In Conditionals^x, Subjunctives^x

Your reported version with was is fine. Save were (which is the present subjunctive form) for present conditions (in formal sentences) contrary to fact: We would have gone to the river today if it were hot (but it's not hot).

As a footnote: 1. If he were here now, he would be able to answer the question. 2. If she were a little bigger, she wouldn't be quite so small. The "were" in these examples is called the "past subjunctive". The past subjunctive is used principally in conditional (hypothetical) statements, such...

Hi Marius, I would have answered the way you did. But I keep debating myself whether backshifting a subjunctive sentence would cause some misinterpretation or not, since the third conditional usage means 0 probability (i.e., unchangeable past), while the second one means small probability...

Instead, we'd pop into the theatre in Brooklyn Heights at any point in a film, watch to the end, sit through the break, and then watch the beginning—which naturally led to watching a movie we liked twice, even if we hadn't been late.http://chud.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3549.htmlAbout the...

English is ambiguous enough for it to refer to the past or the future depending on the context. Succeeded can be an indicative past tense or a subjunctive and would can be a past tense meaning "used to" or an auxiliary of the present conditional.CB

Yankee wrote:Just to add a little more confusion to this thread, I'd like to mention that I've also heard this idiom used with 'came' (i.e. in a sentence with the same format as a type 2 conditional). I've just never actually heard it used with the subjunctive 'come'. Just to clear things up. I...

Just to add a little more confusion to this thread, I'd like to mention that I've also heard this idiom used with 'came' (i.e. in a sentence with the same format as a type 2 conditional). I've just never actually heard it used with the subjunctive 'come'.

MrPedantic wrote: I see what you mean; but I think the distinction between type I and type II conditionals disappears, once the statement is reported. In effect, everything becomes "detached", i.e. "remote".Your insight is amazingly deep, MrP! If anything, in my opinion, the reason why it...

MrPedantic wrote:For me, the difference between the standard "type I" and "type II" conditionals relates not so much to possibility or conviction, as to the degree of detachment the speaker wishes to express. (It may be that other members would find this a strange way of looking at it,...

MrPedantic wrote:Well, I must admit, I don't associate the subjunctive with untruth, in type II conditionals: in discussions of possible courses of action, you will often hear "If X were the case, Y would be the case". If truth/untruth sounds dichotomic, in which sentence do you fell the...