Thursday, June 03, 2004, 05:14 GMT
Surely it is better to write "Yer, you are inappropriate." wouldn't you say, Hythloday?
But seriously though ... I agree with Hythloday to an extent. Prescriptivism is indeed on the way out and it's better to talk in terms of which is more appropriate rather than more correct.
"'If I was you...' is non-standard English and would therefore be considered more appropriate in informal contexts," writes Hythloday "whereas 'If I were you...' is standard English and would therefore be considered more appropriate in formal contexts."
Well, yes and no. I mean, this sentence is a little ambiguous. What exactly is Hythloday comparing here? To explain what's causing my confusion let me difine the following term.
Let A(w,f) = the appropriateness of "If I w you ..." in a/an f context.
Thus
A(was,informal) = the appropriateness of "If I was you ..." in an informal context.
A(was,formal) = the appropriateness of "If I was you ..." in a formal context.
A(were,informal) = the appropriateness of "If I were you ..." in an informal context.
A(were,formal) = the appropriateness of "If I were you ..." in a formal context.
Is Hythloday saying
1) A(was,informal) > A(was,formal) & A(were,formal) > A(were,informal)
or is he saying
2) A(was,informal) > A(were,informal) & A(were,formal) > A(was,formal)
where ">" means "is greater than"?
Interpretation 1 states where "If I was you ..." is most appropriate. It says that if you're going to use "If I was you ...", the context where you'll find it most appropriate is an informal one. It also states where "If I were you ..." is most appropriate. It says that if you're going to use "If I were you ...", the context where you'll find it most appropriate is an formal one.
Interpretation 2 compares different things. This interpretation states that in a formal context "If I were you ..." is more appropriate than "If I was you ...". However, it also says that in an informal context "If I was you ..." is more appropriate than "If I were you ...".
I could mostly accept what is stated by interpretation 1 but I get the feeling that what Hythloday intended was interpretation 2. I don't agree with the second interpretation.
Hythloday noted "If I was you..." is non-standard English but would interpretation 2 follow from this? I say that to say so would require accepting the premise that non-standard English is more appropriate than standard English in informal contexts. I don't accept this premise.
Standard English (if such a beast could be defined) is perfectly acceptable in informal contexts. As for me, I only ever use "If I were you ..." regardless of context and never feel as if what I'm saying is inappropriate. Of course, counter examples could easily be contrived: perhaps you're playing the part of a hill-billy.
The way things are in the UK may be different but here's the way I see it. "If I were you ..." is perfectly acceptable and appropriate in all contexts whereas "If I was you ..." would only be acceptable or appropriate in informal contexts. My advice to ESL students would be to stick with "If I were you ..." but be aware of the other varient.
But seriously though ... I agree with Hythloday to an extent. Prescriptivism is indeed on the way out and it's better to talk in terms of which is more appropriate rather than more correct.
"'If I was you...' is non-standard English and would therefore be considered more appropriate in informal contexts," writes Hythloday "whereas 'If I were you...' is standard English and would therefore be considered more appropriate in formal contexts."
Well, yes and no. I mean, this sentence is a little ambiguous. What exactly is Hythloday comparing here? To explain what's causing my confusion let me difine the following term.
Let A(w,f) = the appropriateness of "If I w you ..." in a/an f context.
Thus
A(was,informal) = the appropriateness of "If I was you ..." in an informal context.
A(was,formal) = the appropriateness of "If I was you ..." in a formal context.
A(were,informal) = the appropriateness of "If I were you ..." in an informal context.
A(were,formal) = the appropriateness of "If I were you ..." in a formal context.
Is Hythloday saying
1) A(was,informal) > A(was,formal) & A(were,formal) > A(were,informal)
or is he saying
2) A(was,informal) > A(were,informal) & A(were,formal) > A(was,formal)
where ">" means "is greater than"?
Interpretation 1 states where "If I was you ..." is most appropriate. It says that if you're going to use "If I was you ...", the context where you'll find it most appropriate is an informal one. It also states where "If I were you ..." is most appropriate. It says that if you're going to use "If I were you ...", the context where you'll find it most appropriate is an formal one.
Interpretation 2 compares different things. This interpretation states that in a formal context "If I were you ..." is more appropriate than "If I was you ...". However, it also says that in an informal context "If I was you ..." is more appropriate than "If I were you ...".
I could mostly accept what is stated by interpretation 1 but I get the feeling that what Hythloday intended was interpretation 2. I don't agree with the second interpretation.
Hythloday noted "If I was you..." is non-standard English but would interpretation 2 follow from this? I say that to say so would require accepting the premise that non-standard English is more appropriate than standard English in informal contexts. I don't accept this premise.
Standard English (if such a beast could be defined) is perfectly acceptable in informal contexts. As for me, I only ever use "If I were you ..." regardless of context and never feel as if what I'm saying is inappropriate. Of course, counter examples could easily be contrived: perhaps you're playing the part of a hill-billy.
The way things are in the UK may be different but here's the way I see it. "If I were you ..." is perfectly acceptable and appropriate in all contexts whereas "If I was you ..." would only be acceptable or appropriate in informal contexts. My advice to ESL students would be to stick with "If I were you ..." but be aware of the other varient.