if it were(was)/ if it had been...

[Metamorfose]

I've just come across this sentence:

If it were for him, I don't think I would have lasted on the farmer all these years.

In EFL abstraction we would have if it had been. What would be the difference between was/were and had been?

Thanks ppl.

José

[woodcutter]

Presumably it should read "If it weren't for him, I don't think I would have lasted on the farm all these years"

"If it were for him" would have to refer to a gift or something, it isn't the opposite of the above.

"If it hadn't been for him" would put the situation with him in the past, whereas "if it weren't for him" would suggest he was still there.

[jotham]

I've just come across this sentence:

If it were for him, I don't think I would have lasted on the farmer all these years.

In EFL abstraction we would have if it had been. What would be the difference between was/were and had been?

Thanks ppl.

José

Another difference is that the efficient subjunctive case is more acceptable (and perhaps preferable) to American ears, while the British would rather use more words to avoid it.

[Metamorfose]

Another difference is that the efficient subjunctive case is more acceptable (and perhaps preferable) to American ears, while the British would rather use more words to avoid it.

Hello.

Just two things.

1- Why do you state "efficient" I fail to see any distinction regarding effiency when one is faced to choose between both forms?

2- America is so big in terms of territory and accounting the number of dwellers how could one pin down that this acceptance is categorical to the whole country and taking Britain into consideration I think there's a great deal of variance within the country to state something as universal, what do you think about it?

José

[jotham]

Another difference is that the efficient subjunctive case is more acceptable (and perhaps preferable) to American ears, while the British would rather use more words to avoid it.

Hello.

Just two things.

1- Why do you state "efficient" I fail to see any distinction regarding effiency when one is faced to choose between both forms?

I mean economy of words. The subjunctive is less verbose than the more complex past tenses.

2- America is so big in terms of territory and accounting the number of dwellers how could one pin down that this acceptance is categorical to the whole country and taking Britain into consideration I think there's a great deal of variance within the country to state something as universal, what do you think about it?

America is big and Britain is varied, nevertheless, for some strange reason, most Americans will say "hood," while British prefer "bonnet." In fact, I can't recall a time I heard a single American say "bonnet," whether they hail from Alaska, Texas, or New York. Strange this.

From what I know, British ears find the subjunctive somewhat quaint.

[Metamorfose]

America is big and Britain is varied, nevertheless, for some strange reason, most Americans will say "hood," while British prefer "bonnet." In fact, I can't recall a time I heard a single American say "bonnet," whether they hail from Alaska, Texas, or New York. Strange this.

From what I know, British ears find the subjunctive somewhat quaint.

I see... but what you mentioned belongs to the lexical domain. The example given is about grammatical choice, verb forms according to what the speaker perceives and wants to convey within the system they have, this case, the English language and I really think this goes beyond dialectical choice.

José