ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: Was vs Were

Anonymous — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:09:24 GMT

" If only it were true."

Re: Was vs Were

Anonymous — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:12:52 GMT

we use were with this conditional

Re: Was vs Were

Anonymous — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:29:50 GMT

If only it were true.

Re: Was vs Were

Wwwdotcom — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:53:15 GMT

So, have we reached a verdict?

Were or Was?

Re: Was vs Were

CalifJim — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:51:14 GMT

Thank you, Mr. P! (It really was getting all too tiresome.)

Re: Was vs Were

MrPedantic — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:48:49 GMT

There appear to be some toys round your pram, Just The Truth.

I would have thought these were fairly simple questions for a 'language professional' to answer:

1. If it's a variant, what's the norm?
2. If it's informal, what makes it informal?
3. If using the 'informal variant' in a formal context or vice versa makes you 'sound like an idiot', what is the listener reacting against?

You could add:

4. Is that how it works? The same person will say 'if I was...' in informal situations, and 'if I were' in formal situations? Or is it rather that person A tends to say 'if I was', while person B tends to say 'if I were'? (But if that's the case, does person A only ever speak in 'informal' situations? and person B in 'formal'? How strange.)

But I'm off to the library now, to do some research into a few other words. They are:

"Just The Truth" is barred from further participation in this thread.

MrP

____________________

Edit: 29/2/08

I think I was a bit off in this thread. Someone slap me.

MrP

Re: Was vs Were

just the truth — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:29:55 GMT

You're one to talk, Mr P. You have left question after question unanswered only to come up with more inanities like the last one. If you believe that your last question has even an inkling of merit, then I'd say you should get yourself over to the library and do some resaearch on it.

Please let us know what you discover.

Re: Was vs Were

MrPedantic — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:32:58 GMT

In other words, you're unable to answer the question.

MrP

Re: Was vs Were

just the truth — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:57:43 GMT

JT: You can sound like an idiot using formal language in informal situations.

Mr P: So why would that be, JT – scientifically speaking?

JT:

Dear Mr P,

I have read many of your postings and have, with great anticipation, looked forward to more postings penned by you that reflected, ... a high caliber. But regrettably, some have not matched that same high level. This is one. I hope to see a return to the stuff of old.

Re: Was vs Were

MrPedantic — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:24:35 GMT

You can sound like an idiot using formal language in informal situations.

So why would that be, JT – scientifically speaking?

MrP

Re: Was vs Were

just the truth — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:15:11 GMT

Hello JT

Hello Mr P.

1. If it's a 'variant', it's a variant on a norm. What would the 'norm' be here?

JT: You've got this all messed up, Mr P. But I knew where you were going with this miles ago. You're still making the same error that is common to prescriptivists, making innacurate comparisons between things that are of equal value.

There are varying levels of modal politeness. ENLs can easily discern the differences between can/could/would/will and other even more polite structures. That doesn't mean one is better than the other.

You can sound like an idiot using formal language in informal situations.

2. You say 'it tends to be used in the informal realm more often'. What is the cause of this tendency?

JT: Who can say how these things develop. But again, don't fall into making the naive assumption that formal is good, correct, etc and informal is bad, incorrect, etc. Science does not support such an erroneous view.

For instance, it would be tautological to say that flipflops are informal because they tend to be worn on informal occasions. But we could say 'flipflops tend to be worn on informal occasions because they are cheap, easy to put on and take off, crudely designed, etc'.

What is the equivalent statement for [counterfactual 'if I was'] – assuming you stand by your previous statements?

JT: To quote Prof Lawler: Analogies are great fun, and are sometimes persuasive, but they're weak reeds to lean on.

This example of yours has nothing, that's zero, to do with language, Mr P. Language is not some collection of Miss Manners type rules, yet this is what you'd have us believe. Grammatical considerations are not on a par with, "Don't wear whites after Labor Day", yet this is what you suggest. Please, please, Mr P.

