 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / July 2009Were or was?
My wife is reading Picasso / A Biography by Patrick O'Brien and asked if this sentence sounds right: This was also the time when Picasso produced a sudden little output of religious pictures, including the charming "Rest on the Flight to Egypt" that he kept with him all his life: they amount to a dozen or more, and it is as though the fourteen-year-old Pablo were making a determined effort to be a "good boy." "...were making a determined effort..." or "...was making..."? Neither one sounds quite right to me.  SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > My wife is reading Picasso / A Biography by Patrick O'Brien and > asked if this sentence sounds right: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Neither one sounds quite right to me. was works for me. were has a pural feel. > My wife is reading Picasso / A Biography by Patrick O'Brien and > asked if this sentence sounds right: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Neither one sounds quite right to me. We can apply more than private intuition. 1. The classic or traditional rule (employed by these coauthors) is that this subordinate clause introduced by AS IF requires the subjunctive mood viz. WERE. 2. Most contemporary speakers and some contemporary writers shun the subjunctive mood, thus prefer here WAS. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > My wife is reading Picasso / A Biography by Patrick O'Brien and > asked if this sentence sounds right: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Neither one sounds quite right to me. Supposition or condition contrary to fact (or known fact) uses subjunctive. However, I am getting thick-skinned about using simple past indicative. > > My wife is reading Picasso / A Biography by Patrick O'Brien and > > asked if this sentence sounds right: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Supposition or condition contrary to fact (or known fact) uses > subjunctive. Yes, I know. Somehow the fact that he's talking about an event in the past makes the "were" sound wrong. > However, I am getting thick-skinned about using simple > past indicative. But "was" after "as though" also sounds wrong. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >>> My wife is reading Picasso / A Biography by Patrick O'Brien and >>> asked if this sentence sounds right: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > But "was" after "as though" also sounds wrong. Of course it's wrong, but it is just getting to hurt less. Like biting down on a bad tooth. I get that "sour" feeling when I hear it. [...] >> [I]t is as though the fourteen-year-old Pablo were making a >> determined effort to be a "good boy." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > subjunctive. However, I am getting thick-skinned about using simple > past indicative. But it is not contrary to fact: there is no explicit or implicit reason to believe that Picasso was not making that effort. As Curme (_English Grammar_, at 115.B.3.ii) notes, "[W]e often employ in both condition and conclusion a present, past, or present perfect indicative, thus for the time being recognizing as a practical working basis the reality of state or act, but not finally committing ourselves to this view: If he is doing this, he is in the right. If this is true, that is false. If he did this, he did it wrong. If it has thundered, it has lightened. Condition and conclusion are often in different times: If he did this, he is in the right." But, as Curme also notes, "Alongside of the present, past, and present perfect indicative in the condition here, we sometimes in rather choice English, as a survival of a once more common usage, still employ the present, past, and present perfect subjunctive, with virtually the same force, only presented from a little different point of view, the subjunctive representing act or state as only conceived, but at the same time recognizing the reality of act or state as a practical working basis [examples elided]." Or, in short, either form works, with only--at most--the faintest shade of differentiation. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] >>> [I]t is as though the fourteen-year-old Pablo were making a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But it is not contrary to fact: there is no explicit or implicit > reason to believe that Picasso was not making that effort. Read the word or two before "contrary to fact". > As Curme (_English Grammar_, at 115.B.3.ii) notes, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Or, in short, either form works, with only--at most--the faintest > shade of differentiation. OK. And I am sure you make your decision about which form to use after laborious study, each and every time the possible usage of subjunctive arises. Some of us have a "feel" for the subjunctive and throw it in on the fly, only later recalling the instant when seeing or hearing another usage of indicative or subjunctive that sounds "awkward". [...] >>> Supposition or condition contrary to fact (or known fact) uses >>> subjunctive. However, I am getting thick-skinned about using simple [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Read the word or two before "contrary to fact". Yes, and? Read the six words after "supposition or condition". (As an aside, I wonder what an unknown fact would be as a consideration in determining contra-factuality?) >> As Curme (_English Grammar_, at 115.B.3.ii) notes, [...] >> Or, in short, either form works, with only--at most--the faintest shade >> of differentiation. