3

I generally find it hard to construct some sentences that start with "I wish, ..."

Example:

(Background:) Due to an incomplete technical documentation, we chose the wrong path, and ran into an unforeseen limitation. What's the correct way to state my frustration?

  • I wish, the documentation would warn about that limitation.
  • I wish, the documentation had warned about that limitation.
  • I wish, the documentation would have warned about that limitation.
  • I wish, the documentation warned about that limitation.
  • I would wish, that the documentation warns about that limitation.
  • ...
Bogdan Lataianu
  • 2,259
Chris Lercher
  • 203

1 Answers1

7

First off, you shouldn't have a comma after wish. In written English it's generally incorrect to add a comma before that or in a place where that has been omitted, as in the previous sentences.

Either of these is correct:

I wish the documentation warned about that limitation.

I wish the documentation had warned about that limitation.

In either case, you need a subjunctive form (which is almost always identical to the past form) in the subordinate clause. The main clause with wish should remain in the present tense — saying I would wish is unnecessary.

(The only time that the subjunctive is not the same as the simple past is when the subject is 1st- or 3rd-person singular:

I wish I were taller.

I wish it were true.

And even this is slipping away, as many people now say I wish I was taller.)

Community
  • 1
JSBձոգչ
  • 54,843
  • Thanks for your great answer (also for the comma hint)! Is "would warn" and "would have warned" completely wrong, or is it acceptable for spoken English? – Chris Lercher Apr 15 '11 at 12:25
  • It's not completely wrong, but it's mostly unnecessary. I would avoid using would for this construction in written English, though in spoken English it would probably pass without most people noticing. – JSBձոգչ Apr 15 '11 at 12:32
  • 1
    Whenever I encounter one of OP's would forms, I always assume it's a non-native speaker trying to replicate the verb inflections of their own language. As to whether including had makes any difference, I think an IT tutor complaining about different students repeatedly making mistakes because of poor documentation is more likely to omit had. Where only one (albeit possibly serious and / or extended) mistake occured, had seems more natural to me. – FumbleFingers Apr 15 '11 at 13:40
  • "The only time that the subjunctive is not the same as the simple past is when the subject is I": I wish this were true. – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Apr 15 '11 at 14:10
  • @Cerberus, touché. Updated. – JSBձոգչ Apr 15 '11 at 14:40
  • @JSBangs: Hehe thanks. The point is that "to be" is the only verb remaining with an irregular past subjunctive / past simple, which, as you say, is visible only in the 1st and 3rd persons singular, because those past simple forms happen to stand out in the paradigm (as the other past simple forms are all "were"). – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Apr 15 '11 at 14:51
  • @JSBangs: What does "It's not completely wrong" mean? – Dan Apr 21 '11 at 19:23