this is just a simple question - yet the answer is not as clear as it should :
i have noticed that instead of using "i was", some English native speakers would use "were" with "i".
for instance : "if i were [someone else], i would..."
but it also happens that they would say "if i was [someone else], i would..."
so.. is there any logical explanation about this "if i was / if i were" thing?
thx for helping me
I don't know what the explanation is, but I would use 'if I were you'. 'If I was you' doesn't seem to sound right at all.
They're both used in the same situation. "Were" in that case is a special form since it's in the subjunctive mood--however, "was" it often more common in normal speech, but many people also say "were". Formal writing would prefer "were" but otherwise the two are interchangeable. In daily speech I'd say I use "(if) I were" and "(if) I was" about 60/40, respectively.
Yes, if I were you, I'd also use "were" not "was". Prescriptive grammarians would insist on the use of the subjunctive for counterfactual statements.
Translated into English this means the people who believe in setting rules for the language would argue that when you're talking or writing about an untrue situation you must use "were" not "was". However, many native speakers don't follow this rule and so you end up getting both forms.
In formal situations, though, you're best using "were" particularly if it's a grammar test. In informal situations "were" doesn't seem out of place (though even here "was" can seem uneducated). So you might as well use "were" always.
Woow, thank you guys so much for these detailed explanations!!