| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sharter
Joined: 25 Jun 2008 Posts: 878 Location: All over the place
|
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:40 pm Post subject: erm........ |
|
|
If I were you, I'd get out more.
The dullest thread in ages.
-I=subject pronoun, her=object pronoun.
-If I were/ If I was are both acceptable. That's it.
Why make it complicated? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Isla Guapa
Joined: 19 Apr 2010 Posts: 1520 Location: Mexico City o sea La Gran Manzana Mexicana
|
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:54 pm Post subject: Re: erm........ |
|
|
| sharter wrote: |
If I were you, I'd get out more.
The dullest thread in ages.
-I=subject pronoun, her=object pronoun.
-If I were/ If I was are both acceptable. That's it.
Why make it complicated? |
It's a way to give aging brain cells some vigorous exercise . |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
johnslat

Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear sharter,
"If I were/ If I was are both acceptable. That's it.
Why make it complicated?"
Well, maybe (at least partially) because "if I was" can describe a real situation:
Politician making an "apology": Well, if I was offensive in any way, I apologize."
but "if I were" has to be an "unreal conditional."
Regards,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
johntpartee
Joined: 02 Mar 2010 Posts: 3258
|
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Biggest mistake anyone can make when talking about the "rules" of English. There will (almost) always be something that doesn't follow the "rule". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sashadroogie

Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 11061 Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Johnslat
That's just overly-complexifying things, and I like everything to be all over-simplificated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
johntpartee
Joined: 02 Mar 2010 Posts: 3258
|
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Over-simplificated? Accent on the "plif"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sashadroogie

Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 11061 Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the 'cate', I'd say... hic! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sashadroogie

Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 11061 Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Like 'pixilated'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
johnslat

Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:11 pm Post subject: Grammar RULES |
|
|
Dear johntpartee,
"Biggest mistake anyone can make when talking about the "rules" of English. There will (almost) always be something that doesn't follow the "rule"."
That's quite true - as a rule.
Regards,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
johntpartee
Joined: 02 Mar 2010 Posts: 3258
|
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, even the rule about the rule. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sashadroogie

Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 11061 Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Some dude named Murphy opined something similar... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|