I'm somewhat surprized, not actually shocked by how your arguments have, shall we say, "lowered". Why won't you address the grammatical/semantic considerations. Why don't you locate some proof from prescriptive sources that actually defend this prescription.

Why? Because there are none. History, usage and language science demolish the prescription and yet we still have grammar luddites holding onto completely unbtenable positions.

"Don't need proof". Fits the prescriptive pattern to a T.

Re: Was vs Were

CalifJim — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:39:33 GMT

actually provides something in the way of proof

We don't need no stinkin' proof!

Re: Was vs Were

MrPedantic — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:01:14 GMT

is not incorrect, merely an informal variant.

Hello JT

1. If it's a 'variant', it's a variant on a norm. What would the 'norm' be here?

2. You say 'it tends to be used in the informal realm more often'. What is the cause of this tendency?

For instance, it would be tautological to say that flipflops are informal because they tend to be worn on informal occasions. But we could say 'flipflops tend to be worn on informal occasions because they are cheap, easy to put on and take off, crudely designed, etc'.

What is the equivalent statement for [counterfactual 'if I was'] – assuming you stand by your previous statements?

MrP

Re: Was vs Were

just the truth — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:07:05 GMT

JT: I wasn't the one gritting my teeth in frustration, Mr P.

I'll remember to hold up my IRONY placard next time.

JT: That'd be nice, Mr P.

----------------------------

JT: See what I mean, Mr P; "animal noises"! Might I point out to you, Sir that this illustrates, on your part, a profoundly naive [to be kind] conception of what language is.

Mr P: I'd be interested to know what you think human speech is, JT, if it isn't a series of animal noises. But let me rephrase the question, if it offends you:

JT: Luckily, writing isn't near as descriptively clear as speaking is or you'd not have been able to slip out of this one, eh, Mr P? To use a Britishism, "you'd have been caught out".

Mr P: 'If you think [counterfactual 'if it was'] is an 'informal variant', you're presumably discriminating between the two forms in some way. So what makes this particular set of words suitable for 'informal' use only? And why is it a 'variant'?'

(Please feel free to explain in your own words, rather than citing items from elsewhere on the internet.)

JT: I shall by the by, but first.

Did you happen to catch the 1/23 Dilbert cartoon, Mr P? The punch line from Wally, reads; "My favorite part is when he yelled. "Stop ruining my slogans with your logic".

You can catch it at,

http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050123.html

This should take you right to that 1/23 cartoon. If not check the archives.

I {and every other language professional, including a number around this site} frequently point up differences in formal or informal variants. I believe, without a great deal of searching, I could even find some posts where you've done the same.

is not "suitable for 'informal' use only". We don't have this great divide that can't be crossed. It's not an absolute, it's more a question of degree; it's merely that it tends to be used in the informal realm more often. This shouldn't come as any great shock as many aspects of language tend to be used more in one realm or the other.

Contractions see far greater use in the spoken than in SWE. Relative pronouns and both tend to be used more in formal spoken and SWE than their counterpart .

But I think you feel that you've got a major point to make here, so I'll relinquish the floor to you, Sir. And don't forget the reminder I gave to CJ. I'd love to see something from any prescriptive source you two could dig up that actually, actually provides something in the way of proof for these prescriptions you espouse.

Have at it, Sir.

Re: Was vs Were

MrPedantic — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:52:30 GMT

JT: I wasn't the one gritting my teeth in frustration, Mr P.

I'll remember to hold up my IRONY placard next time.

JT: See what I mean, Mr P; "animal noises"! Might I point out to you, Sir that this illustrates, on your part, a profoundly naive [to be kind] conception of what language is.

I'd be interested to know what you think human speech is, JT, if it isn't a series of animal noises. But let me rephrase the question, if it offends you:

'If you think [counterfactual 'if it was'] is an 'informal variant', you're presumably discriminating between the two forms in some way. So what makes this particular set of words suitable for 'informal' use only? And why is it a 'variant'?'

(Please feel free to explain in your own words, rather than citing items from elsewhere on the internet.)

MrP