Was/ were ?

[keda5]

Would you eat a rat if you were dying of hunger?
Yes,I would eat a rat if I were dying of hunger.

Dlaczego jest "were" jeśli w 1oso.lp.poj.Pas.Con. jest "was"?

[jobi]

OK, z jednej strony to jest Past Continous i powinno być "was", ale z drugiej strony to jest Conditional i tam się przyjęło, że po "I" jest "were".

"If I were ... "

Często przez nauczycieli jest przytaczany przykład z musicalu "Skrzypek na dachu":
"If I were a rich man".
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBHZFYpQ6nc
Ja na tej podstawie zapamiętałam, że w takich przypadkach ma być "were".

[smutas]

Podobne drogi :-)))

Dodalbym, ze po polsku jest praktycznie to samo:

Gdybym byl... (druga osoba). A nie: Gdybym bylem ...(pierwsza osoba).

cheers

[claratrueba]

W II Conditional w każdej osobie jest "were".
He would help you if he WERE here.

To samo masz po" wish"
She wishes she WERE slimer.

Norma językowa ustalana przez Komisję Językową Jej Królewskiej Mości dopuszcza "was" ok kilkunastu lat (w niektórych kluczach podawane jest" was/were") ale nadal nie jest to forma dominująca.

[ampolion]

Tryb warunkowy?

[jeanie_mccake]

claratrueba napisała:

> Norma językowa ustalana przez Komisję Językową Jej Królewskiej Mości

Przez kogo???

dopuszcza
> "was" ok kilkunastu lat (w niektórych kluczach podawane jest" was/were") ale na
> dal nie jest to forma dominująca.

In ordinary speech it is, and has been for a very long time. "I wish I were" sounds pretentious.
It's remnant of the old subjunctive whcih vanished centuries ago

[bunkum]

"I wish I were" so
> unds pretentious.

Not in my house.

I wish I was is illiterate.

> It's remnant of the old subjunctive whcih vanished centuries ago

Some remnants, as you call them, of the subjunctive are alive and well among educated people. You apparently do not belong in the group.

Mind you, it is A remnant of something.

[jeanie_mccake]

bunkum napisała:

> Not in my house.

Maybe usage is different where you come from, but in Britain it sounds pretentious and pedantic.

> I wish I was is illiterate.

It can't be illiterate, since that's what most folk write.

> Some remnants, as you call them, of the subjunctive are alive and well among ed
> ucated people. You apparently do not belong in the group.

I wouldn't draw such hasty conclusions if I was you.

> Mind you, it is A remnant of something.

In English we call that a "typo".

[bunkum]

> In English we call that a "typo".

You could call it "typo" if you were up to it, but not A "typo." That's what calling things names requires. Anyway, it's strike two. One more and you are out.

I am sick and tired..

[republican]

... of your attemps to sound so erudite.
Who the hell cares about some pseudointellectual grammar forms never used in real life anyway?
Remember:
"Rose by any other name..."

[bunkum]

Get lost, you mentally sick and brain-tired halfwit.

[republican]

bunkum napisała:

> Get lost, you mentally sick and brain-tired halfwit.



Keep on.
Are you truly a female?
Very ladylike, I am impressed.

[jeanie_mccake]

bunkum napisała:

> You could call it "typo" if you were up to it, but not A "typo." That's what c
> alling things names requires. Anyway, it's strike two. One more and you are ou
> t.

Napiszę po polsku bo widzę, że z angielskim masz kłopoty. Typo jest policzalne więc mówi się "a typo". Wybacz, jeśli nie o to ci chodziło ale sens twoich pretensjonalnych bredni nie zawsze jest jasny.

[paulski]

Bunkum is right.
You call it "typo," not a "typo," and not "a typo."
If you mistyped, you made a typo.
The big piece of furniture in your dining room is a dining table, but the name that was chosen for it is "dining table," and not a "dining table." Again, this thing is called "dining table" and known as "dining table," even though the bearer of that name is a countable noun.
Got it?

A side note: The only person making pretenses here is you.

[jeanie_mccake]

paulski napisała:

> You call it "typo," not a "typo," and not "a typo."
> If you mistyped, you made a typo.

Exactly, I made "a typo", I didn't make "typo" cos that would be ungrammatical.
I find it really funny when Poles try to tell me how to speak my own language, especially pretentious gobshites who don't know what they're talking about.

[claratrueba]

> Maybe usage is different where you come from, but in Britain it sounds pretenti
> ous and pedantic.

It means that for over twenty years of my talking to Britons, Americans and a large number of people who were not of British origin but educated there I have met only pretentious people. Pedantic does not refer to language at all.
That is simply unbelievable.
It also means that all the books and press articles I have already read provide obsolete and pretentious language. In both- narration and dialogues.
That is simply ridiculous.
"Wish I was", "If I was" were, indeed, commomly used among my then neighbours (sorry, neighbors- in case you find the previous form pretentious) in Hackney, London. The ones who spoke any English- like language.

