-1

I don't know what should to write with I would think you were bluffing if it, should it be wasn't or weren't for?

Ghaidaa Al-Khatib
  • 1
  • I don't understand the question. Please give the full sentence - and context - you are trying to write. What do you mean by "write with I would think you were bluffing"? – TrevorD Oct 12 '13 at 18:21
  • I would think you were bluffing if it {weren't/wasn't} for ... is my guess. Either will work, both are common. Using "weren't" is a more archaic strategy and can be confusing, as you note. – John Lawler Oct 12 '13 at 19:03
  • I am marking this as a duplicate as a courtesy, but really the question as stated is utterly incomprehensible. I can't tell where one thing ends and the next one begins. Some formatting or at least basic punctuation would be nice. Thank you. – RegDwigнt Oct 12 '13 at 19:42

1 Answers1

-1

"If it was not for", indicative, implies a certitude.

"Napoléon was certain to win at Waterloo, if it wasn't not for unexpected heavy rains and his canons stuck in the mud".

"If it were not for", subjunctive, express a doubt.

"Napoléon could have won at Waterloo, if it weren't for his stubbornness to attack, despite unfavourable (US unfavorable) conditions and the opinion of his generals"

ex-user2728
  • 1,892