If I were there, I wouldn't have done that

[jotham]

If I were in bed at at 10.00, I wouldn't have gone out at 10.15

When you name two different times, it sounds like a case for the past within the past, which is the perfect past. But even still, I think it is legitimate.

If I were at the party at 11.00, I'd have heard the shots.

I don't see anything wrong with this. This assumes the person left at perhaps at 10:45, and someone insisted that the person should have heard the commotion because that person was at the party in question, but the person knew that the commotion happened at 11 — fifteen minutes after leaving. By way of impatient explanation or clarification, the person would then say that, and maybe with a little emphasis on the second subjunctive (I would have instead of I'd). These sentences often sound weird out of the blue until you really put yourself in the middle of the context.

[MrPedantic]

1. If I were at the party at 11, I would have heard the shots.

This sounds very strange to my BrE ears, which are happier with "If I had been".

To me, the "If I were" indicates a possibility that is still in some sense "open", however implausible or irrealis. It doesn't therefore sit happily with speculation about closed past possibilities. I'm interested to learn that this is not the case for AmE ears.

Cf.

2. If I were to arrive at the party at 11, I would have heard the shots.
3. If I were to have arrived at the party at 11, I would have heard the shots.
4. If I had arrived at the party at 11, I would have heard the shots.

Possible contexts:

In #2, the speaker presents an objection to arriving at 11, before the event. He does not want to have heard the shots. Perhaps he is planning his alibi.

#3 is as #2, but with an adjustment to the temporal focus in the if-clause.

In #4, the speaker presents an objection to arriving at 11, after the event. He did not hear the shots; therefore he did not arrive at 11. Perhaps he is protesting his innocence.

MrP

[Stephen Jones]

The Past Simple can be used in an 'if' clause to describe a real option in the past, or a hypothetical one in the present.

Normally you are aware of your own movements so 'if I were there' is likely to refer to an unreal possibility now, but with all the parties coming up this week, there will be times when you might have cause to use the construction.

[jotham]

All those seem possible to me. Number two took quite a bit of imagination. I looked at Garner today at work (Yes, I have to work on Christmas), and he says that there are six contexts for using the subjunctive. It is more common in conversation in only two contexts: wishes and speculation (I think about future events). It is more common in writing with the other four, one of which is unreal. So maybe this unreal context is, although possible, just more formal to Americans and downright quaint to British.

[lolwhites]

The Past Simple can be used in an 'if' clause to describe a real option in the past, or a hypothetical one in the present.

Normally you are aware of your own movements so 'if I were there' is likely to refer to an unreal possibility now, but with all the parties coming up this week, there will be times when you might have cause to use the construction.

Except that If I were is a subjunctive. Surely to describe a real possibility in the past you'd say If I was.

[Stephen Jones]

So maybe this unreal context is, although possible, just more formal to Americans and downright quaint to British.

It is the present subjunctive that is more common in AmE than in BrE.

Your problem is that you are canning the language for not fitting in with an inadequate description (the 'rules' for first, second, third, zero and mixed subjunctives being amongst the stupidest ever devised).

The past subjunctive can be used to indicate a higher degree of irreality than the past indicative, but still can be a real possibility in the past.

For example, referring to a particularly successful office Christmas party you might say "Well, if I were there when the MD took off her knickers I don't remember any of it." (was' can of course also be used).

[jotham]

(the 'rules' for first, second, third, zero and mixed subjunctives being amongst the stupidest ever devised).

I've never found the first-, second-, and third-conditional setup very helpful. I was under the assumption that it's called conditionals in British — since I see them in Longman or Azar resources — and the subjunctive in American. I don't think American grammarians talk about conditionals. Is there a difference between them? I'm not sure how they converge.

[Stephen Jones]

The second conditional will have the past subunctive in the apodosis (that's the 'if' part) and a distant modal auxiliary (normally 'would') in the main clause.

Azar by the way is an American grammarian; there are some things you can't blame on the Brits.

