philo2009
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Member Type
- Academic
- Native Language
- British English
- Home Country
- UK
- Current Location
- Japan
MrPedantic wrote:
I would take a different view. Since I know that I myself sometimes use the was-subjunctive, and sometimes the were-subjunctive, depending on the context and the intended meaning, I wouldn't have any grounds for assuming that other speakers had done the same only in error.
We would just have to ask them. Sadly, however, as they are unavailable for comment, let us pass on...
Strictly speaking, your second example is not a 2nd conditional;
Of course, it is a "hybrid" form combining structural features of both a second and a third conditional. However, as we tend to classify conditionals primarily according to their protasis rather than their apodosis, it would be reasonable to classify this as a 'variant second conditional', but, in any case, irrespective of the relative temporality of the consequences inferred, the condition specified being counterfactual, the basic point that it illustrates remains, in all essential respects, the same (see also below).
and probably both the 1st and 2nd conditionals are more flexible than you suggest. Thus
1a. If he's here, I'll eat my hat.
does not imply belief that he's here;
And I have nowhere suggested that it does! What it entails, as previously stated, is simply the speaker's belief that he may be here.
2a. If he were the man we're looking for, he would have a tattoo on his right buttock.
does not categorically imply the belief that he's not our man:
I'm very much afraid that it does!
Anyone who utters the sentence above is implicitly asserting the following beliefs:
1. He does NOT have a tattoo on his right buttock.
2. He is, therefore, NOT our man.
That is simply what the sentence means - whether the speaker likes it or not.
If, on the other hand - the matter not having been, as yet, properly investigated - the speaker were unsure as to whether there in fact was a tattoo on the man's right buttock, then (s)he would instead use a first conditional, and say
If he is the man we're looking for, he will have a tattoo on his right buttock.
since the existence of the tattoo, at the time of utterance, is considered a possibility.
to establish that, we would first need to debag him.
Indeed we would, but this incidental fact about the world would have no bearing on the appropriateness of the speaker's original sentence, which merely asserted his/her beliefs at the time in question.
But in any case, even if the point were valid, it would not preclude the use of "was" in counterfactual statements:
3. If he was any bigger, we'd have to use a taser.
And, albeit less felicitously expressed, precisely the same point would apply: he is - according to the speaker - NOT any bigger than this and we consequently do NOT need to use a taser!
I would take a different view. Since I know that I myself sometimes use the was-subjunctive, and sometimes the were-subjunctive, depending on the context and the intended meaning, I wouldn't have any grounds for assuming that other speakers had done the same only in error.
We would just have to ask them. Sadly, however, as they are unavailable for comment, let us pass on...
Strictly speaking, your second example is not a 2nd conditional;
Of course, it is a "hybrid" form combining structural features of both a second and a third conditional. However, as we tend to classify conditionals primarily according to their protasis rather than their apodosis, it would be reasonable to classify this as a 'variant second conditional', but, in any case, irrespective of the relative temporality of the consequences inferred, the condition specified being counterfactual, the basic point that it illustrates remains, in all essential respects, the same (see also below).
and probably both the 1st and 2nd conditionals are more flexible than you suggest. Thus
1a. If he's here, I'll eat my hat.
does not imply belief that he's here;
And I have nowhere suggested that it does! What it entails, as previously stated, is simply the speaker's belief that he may be here.
2a. If he were the man we're looking for, he would have a tattoo on his right buttock.
does not categorically imply the belief that he's not our man:
I'm very much afraid that it does!
Anyone who utters the sentence above is implicitly asserting the following beliefs:
1. He does NOT have a tattoo on his right buttock.
2. He is, therefore, NOT our man.
That is simply what the sentence means - whether the speaker likes it or not.
If, on the other hand - the matter not having been, as yet, properly investigated - the speaker were unsure as to whether there in fact was a tattoo on the man's right buttock, then (s)he would instead use a first conditional, and say
If he is the man we're looking for, he will have a tattoo on his right buttock.
since the existence of the tattoo, at the time of utterance, is considered a possibility.
to establish that, we would first need to debag him.
Indeed we would, but this incidental fact about the world would have no bearing on the appropriateness of the speaker's original sentence, which merely asserted his/her beliefs at the time in question.
But in any case, even if the point were valid, it would not preclude the use of "was" in counterfactual statements:
3. If he was any bigger, we'd have to use a taser.
And, albeit less felicitously expressed, precisely the same point would apply: he is - according to the speaker - NOT any bigger than this and we consequently do NOT need to use a taser!