3

I cannot fathom why were is used in the below highlighted sentence. Why can it be used in this way? I have got suggestions that this sentence is typical of the subjunctive mood to hypothetically discuss what has not existed yet, roughly meaning that if a vaccine for Covid-19 were available now, it would protect those vaccinated from the disease. But is it?

Looking forward to your insights. The following text is an excerpt from the Briefting section of the lastest the Economist issue, just to give you enough context of the sentence in question.

For a vaccine to get from phase I to phase III trials in just ten months, as rvsv-zebov did, was unheard of at the time—a startling example of what urgency and organisation can do. Now a repeat performance, ideally taken at an even faster tempo, is the sum of the world’s desire. In the middle of April more people are dying of covid-19 every three days than died of Ebola in west Africa over three years. A vaccine would not just save lives; it would change the course of the pandemic in two separate, if related, ways. It would protect those who were vaccinated from getting sick; and by reducing the number of susceptible people it would prevent the virus from spreading, thus also protecting the unvaccinated.

grammar-in-action
  • 59
  • 1
    "Those who were vaccinated" is the past tense. Those people received the vaccine. – Yosef Baskin Apr 22 '20 at 16:45
  • 1
    The example sentence you give in the first paragraph of the question doesn't appear anywhere in the longer quotation you give in the third paragraph. I'm confused by the correlation between the two. In the longer quotation, were is not in the subjunctive; it's talking about a conditional future (the development of a COVID-19 vaccination at some point), not a false-to-fact present. – Jason Bassford Apr 22 '20 at 16:46
  • @YosefBaskin The specific were is not talking about the historical development of the Ebola vaccination. It's speculating about the future development of a COVID-19 vaccination. (In any case, it's still not in the subjunctive …) – Jason Bassford Apr 22 '20 at 16:51
  • 1
    (The use of were here is past tense relative to a time period in the future. It's the same as when I check into the hotel a week from now, I will have taken* a taxi there.* At the future point, a week from now, something will have happened in the past relative to it—even though both things have yet to happen.) – Jason Bassford Apr 22 '20 at 16:55
  • No, because English does not have a subjunctive mood! Seriously. – BillJ Apr 22 '20 at 17:35
  • @Jason Bassford Thanks. I see that you have got what is going on in the provided text. Are you suggesting that when the author is writing the sentence, s/he is standing at a point of the past and looking ahead from there to its future? But why not be more straightforward and see things from the present since the vaccine for Covid-19 is still up in the air? Is it for some kind of rhetorical effect, because I cannot see how this works. – grammar-in-action Apr 23 '20 at 02:34
  • @Jason Bassford I have thought more about what you said but the link is still missing. Could you give another example using similar structure and tense to that of the sentence under discussion, so that the pattern can become clearer. – grammar-in-action Apr 23 '20 at 02:49
  • @grammar-in-action There are many sentences and narratives that do exactly that: place a past event in the future or past of that past event, or place a future event in the future or past of that future event. The language is always relative to the perspective of the event itself (past or future) in those contexts, not to the present. – Jason Bassford Apr 23 '20 at 06:26
  • @Jason Bassford This is really convoluting yet insightful. What I take from your words regarding this specific sentence is that it is not possible to locate when the actions of "would protect" and "were vaccinated" would exactly happen relative to the here and now. If it is, please explain further. – grammar-in-action Apr 23 '20 at 07:42
  • It's *not* some kind of subjunctive, because we need to use the singular in "It would protect somebody who was vaccinated from getting sick"; were doesn't work in that sentence at all. – Peter Shor Apr 23 '20 at 18:24
  • @Peter Shor I think at the core of problem here is how you understand the use of "would" in this text. If you take it as saying what follows is merely hypothetical and hence not factual, then the use of "were" here is awkward because it is hard to locate when the action of "were vaccinated" would happen relative to "would protect" in an imagined scenario related to this context. – grammar-in-action Apr 24 '20 at 01:42
  • @Peter Shor But if you take "would" as a calculated way of saying what follows, to the best of the author's knowledge, is the case, then "were" here makes perfect sense, because only after you get vacciniated can the vaccine protect you. The "would" here is stating a probable outcome based on facts and data, not introducing a hypothetical situation largely based on assumptions. – grammar-in-action Apr 24 '20 at 01:44
  • IMood has more or less been eliminated from the inflectional system so that nowadays modality is marked by the modal auxiliaries. The "were" that you're asking about is best called 'irrealis', an untidy relic from an earlier system. The term 'subjunctive' is much better used for the construction with a plain form verb as in, for example, "I demand that it be done". Note that "it were done" is of course not the past tense of "it be done". – BillJ Apr 24 '20 at 12:55
  • @grammar-in-action: I don't understand your comment. Do you think that some native speakers might actually say "It would protect somebody who were vaccinated from getting sick"? Do you have any evidence for that? – Peter Shor Apr 24 '20 at 13:43
  • @BillJ Thank you for pitching in with this insight. Actually the other day I read one of your posts related to this question (BTW, good reference), and then I went on to do some homework on this "irrealis were" and found that it typically appears in if-conditional such as if I/she/he were..., to indicate something that has a close-to-nought chance to happen. But can it be used independently of this structure, as in "those who 'were' vaccinated"? – grammar-in-action Apr 24 '20 at 13:45
  • Native English speakers don't say "somebody who were". See Google Ngrams. – Peter Shor Apr 24 '20 at 13:47
  • @Peter Shor That is far from my what I meant and I am sorry for causing misunderstanding. "Somebody who were" sounds totally off to me as well. You have to use "was" to agree with the singular "somebody". The thing is, do you find the way "were" is used here natural? What is the correct way of understanding "were vaccinated"? Is it an act of "vaccinating people" imagined to be performed in the absence of such vaccine, to give the impression that when the vaccine actually comes out, it will work as suggested? – grammar-in-action Apr 25 '20 at 00:19
  • I find the way were is used here fairly natural, but I really can't explain why I find it so. I think it's because were vaccinated happens before not getting sick. My comment just says that because you can't use were in the singular, this is not an instance of the subjunctive mood. – Peter Shor Apr 25 '20 at 00:26
  • @ Peter Shor Thanks, what you meant totally gets across now. I suspect whether "were" is a quaint rhetorical style adopted in English journalism (especially in prestigious news publicationss such as The Economist), to argue that the act of "vaccinating people with COVID-19 vaccines" is bound to happen. – grammar-in-action Apr 25 '20 at 04:24
  • What is at work here is that the author takes a standpoint in the future where the vaccine has come out and people have got vacciniated (which is more than probable), and s/he looks back to the moment when the very first bunch of people got vaccinated. The author simply takes this as a given, and uses the simple past tense to stress this will be the case in the near future, no doubt. – grammar-in-action Apr 25 '20 at 04:25