[jotham]

Hm, I didn't know that. Well, she may be American, but I wouldn't call her a grammarian — or maybe I should say prescriptionist, if those terms aren't synonymous. One of the easiest acid tests I use to quickly determine if a resource has a prescriptive or descriptive tendency is to see how it treats that and which. I normally assume descriptive resources are British — I've never seen a British prescriptive resource since Fowler — but we have descriptionists in the USA as well. At any rate, though they generally correspond, I should use the labels prescriptive and descriptive instead of American and British when distinguishing who primarily refers to conditionals and the subjunctive.

The second conditional will have the past subunctive in the apodosis (that's the 'if' part) and a distant modal auxiliary (normally 'would') in the main clause.

No, I know the difference between the conditionals. Sorry, my question wasn't phrased clearly. I meant is there any difference between conditionals and the subjunctive tense? — or are they just different names for the same concept as I assumed in my last post?

[JuanTwoThree]

The situation is that the so-called type zero and type one conditionals are either not worthy of the name conditional, or if they are then they are definitely in the realm of realis/not subjunctive.

The irrealis conditional with subjunctive really kicks in with the "type two".

Past subjunctive (past simple subjunctive) is exactly the same as past simple (past simple indicative) except that in all persons the past subjunctive of "be" is "were" (for the time being).

So all these are past subjunctive:

I wish it were still summer.

It's time you went.

I'd rather you didn't

If only you spoke

If I came tomorrow

In other words all those uses of the past simple that simply didn't happen in the past.

The origins of this are that, like those cognate European languages which still have a past subjunctive, English once really did:

fremman (weak,regular) 'do' helpan (strong, irregular)'help'

present indicative iċ fremme iċ helpe

past indicative iċ fremede iċ healp

past subjunctive iċ fremede ic hulpe


http://www.wmich.edu/medieval/research/ ... lverb.html



so the weak past subjunctive was the same as the past indicative, although the strong past subjunctive was different. At some point that subtle difference disappeared though "thou wast" and "if) thou werst" lasted a bit longer.

Even if "If I were" disappears then it''ll stiil be useful to differentiate between past simple and past subjunctive, otherwise "If I sold the milk tomorrow" will take some explaining.

[Stephen Jones]

One of the easiest acid tests I use to quickly determine if a resource has a prescriptive or descriptive tendency is to see how it treats that and which

No, that's the litmus test between somebody with a vague idea of language use and an ignorant idiot who doesn't know what the is talking about.

The distinction is crystal clear: 'that' ,'who', which' 'where' and 'wnen' (and sometimes 'whom') can be used for defining relative clauses, but 'that' cannot be used for non-defining relative clauses, and the latter must be delimited by commas, whilst the former should never be. The fact that many defenders of 'proper usage' can't even get that right is a sign of alamentable mental disorder.

[Stephen Jones]

Even if "If I were" disappears then it''ll stiil be useful to differentiate between past simple and past subjunctive, otherwise "If I sold the milk tomorrow" will take some explaining.

It's still takiing a hell of a lot of explaining even now

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL) is excellent on conditionals. If you want to order them in any way then you need to see if tghe apodosis is open or closed. And even then the matter is not clear.

[jotham]

The fact that many defenders of 'proper usage' can't even get that right is a sign of alamentable mental disorder.

You talk as though there is a right or wrong about this. I beg to differ. The prescriptionist says which is not used for restrictive clauses and is always accompanied by a comma. Communication is aided and clear-cut; and the possibility of comma confusion is reduced. Your view is the descriptionist view. Neither view is right or wrong. It's almost saying the difference between British and American. British writers use which indiscriminately with the comma being the deciding factor and view the distinction as piddling, and most American writers use the words and commas consistently for greater clarity and facilitated reading. To each his or her own.

[Stephen Jones]

.

The prescriptionist says which is not used for restrictive clauses and is always accompanied by a comma. Communication is aided and clear-cut

The problem is 'which' is used for restrictive clauses. Your litmus test doesn't distinguish between a desriptivist and a prescriptivist, it distinguishes between a descriptivist and a fantasist.

[jotham]

I know you're proud of your British heritage, but could you show a little cultural sensitivity? Or acknowledge that there are other dialects besides your own? Let alone opinions.