[jeanie_mccake]

claratrueba napisała:

> It means that for over twenty years of my talking to Britons, Americans and a l
> arge number of people who were not of British origin but educated there I have
> met only pretentious people.

Possibly.

> Pedantic does not refer to language at all.

Eh? Is that supposed to mean something?

> It also means that all the books and press articles I have already read provid
> e obsolete and pretentious language.

No it doesn't, there are plenty of forms which are perfectly natural in written language but rarely used in speech.

> "Wish I was", "If I was" were, indeed, commomly used among my then neighbours

Exactly, although that does somewhat contradict what you wrote earlier. So what's your point?

> (sorry, neighbors- in case you find the previous form pretentious)

Why would I find it pretentious?

[claratrueba]

You are quite a stubborn person. So am I.
There is nothing like "the only one language" whatever language it is. Language is an indicator of status, social origin, education. For my usual interlocutors "were" in the said expressions is probably as natural as "was" in case of most people you talk to. This does not indicate any pretentiousness, it is just the language they have absorbed and use.
In contemporary novels or articles, as well as in political debates or speeches, nobody is willing to use archaic or bombastic sentences. But still "were" is common. The difference between spoken and written language has been disappearing for decades and has nothing to do with the problem we discuss.
"Was" is no more recognized as a mistake, but its lower class origin makes it less dominant form as most people are not eager to be classified as simpletons.
In most cases, however, it is just a habit. Like using the -our instead -or in "neighbour" or "armour" and the like.
> > "Wish I was", "If I was" were, indeed, commomly used among my then neighb
> ours
>
> Exactly, although that does somewhat contradict what you wrote earlier. So what
> 's your point?
Have you ever been to Hackney? I suppose you haven't. But I may assure you- as a source of drugs and knowledge of living on a social support- it is a perfect place. As a source of proper English- it definitely is not. With the exception of cockney and teenager gangs lingo.

[jeanie_mccake]

claratrueba napisała:

> "Was" is no more recognized as a mistake, but its lower class origin makes it l
> ess dominant form as most people are not eager to be classified as simpletons.

What a pile of nonsensical snobby bollocks.

> In most cases, however, it is just a habit. Like using the -our instead -or in
> "neighbour" or "armour" and the like.

That's not a habit, that's a difference between US and British spelling conventions.

> Have you ever been to Hackney? I suppose you haven't.

Why do you suppose that?

But I may assure you- as
> a source of drugs and knowledge of living on a social support- it is a perfect
> place. As a source of proper English- it definitely is not. With the exception
> of cockney and teenager gangs lingo.

Someone whose posts are full of pretentious flowery latinate words and shockingly basic grammatical errors thinks she's an expert in "proper English"...

[1amazon]

> "Was" is no more recognized as a mistake, but its lower class origin makes it l
> ess dominant form as most people are not eager to be classified as simpletons.

Lower class. Would that be he working class and/or the middle class?

They are simpletons, are they? That's an interesting social theory. Would you be able to quote any studies to back it up?

Sadly there aren't many representatives of upper classes in my work, amongst my friends or family. It follows I have been surrounded by simpletons. The lot of them. People with no judgement, no common sense, no intelligence. The lot of them. Bloody hell.

>Lower class origin means it's less dominant.
Listen to some BBC recordings from 30 years ago and compare them to recent ones. Notice anything? The dominant influence of of the upper class, wouldn't you say?

[claratrueba]

Amazon, language is vivid and evolving all the time. We have noticed many changes and accepting "was" in both II conditional and wish sentences among them. It is not an indicator of any social origin any more. To put it bluntly- whoever uses "was" nowadays is not (and shouldn't be) considered a simpelton or yokel. But used to be. That is why "were" have survived.
I suppose you have understood that sentence"most people are not eager to be classified as simple
> tons." as description of contemporary social phenomenon. It is not. It is a general and timeless social phenomenon that enables some expressions still exist in language despite growing popularity of other, more reasonable ones.
> Lower class. Would that be he working class and/or the middle class?
That is another good example of language evolution. "Lower class" was once used to describe the whole group of people of below-average income or without any regular income . And was not considered derogatory. Now it is. Almost as an equivalent of hoi polloi. But how to use "working class" to denominate group without any permanent job? "Precariat" was coined but what about the ones living on social support and not willing to get down to any work?

[jeanie_mccake]

claratrueba napisała:

> language is vivid

Why do you insist on using words you clearly don't understand? If you're trying to impress people you'd do better by writing something sensible.

[perk]

Try reading this first.
jaffeerevises.com/Subjunctive%20mood.htm

If it’s too hard for you, ask your teacher to help you with it.