2 Answers2

3

That's not the subjunctive. The subjunctive part of this proposition is unexpressed but understood:

[If there were a vaccine] it would not just save lives; . . . It would protect those who were vaccinated from getting sick.

Were in were vaccinated is part of a past tense passive voice construction. This example is awkward but serves for purposes of illustration:

Passive voice: [If there were a vaccine] it would not just save lives; . . . It would protect those who were vaccinated [by medics] from getting sick.

Active voice: [If there were a vaccine] it would not just save lives; . . . It would protect those whom medics vaccinated from getting sick.

If we use are instead of were, we can reimagine vaccinated as a past participle adjective:

[If there were a vaccine] it would not just save lives; . . . It would protect those who are vaccinated from getting sick.

Tinfoil Hat
  • 17,008
  • And "it would protect vaccinated people from getting sick," too. – Yosef Baskin Apr 22 '20 at 22:40
  • 2
    @YosefBaskin: Yes, that would be a more natural use of the past participle adjective here, but I wanted to contrast were/are and passive/adjective. – Tinfoil Hat Apr 22 '20 at 22:44
  • Thanks for your input. After [If there were a vaccine] is reinstated, however, the sentence looks all the more like a typical Subjunctive Mood structure to me, with a if-conditional clause stating a hypothetical scenario and the main clause building on that to imagine what can happen accordingly. – grammar-in-action Apr 22 '20 at 23:57
  • The subjunctive were — which is used for counterfactual conditions — only appears in the condition clause (which, in your example, does not exist but is only implied). The were in were vaccinated is unrelated to the subjunctive. – Tinfoil Hat Apr 23 '20 at 03:38
  • I am at a loss. Would you say that this sentence as a whole, "It would protect those who were vaccinated from getting sick", is an assumption, based on the contextually implied condition [if there were a vaccine]. – grammar-in-action Apr 23 '20 at 03:53
  • I have also come up with another view below. Could you have a look at it? – grammar-in-action Apr 23 '20 at 03:56
  • @grammar-in-action The only time something is in the subjunctive is if it describes something that cannot exist. If I were a unicorn is subjunctive because unicorns don't exist. Even in the future, if it describes something impossible, it would be considered in the subjunctive. If I were to become a unicorn next week is in the subjunctive because you will not become a unicorn next week. (Unless we're describing a character in a fantasy novel.) But if I were to travel to Spain next week is not in the subjunctive because it's possible you could somehow travel to Spain next week. – Jason Bassford Apr 23 '20 at 06:29
  • @grammar-in-action The description of a future event using if and were, where the event is possible, is just a simple conditional, not something in the subjunctive. Even if the form of the sentence is the same, it's the meaning behind it that governs it. – Jason Bassford Apr 23 '20 at 06:31
  • @Jason Bassford Your explanations do clear some confusions. But the question why "were" is used here has not been resolved yet. Is it because there is a cause-effect relation between "would protect" and "were vaccinated"? Is there an alternative to "were" for this sentence in this context? – grammar-in-action Apr 23 '20 at 07:41
  • @grammar-in-action Yes, it has. The form of if … were is common for conditionals. The fact that it's also common for the subjunctive doesn't mean that it is the subjunctive. An alternative for a future if … were is if … is: If there is* a vaccination in the future, it will / could / might …* – Jason Bassford Apr 23 '20 at 10:05
0

