Since this thread has come back to life I want to express my two cents on the was-were difference. I don’t see the choice as dependent on the degree of impossibility. I see no difference between “if I were to sack you…” and “if I were a dinosaur…”. The first is hypothetically possible, the second is not, but neither is true at this moment and that’s what counts. “If I was…”, in strictly formal terms, refers to a real past, not an unreal present. (underlining added by TT) If sacking were a real possibility, I’d change tense: “If I sack you, what will you do?”
If people don’t always say “If I were…”, in my opinion it is for two reasons:
1) some limit its use to writing or formal speaking;
2) some limit it further, to set phrases such as “If I were you”.I’m not criticising these choices, I’m only saying that in my experience they don’t depend on the degree of possibility but only on the degree of formality.
Apologies indeed, I’m still in the thick of my work. However, in your examples you quote only two authors who use both forms, allowing comparison:
I have to take your word for it; I haven’t read the book.
Perhaps you’ve shot yourself in the foot here. Here’s a fuller quote: “Was all life hallucination? Was I indeed Elvesham, and he me? Had I been dreaming of Eden overnight? Was there any Eden? But if I was Elvesham, I should remember where I was on the previous morning…” The narration is in the past. His thoughts, in direct speech, would be “If I am Elvesham, I ought to remember etc.” The narration is reporting a first conditional, so the transformation of “am” to “was” is logical.
It’s like, “If you’re home by 7.30 you’ll be in time for dinner”, which in reported speech would be “She told me that if I was home by 7.30 I would be in time for dinner”. This is not a hypothetical present but a real past.You still have Wodehouse as an ally, so I can accept that you’re not alone.
Many thanks, Einstein. I’m sorry to have been inattentive. I’ve been driving across Europe in the snow and ice.
Thank you for agreeing with me about Wodehouse. I could produce many other authors who use both forms in the way I suggest. We are limited here in the number of quotes per post. I didn’t think you’d doubt that many authors distinguish in this way.
The thing which concerns me most is the suggestion that if I was + something which is not the case is not commonly used by BE speakers and writers to introduce a hypothetical present. You may not have been suggesting that, but if you were, I am afraid I must disagree: it is something I hear very commonly on the lips of natives, and actually listen out for – you are not the first WR member to make the suggestion that it is ‘incorrect’. The last case I heard recently was a university graduate saying If I was in Paris now, I’d feel distinctly uneasy – she was talking about the Charlie Hebdo attack. This cannot be a case of a real past.
In the upper post I’ve quoted, you appear to be saying in the passage I underlined (forgive that intrusion, please) that you could not use if I was in that way. I’m not suggesting that you change your verbal habits, but I feel you must admit, if you’ve not already done so, that this usage is common and idiomatic. My friend who was talking about Charlie Hebdo would never say things like If I was you or If I was three hundred years old. The difference seems clear to me: it lies in the degree of possibility that the condition be ever fulfilled – another point on which you strike me as sceptical, if not fully disavowing.
My reason for quoting my literature database is that it is relatively set in stone. You have to take my word that my friend said what I say she said; you can check the quotes I cite online easily enough.
The other point which concerns me, of course – I’ve already more than hinted at it – is the expression ‘in strictly formal terms’; the phrase is to be found in the middle of the underlined sentence in the upper post quoted above.
Members here, it seems to me, use various means to establish authority over learners. Some talk ex cathedra, as though they had a hot line to the deity. Some talk, as another member put it to me recently, as though they were members of the Supreme Court of English Usage, and had descended from some distant and august chamber to give us all a final ruling on a point of difference. I have never put you in either of these opprobrious categories. Nevertheless, those words, ‘in strictly formal terms’, suggest that there is, indeed some higher court, over and above educated usage, which has always been my own touchstone for correct educated speech, where what is correct or otherwise is determined. As you can see, I am not happy with the idea of privileged access to formal correctness here.
Particularly, perhaps, in a case like this, where a heterodox principle is being presented as orthodox. Here is a presentation of the orthodoxy on the point from the Britsh Council, who have great experience of presenting English grammar in a way most helpful for learners and foreigners.
We use the past tense forms to talk about the future in clauses with if:
- for something that we believe or know will not happen:
| We would go by train if it wasn’t so expensive | = | We won’t go by train because it is too expensive. |
| I would look after the children for you at the weekend if I was at home | = | I can’t look after the children because I will not be at home. |
– See more at: http://learnenglish.britishcouncil….e-clauses-and-if-clauses#sthash.hDkYBBBW.dpuf
This seems to me at odds with the advice you’ve been giving. In the first example “If I was…”, clearly evokes a unreal present, not a real past.
Please forgive the long post.