Then try this:
grammargrater.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977356772 ,

and then this:
writingclearandsimple.com/2006/09/14/the-persistence-of-the-subjunctive/

Why the subjunctive is important from a lawyer’s perspective:
www.judgepainter.org/legalwriter62

Enough

[republican]

You guys are stubborn and keep churning this manure.
Get on my thread "Gdyby fiolki i konwalie..." and demonstrate your expertize ( oops expertise).

Takie te ciarachy tworde, trza by stoc i walic w morde.

[republican]

republican napisał:

> You guys are stubborn and keep churning this manure.
> Get on my thread "Gdyby fiolki i konwalie..." and demonstrate your expertize (
> oops expertise).

You are making progress girls and boys..
Now the second part of your homework assignment , get to work on real life translation.
C'mon you can do it.
> Takie te ciarachy tworde, trza by stoc i walic w morde.

[paulski]

Erik Wensberg, another writer on English usage, doesn’t pull any punches about subjunctive use either:

But this concession to simplicity [indicative instead of subjunctive, Paulski] does not yet carry over to statements--or rather hypotheses--contrary to fact. The dividing line between educated and uneducated speech is as clear about this usage as it is about ain’t.

[jeanie_mccake]

paulski napisała:

> [i]But this concession to simplicity [indicative instead of subjunctive, Pauls
> ki] does not yet carry over to statements--or rather hypotheses--contrary to f
> act.

Does not YET... He was talking about usage in the formal written American English of half a century ago. The subjunctive mood has never disappeared, but in modern English there are no actual separate subjunctive verb forms. There are various ways of making it clear that a statement is hypothetical, though, some of which are only used in certain registers. Most people, for example, would never say "If I were", even in formal situations, unless a) they were familiar and comfortable with very formal language or b) they had learned English from a book. I personally only use "if I were" in formal writing and extremely formal speech. And, of course, when I used to teach English to Poles because that was what was in the book, like the archaic "less vs. fewer" (although apparently that still exists in Canada or somewhere).

Enough IS enough

[republican]

jeanie_mccake napisała:

> paulski napisała:
>
> > [i]But this concession to simplicity [indicative instead of subjunctive,
> Pauls
> > ki] does not yet carry over to statements--or rather hypotheses--contrar
> y to f
> > act.
>
> Does not YET... He was talking about usage in the formal written American Engli
> sh of half a century ago. The subjunctive mood has never disappeared, but in mo
> dern English there are no actual separate subjunctive verb forms. There are var
> ious ways of making it clear that a statement is hypothetical, though, some of
> which are only used in certain registers. Most people, for example, would never
> say "If I were", even in formal situations, unless a) they were familiar and c
> omfortable with very formal language or b) they had learned English from a book
> . I personally only use "if I were" in formal writing and extremely formal spee
> ch. And, of course, when I used to teach English to Poles because that was what
> was in the book, like the archaic "less vs. fewer" (although apparently that s
> till exists in Canada or somewhere).

I am mesmerised by the depth of erudition you present here.

Let us again separate chaff from grain.
We, mere mortals can not grasp your arabesques..
I beg you for help with the translation of two very simple phrases.

[paulski]

jeanie_mccake napisała:

> paulski napisała:
>
> > [i]But this concession to simplicity [indicative instead of subjunctive,
> Pauls
> > ki] does not yet carry over to statements--or rather hypotheses--contrar
> y to f
> > act.
>
> Does not YET... He was talking about usage in the formal written American Engli
> sh of half a century ago. The subjunctive mood has never disappeared, but in mo
> dern English there are no actual separate subjunctive verb forms. There are var
> ious ways of making it clear that a statement is hypothetical, though, some of
> which are only used in certain registers. Most people, for example, would never
> say "If I were", even in formal situations, unless a) they were familiar and c
> omfortable with very formal language or b) they had learned English from a book
> . I personally only use "if I were" in formal writing and extremely formal spee
> ch. And, of course, when I used to teach English to Poles because that was what
> was in the book, like the archaic "less vs. fewer" (although apparently that s
> till exists in Canada or somewhere).

Didn't you learn basics before you had gone into English language teaching? That's beyond chutzpah, I must give you that.
Next time don't give up your day job.

[republican]

paulski napisała:

>
> Didn't you learn basics before you had gone into English language teaching? Th
> at's beyond chutzpah, I must give you that.
> Next time don't give up your day job.
>
>
Well, well...another "Lady".
Your behavior is beneath contempt.
Your arrogance and stubornness is only exceeded by your rudeness.
You simply do not belong to this Forum.
Pack your bags and go!

[jeanie_mccake]

paulski napisała:

> Didn't you learn basics before you had gone into English language teaching?

"Didn't you learn THE basics before you WENT into English language teaching?"
Anyway, the basics of what? What are you on about now?