Here is another way of going about answering this question.

"Were" here might be a slip, a misuse. Since four "would" are used consecutively here, I am not sure that they are all just used as the past tense form of "will" to indicate past future prediction. But rather, they are used as a hedge, as an apparently uncertain but in fact calculated way of expressing the author's opinion that the prospect of having the vaccine at our disposal is promising. Hence the sentence in question can be interpreted as a fact under the guise of a conjecture. See this usage of would here. Why "that would be me"? (part 2)

In the light of this, "were" here would seem the odd one out because it does not fit into this interpretation. Perhaps I can change it to "would be", but again, it is open to discussion.

grammar-in-action
  • 59
  • No, you cannot double up the would. That's not grammatical. Swap in a singular for clarity: "It would protect a person who [was/were/had been/would be/would have been] vaccinated." Notice you cannot use were there in English, nor anything with would. – tchrist Apr 23 '20 at 04:17
  • @tchrist♦ Thanks. So what you are suggesting is that "were" here could be a misuse, but cannot be replaced with "would be", because it would be ungrammatical? – grammar-in-action Apr 23 '20 at 04:25
  • The were simply matches the number of its subject, those who. For whatever reason, I might even try a past perfective version here: had been, had gotten. Perhaps because it orders the vaccination further into the past as a precondition for that protection. – tchrist Apr 23 '20 at 04:32
  • @tchrist♦ But why is this statement positioned in the past? Is it by talking about how previous vaccines worked in the past, making analogy with how a future vaccine for Covid-19 can be effective in altering the course of the current pandemic? – grammar-in-action Apr 23 '20 at 04:45
  • Because English has always used the past for things still only imagined such as with would like this. It would be better if they were / could be here. I wish they were / could be here. – tchrist Apr 23 '20 at 04:52
  • tchrist♦ Your examples completely make sense to me, yet the sentence in question does not take such forms. The "were" in the relative clause "those who were" is not like the "were" used in the if-conditional clause from your example: "if they were there". Is this an uncommon use to mean the same thing? – grammar-in-action Apr 23 '20 at 05:19
  • You need to take a different approach here. Forget about the subjunctive. A vaccine protects people who were (or have been) vaccinated from getting sick. It does not protect people who were not (or have not been) vaccinated from getting sick. You have to be vaccinated before you can be protected. – Tinfoil Hat Apr 23 '20 at 18:43
  • @Tinfoil Hat Thanks. Your remark is to the point. The "were" caused confusion because I treated the sentence as a hypothetical statement discussing how a vaccine for COVID-19 (which is still not a fact) would work, so in this imagined scenario I really did not see how the use of "were" here can possibly be justified. It cannot possibly be an irrealis "were" either. – grammar-in-action Apr 24 '20 at 02:13
  • @Tinfoil Hat Reading your remark reminds me of the possibility that this sentence can be discussing the general effect of vaccines and how they usually work (not necessarily referring to COVID-19 vaccines). Then it clicks and "were" falls into place, because, as you have pointed out, people have to be vaccinated first before the vaccine takes effect. The use of "were" to indicate this natural order of events totally makes sense to me now. – grammar-in-action Apr 24 '20 at 02:19