Because of the extended Covid-19 lockdown, there should be time aplenty for everyone to internalize the answer to this grammar question that I know still stumps many English learners and even long-time users: “How do we know if a sentence that uses ‘were’ is indicative or subjunctive?”
To start this grammar refresher, recall that “were” is the familiar past-tense form of the linking verb “be” in the third-person plural. For example, in the sentence “His ailing sisters
were confident of full recovery,” “be” takes the form “were” because the subject “sisters” is in the third-person plural and the action is in the past tense. (Of course, when the subject is the third-person singular “sister” and the statement is in the present tense, “be” takes the normal form “is”: “His ailing sister
is confident of full recovery.”)
The statements “His ailing sisters
were confident of full recovery” and “His ailing sister
is confident of full recovery” 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. The speaker is talking about real-world situations in a straightforward, truthful manner, so the linking verb “is” takes its normal inflections in all the tenses and obeys the subject-verb agreement rule.
The polar opposite of the indicative mood is
the subjunctive mood, which conveys possibility, conditionality, or wishfulness rather than objective fact or condition. This is the mood in “If I
were the chief executive of that drug company, I would offer an irresistibly handsome reward to whichever of its research teams comes up first with a truly effective Covid-19 vaccine” as well as “They fervently wish that their head of state
were more circumspect in his pronouncements about ending the pandemic lockdown.”
In the first example above, “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 doer of the action “wish” is the singular third-person noun “head of state.”
IMAGE CREDIT: SHOWME.COM IMAGE CREDIT: AMERICAN.STATE.GOV So this is the elusive answer to why sentences in the subjunctive mood use “were”: It’s because in this mood, regardless of the person and number of the subject or of the doer of the action, the linking verb “be” always takes the plural past-tense form “were” instead of “was” or “is.”
Four specific situations, in fact, require 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 job offer, I’d have to take my whole family with me.”
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 an equitable sharing of profits.” In this example, 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.”
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: “That public official talks as if he
were the only knowledgeable person in the universe.”
After this refresher, most everyone everywhere surely will be using the subjunctive “were” more confidently.
(Next week:
Revisiting the “who”/“whom” grammar conundrum) May 14, 2020
This column online in
The Manila Times:
Are you using ‘were’ in the indicative or subjunctive? This essay, 1,193rd of the series, appeared in the column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in the Campus Press section of the May 7, 2020 Internet edition of The Manila Times
,© 2020 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.