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > only later recalling the instant when seeing or hearing another usage of > indicative or subjunctive that sounds "awkward". And some us try to recall Francis Bacon's apothegm, "Reading maketh a full man; conference maketh a ready man; and writing maketh an exact man," and spend some time considering our exact choice of words before committing them to paper or silicon. "Laborious study" is not needed, nor is any frequent need for study of any degree implied in anything I wrote or quoted. The existence of a painstaking medical description of the action of respiration does not imply that anyone needs "laborious study" to breathe. But, if your skills are such that in casting your thoughts into words you you never, ever need to contemplate, however briefly, the mechanical aspects of the forms of those words, you are to be congratulated. Those of us mortals whose pencils typically come with erasers commend you. SignatureEric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] >>>> Supposition or condition contrary to fact (or known fact) uses [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > man," and spend some time considering our exact choice of words before > committing them to paper or silicon. But in speech... > "Laborious study" is not needed, nor is any frequent need for study of > any degree implied in anything I wrote or quoted. Even your quotation from Bacon implies a painstaking labor for exactitude. The existence of a > painstaking medical description of the action of respiration does not > imply that anyone needs "laborious study" to breathe. But, if your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Those of us mortals whose pencils typically come with erasers commend > you. Eric. In conversation, the subjunctive fits into patterns that do flow effortlessly from the tongue, or it would not have evolved. Don't you think the effort of writing slows the thought processes and the decision-making to the point of confusing the less confident user of the language? That confusion then emerges in speech patterns. [much elided for brevity--possibly too much, but else the length becomes cumbersome] > Even your quotation from Bacon ["Reading maketh a full man; conference > maketh a ready man; and writing maketh an exact man"] implies a > painstaking labor for exactitude. Oh? "Exact" indeed means careful, but care is far from equivalent to "painstaking labor". In an era in which words committed to paper were difficult and tedious to amend (no white-out), a writer needed to marshall and array his thoughts well before setting them down. Today we can set them down then amend them, which far too many take as license to neither marshall nor array their thoughts either before _or_ after setting them down. Moreover, Bacon emphasizes the difference between taking some care over that which will survive and endure and being able to give _ex tempore_ good counsel (redes, hence "ready"). >> The existence of a >> painstaking medical description of the action of respiration does not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> the forms of those words, you are to be congratulated. Those of us >> mortals whose pencils typically come with erasers commend you. > Eric. In conversation, the subjunctive fits into patterns that do flow > effortlessly from the tongue, or it would not have evolved. That is _non sequitur_. Each of the numerous conventions that compose English evolved to fit some perceived need, but that does not thereby demonstrate or signify that all users of the tongue can and do readily make use of those conventions: to argue else is to assert that every native speaker of English naturally and normally speaks perfect standard English. In matters ranging from right use of the subjunctive mood to simple agreement in number between subject and verb, the degree of effort a given speaker or writer requires--should he or she be determined to use the tongue correctly--is highly variable and depends on the extent of that person's prior exposure both to extensive samples of sound English and to some formal schooling in the subject conventions. (Of course, no effort at all is required if the speaker either doesn't care about correct usage or is ignorant of the point that his or her usage may not be correct). > Don't you think the effort of writing slows the thought processes and > the decision-making to the point of confusing the less confident user > of the language? If, as it seems to me, you are saying that the more one thinks on a question the less one understands the answer, I must disagree strongly, at least if--again, as it seems to me--that is being asserted as a general principle. The reason we stop and think about things on which we are not at first sure is to muster (as Nero Wolfe would put it) our experience as guided by our intelligence and apply that to the question; most often, that clarifies, not muddies, the issue, else wit and learning would be rather useless. > That confusion then emerges in speech patterns. Yes, an excellent argument for not applying one's wits and knowledge to any question: it just makes it all worse. Borrowing again from Nero Wolfe, pfui. To extend my prior analogy: the existence of detailed treatises on respiration does not signify that "laborious" contemplation is necessary to ordinary breathing. But when something seems wrong with our breathing, it is well to be sufficiently familiar with the mechanics of the process (or to be able to consult with one who is) to--by contemplation, laborious or not--be able to diagnose what most probably is wrong and, even more important, how to remedy the problem. SignatureEric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ ["...writing maketh an exact man"] > Oh? "Exact" indeed means careful, but care is far from equivalent > to "painstaking labor". In an era in which words committed to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > many take as license to neither marshall nor array their thoughts > either before _or_ after setting them down. I do believe that word is spelled "marshal". I draw your attention to the point because your repetition of the spelling with two "l"s suggests that it was not a typo. I gather that you don't reply to spelling flames, but I thought you might want to look the word up. [...] [...] > I do believe that word is spelled "marshal". I draw your attention to > the point because your repetition of the spelling with two "l"s suggests > that it was not a typo. I gather that you don't reply to spelling > flames, but I thought you might want to look the word up. I don't take a simple, honest correction as a flame, and in fact thank you for it. While it is embarrassing to make an elementary mistake, it would be more so to go uncorrected and continue making it. