It won’t be a surprise if this basic grammar question still stumps not a few among us: “How do we know if a sentence that uses ‘were’ is indicative or subjunctive?” I say this because this happens to be the most-often asked question in the almost 18 years that I’ve been writing this column.
Let’s demystify this usage by doing a quick refresher of the uses of “were,” which is the familiar past-tense form of the linking verb “be” in the third-person plural. In “The villagers were happy,” for example, “be” takes the form “were” because “villagers”—the subject—is in the third-person plural and the action is in the past tense. (Of course, when the subject is the third-person singular “villager” and the action is in the present tense, “be” takes the normal form “is”: “The villager is happy.”)
Statements like “The villagers
were happy” and “The villager
is happy” are in the
indicative mood, which conveys the idea that a condition or act is an objective fact, an opinion, or the subject of a question. In such statements, the speaker is talking about real-world situations in a straightforward, truthful manner, and the linking verb “is” takes its normal inflections in all the tenses and obeys the subject-verb agreement rule.
IMAGE CREDIT: SHOWME.COM IMAGE CREDIT: AMERICAN.STATE.GOV The polar opposite of the indicative mood is the
subjunctive mood, which conveys possibility, conditionality, or wishfulness rather than an objective fact or condition. This is the mood in these sentences: “If I
were the dean of that college, I would have fired that incompetent professor by now.” “They wish that their president
were more circumspect in his pronouncements.”
In the first example above, note that “be” is in the plural past-tense form “were” although the subject is the singular first-person noun “I”; in the second, “be” is likewise in the plural past-tense form “were” although the subject is the singular third-person noun “president.”
This is the elusive answer to why subjunctive sentences use “were”:
in this mood, regardless of the person and number of the subject, the linking verb “be” always takes the plural past-tense form “were” instead of “was” or “is.” There are four specific situations that need the subjunctive “were” rather than the indicative “was” or “is:”
1. When the sentence indicates a supposition or possibility. In “if”-clauses indicating a supposition or possibility, the subjunctive “were” is used regardless of whether the doer of the action is singular or plural: “If I
were to accept that foreign assignment, I’d have to take my family with me.” “Many legislators would be indicted for graft if the Ombudsman
were to apply the law regardless of their party affiliation.”
2. When expressing a desire or wishful attitude. In “that”-clauses that follow main clauses expressing a wish, the subjunctive “were” is used: “I wish (that) she
were more amenable to a compromise.” “I wish (that) I
were the class president.” The wish or desired outcome is neither a present reality nor a future certainty.
3. When describing the outcome of an unreal situation or idea that’s contrary to fact. Given a hypothetical state or outcome, the subjunctive “were” is used in expressing the unreal or contrary-to-fact condition: “If its polar electromagnetic field
were not there, Earth would be devastated by intense solar radiation.” Without “if,” such constructions can sometimes take an inverted syntax: “
Were its polar electromagnetic field not there, Earth would be devastated by intense solar radiation.”
4. When expressing doubt about certain appearances or raising a question about an outcome. Statements that cast doubt on observed behavior or raise a question about a presumed outcome often take the subjunctive “were” form: “Rod acted as if he
were the only knowledgeable newspaperman in town.”
Now the subjunctive “were” should no longer be puzzler to anyone among us.
(Next:
The “who”/“whom” grammar conundrum revisited) November 21, 2019
This essay, 1,170th of the series, appeared in the column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in the Campus Press section of the November 14, 2019 print edition of The Manila Times
, © 2019 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.
