. This is simply a dumb little travel site. Let Fodors be Fodors1

111op

Well, StCirq, &quot;were&quot; is correct, but does this mean that &quot;was&quot; is not correct? They could both be correct, as I've argued.

Also, I don't understand your example with &quot;which/that&quot; at all. How does British differ from American English on this point?

I provide one relevant reference for this rule here:

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/062.html

It's not at all clear to me what your example is meant to illustrate.

jmw44

(I can't believe I'm getting involved in this); however, isn't it 'was' if the conclusion is actually possible but 'were' if it is not? Since I love to think of these forums as 'talks', I vote for 'was' in the original posting. Well that settles it. J.