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > [...] > >> [I]t is as though the fourteen-year-old Pablo were making a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But it is not contrary to fact: there is no explicit or implicit reason > to believe that Picasso was not making that effort. Does not the preceding "as though" convey that he was not actually making that "determined effort"? (And what wmight an "undetermined effort" be?) "He acted as though he were the king of England." Does that not clearly convey that he was not the king of England, despite acting as though he were? For all that, I don't wince at "was" in even my own examples. But IMO that's because of the gradual narrowing of the scope of pplication of the subjunctive, not because the supposed event could in fact have occurred. [ ... ] SignatureBob Lieblich Here today, back on the road tomorrow. Busy, busy, busy ... >> [...] >> >> [I]t is as though the fourteen-year-old Pablo were making a >> >> determined effort to be a "good boy." >> >> >> >> "...were making a determined effort..." or "...was making..."? [...] >> But it is not contrary to fact: there is no explicit or implicit reason >> to believe that Picasso was not making that effort. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that not clearly convey that he was not the king of England, despite > acting as though he were? I think that the phrase has no inherent sense of contra-factuality, and can acquire such a sense only from context: "From that swing, it looks as though that wrist injury is still bothering him" does not--to me, anyway-- convey any sense that the injury is not bothering the batter in question And if the chap acting as though he was (or were) the king of England happened to be one of those contenders for the throne of many centuries ago, when the line of succession was, shall we say, less than a bright line, would not the statement simply mean that he was acting as the king would be expected to act, presumably in the belief that he was, in reality, the king? (Not, mind, that any of this is controlling as far as the choice of "was" or "were".) > For all that, I don't wince at "was" in even my own examples. But IMO > that's because of the gradual narrowing of the scope of pplication of > the subjunctive, not because the supposed event could in fact have > occurred. Well, when either form will pass muster, that's a matter of taste. But it's not so much the subjunctive that is disappearing from English as it is the old morphological forms of expressing it ("If I were king")[1]; the modern forms, using auxiliaries ("I could do it if I had time"), are still quite lively. The subjunctive forms of "be" are the most resistant morphological forms, and even they are, as we see, yielding--though, as noted upthread, there is still a faint differentiation between "if it was" and "if it were", the latter indicating a hair less belief in the probability. [1] Curme refers to the morphological forms as "not suited to either our practical or our scientific needs", though he concedes that they are "surrounded by a halo of poetry" and have "a touch of elevation and a charm to which we are all susceptible." SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > My wife is reading Picasso / A Biography by Patrick O'Brien and > asked if this sentence sounds right: "Which the Captain sends 'is compliments and begs leave to inform you that Mister O'Brian 'as an 'a' in 'is name", screeched Killick as the Surprise heeled gently to larboard. "To be sure, that's the misspelling of the world" said Stephen. A growl of agreement rose from the waist. "Cutlasses and boarding axes ready!" bawled Jack. > My wife is reading Picasso / A Biography by Patrick O'Brien and > asked if this sentence sounds right: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > "...were making a determined effort..." or "...was making..."? The more formal authors are still using the subjunctive mood "were" after "as though," but see the other answers ... However, in this case it is debatable whether the author really wants us to imagine a hypothetical world in which the child Picasso acted in various ways, which would be the correct application of subjunctive mood and of "were," or it's just a over-correction, which I think it is, for describing a straighforward, and real, situation. Marius Hancu > mood and of "were," or it's just a over-correction, which I think it > is, for describing a straighforward, and real, situation. > > Marius Hancu Because of twenty other books that he wrote, I would forgive Patrick O'Brian just about anything; if he wants to use "were", that's just fine by me. > > mood and of "were," or it's just a over-correction, which I think it > > is, for describing a straighforward, and real, situation. > Because of twenty other books that he wrote, I would forgive Patrick > O'Brian just about anything We always do with fine authors such as him. Marius Hancu > > > mood and of "were," or it's just a over-correction, which I think it > > > is, for describing a straighforward, and real, situation. > > Because of twenty other books that he wrote, I would forgive Patrick > > O'Brian just about anything > > We always do with fine authors such as him. > > Marius Hancu That's big of you. "As if" and "as though" were originally always used to introduce counterfactuals, but are now often used in "looks as if", "sounds as though", etc., to introduce things that the speaker actually believes ("It looks as if" = "It appears that"). In such cases the present indicative is often used. ("As if" and "as though" are exceptions [...] in that they take the past subjunctive, not the pluperfect subjunctive, for counterfactuals in the past. The past tense of "If he were a fool, he would mention it" is "If he had been a fool, he would have mentioned it"; but the past tense of "He talks as if he were a fool" is "He talked as if he were a fool." ... from the AUE FAQ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.