Disputed English grammar

<<English is a beautiful Language but the British generally are experts at mutiliating it. It's a national pastime.>>

No native speakers mutilate their language ;) That applies to any language, including whatever dialects of English are out there.

"English is a beautiful Language but the British generally are experts at mutiliating it. It's a national pastime"

"No. That's the Americans.

The British usually treat English with more respect - and, of course, can actually speak it better than the Americans."

You know, I never cease to be amazed by the number of absolutely silly and subjective statements about who speaks the language "better."

Ho hum.

>><<The British usually treat English with more respect - and, of course, can actually speak it better than the Americans.>>

I beg to differ. ''I wish I was'', for example, is more frequently heard in Britain than America and many people consider ''I wish I was'' as ''incorrect''.<<

This is because very many North American English dialects preserve the subjunctive, whereas most English English dialects have lost the subjunctive outside of fixed expressions. Consequently, many things may seem "correct" to many English English speakers while sounding somewhat off to many North American English speakers, such as myself, for whom the subjunctive is still quite productive and is still not only very actively used across the board but also often practically mandatory in certain cases.

You mean "I wish I was" and "I wish I were"?


Both are grammatically correct because in modern English, the only thing needed to express a counterfactual situation is a past tense verb.

If I was you = I'm not you,

just as,

If I were you = I'm not you.

It works the same way with 'wish'.

Again, in the battle between American English and British English, the British have got it right yet again (we're better educated, you see).



Remember, just because the modal verb would appears in the main clause, this doesn’t mean that the verb in the if clause must be in the subjunctive if the content of that clause is not presupposed to be false: If I WAS (not were) to accept their offer—which I’m still considering—I would have to start the new job on May 2. He would always call her from the office if he WAS (not were) going to be late for dinner. 8

Another traditional rule states that you are not supposed to use the subjunctive following verbs such as ask or wonder in if clauses that express indirect questions, even if the content of the question is presumed to be contrary to fact: We wondered if dinner WAS (not were) included in the room price. Some of the people we met even asked us if California WAS (not were) an island. 9

if clauses—the reality. In practice, of course, many people ignore the rules. In fact, over the last 200 years even well-respected writers have tended to use the indicative WAS where the traditional rule would require the subjunctive WERE. A usage such as "If I was the only boy in the world" sounds perfectly natural.

www.bartleby.com

You're contradicting yourself, Adam. If "the British have got it right yet again" and "In practice, of course, many people ignore the rules." then the British would have to be ignorant ones, getting it wrong.

"In practice, of course, many people ignore the rules."

Hilarious. If so-called "language rules" were as iron-clad as mathematical ones, we would ignore them at our peril.

Obviously, people don't "ignore the rules;" communication by language would quickly become impossible if they did.

Using "was" in lace of "were" does not impair the meaning. The subjunctive mood in English - due to our limited verb inflection and the ready alternative of modal verbs to express similar nuances - just isn't that important.

As has been observed here, the subjunctive is taking a beating in BE but continues to hang on in AE. However, I do see the day when its usage will be entirely reduced to a few idiomatic constructions.