7

I'm an ESL teacher. Normally I teach lower intermediate but I also teach a mixed level grammar review class. I pride myself on being able to explain things clearly but today I found myself in THREE sticky situations all in the same class! I'll explain here the two problems involving conditionals.

First Case: Is it better to say...

If he knew that I WERE/WAS home now, he would call. OR If he knew that I AM home now, he would call.

Does the second verb in the if clause also take the subjunctive form because it is in the if clause or should it take the present simple form because it is not a hypothetical (I am home now is not hypothetical, his knowledge of it is.)

Jerry
  • 71
  • By the way - there's a move afoot to create a sister site, or something else, more welcoming to EL learners, where your insights would be highly valued. Here. – StoneyB on hiatus Aug 23 '12 at 03:16
  • Seems interesting. I could definitely point students in that direction once it's up and running and participate. If there is anything else I could do to help let me know. – Jerry Aug 23 '12 at 03:27

3 Answers3

4

I would write "if he knew that I was home" (with or without "that") because of the sequence of tenses. That is, "knew" is a past tense form, even though it can be either present subjunctive or past indicative. It's therefore ungrammatical to follow it with a present tense form such as "I am" or "I'm". If you were talking in the past indicative, you'd say "He knew that I was home", so you use the same form (adding "if" at the beginning) for the present subjunctive.

  • We could be on to something here. Perhaps then there is a rule that in a conditional clause using the present subjunctive all verbs on the clause should follow the subjunctive form even if they are indicative? – Jerry Aug 23 '12 at 02:15
  • @Jerry: Enough already with the rules! The subjunctive is trying to die quietly, decently, and without fuss! If you start bringing rules into it, the poor thing will be dragged back into the limelight! – FumbleFingers Aug 23 '12 at 02:41
  • Haha If it were only that simple! If I didn't have to teach and explain this stuff I'd probably agree with you. – Jerry Aug 23 '12 at 02:45
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers No, the subjunctive is being subjected to deliberate euthanasia. Some of us want to keep the life-support switched on, and even inject some life into it and publicise its cause. – Andrew Leach Aug 23 '12 at 08:48
  • @Andrew: Have you no compassion? I bet you'd still be "striving officiously to keep alive" poor Tony Nicklinson, who's just had to undergo the humiliation (and perhaps pain) of starving himself to death because our UK laws wouldn't allow him a dignified medically-assisted exit. – FumbleFingers Aug 23 '12 at 17:14
  • "That is, "knew" is a past tense form, even though it can be either present subjunctive or past indicative." Then shouldn't it be "if he knew that I were home"? – user25366 Aug 26 '12 at 19:07
  • @Andrew: the present subjunctive is already dead, and without the present subjunctive to support it, the past 'were' subjunctive has no friends left to succor it, and will inevitably die. – Peter Shor Aug 26 '12 at 19:26
  • @PeterShor You mean it is dead with if/unless/until clauses, like in the old “tell death do us part”. It’s plenty alive in other sorts of clauses. – tchrist Aug 26 '12 at 23:21
3

Google Books has 3670 written instances of "if he knew I was here", but only 135 of "if he knew I were here".

As I expected, there are none at all for "...am here", which just sounds like a bad translation to me (though to be fair, there are actually two instances of if he knew I'm here).

Don't bother about "rules" of grammar and logic here - in the long run, it's what people actually say and write that defines "correct".

On the "logic" front, I'll just say I know of no absolute linguistic principle whereby transforming "You know that I am here" into "If he knew that I am here" is guaranteed to produce not only an acceptable form, but the only acceptable form. Anyway, it would be a lousy principle if it pronounced nearly everyone's usage as wrong.

The verb form agrees with knew - so ordinarily, we use the simple past was. A few people use the "subjunctive" were, because the entire conjecture is hypothetical (he doesn't know; the speaker is postulating what would happen if he were to know).

FumbleFingers
  • 140,184
  • 45
  • 294
  • 517
  • Nobody would say I am here - many would say I'm here, however, which is both colloquial and sound grammar. – StoneyB on hiatus Aug 23 '12 at 01:53
  • @StoneyB: You have a point (but I'm hardly on the ropes yet!) as there are actually two instances of "if he knew I'm here" – FumbleFingers Aug 23 '12 at 01:56
  • The precise problem is that I agree with you both! I think logically/grammatically it makes sense to say "I'm here" but it just sounds so wrong! Obviously the google search proves that point. I want to believe that we must be overlooking something and that so many people are not wrong. – Jerry Aug 23 '12 at 02:05
  • 1
    As for Google - who wrote those books? – StoneyB on hiatus Aug 23 '12 at 02:06
  • @Jerry Cut the "that", too, and it will be even cleaner . . . In forty or fifty years they may not be wrong, but right now they are. Let's keep it that way. Let's give our students, first- or second-language, access to the entire language and not just the trivial part. – StoneyB on hiatus Aug 23 '12 at 02:13
  • @Jerry: You are being bamboozled by pseudo-loogic. Have a look add my real logic of why people don't use what you think is the logical verb form. – FumbleFingers Aug 23 '12 at 02:25
  • @FumbleFingers I disagree with your "the entire conjecture is hypothetical" the hypothetical part is his "knowing" but the fact that I "am" home is factual. – Jerry Aug 23 '12 at 02:33
  • @Jerry: Does it not seem likely to you that with over 3800 written instances of what I call "valid" forms, against only two for "I'm" and none at all for "I am", there might be some flaw in your reasoning? Or are you just going to say everyone else is simply "wrong"? – FumbleFingers Aug 23 '12 at 02:38
  • Look at my reply to David's comment. Your conclusion may be correct but that does not entail that your reasoning is. Please look at my reply to David Wallace's response below. "Perhaps then there is a rule that in a conditional clause using the present subjunctive all verbs on the clause should follow the subjunctive form even if they are indicative?" – Jerry Aug 23 '12 at 02:41
  • Guys, you're looking at the wrong problem. What's happening is that ordinary analogy is pushing the 1p sgl subj towards identity with the 1p sgl past ind, just like every English verb except be. People aren't violating the rule - they're changing the form which the rule elicits. But the rule doesn't apply here, so folks is confoozled. – StoneyB on hiatus Aug 23 '12 at 02:48
  • @Jerry: That rule, if it were to exist, would be just another lousy rule - what's the good of a rule observed by barely 3% of all writers? (and probably even less speakers). Yes, "If I knew" is "subjunctive", and so can be matched to "[that] I were here". But the fact of the matter is, hardly anyone does this. You must learn and teach what people say, not what someone or some logic system says they should say. – FumbleFingers Aug 23 '12 at 02:51
  • 1
    Try this: "Bob thinks Linda's at Cathy's, so he won't call. If he knew that she's here, he would." > "Bob thinks I'm at Cathy's, so he won't call. If he knew that I'm here, he would." – StoneyB on hiatus Aug 23 '12 at 02:58
  • I'm not arguing how we should put the verb "to be" in the subjunctive, I'm arguing whether we should use the subjunctive. We can use the verb have instead.... If he knew I had a million dollars now, he would call. VS If he knew I have a million dollars, he would call. ... I think If he knew I had is correct however it bothers me because I actually DO have a million dollars in this case so logically the verb shouldn't be subjunctive. – Jerry Aug 23 '12 at 02:58
  • 1
    @Jerry OK: "Bob thinks Linda has leprosy, so he won't date her. If he knew that she has nymphomania he would." – StoneyB on hiatus Aug 23 '12 at 02:59
  • @StoneyB I agree with your logic but usage seems to disagree. – Jerry Aug 23 '12 at 03:04
  • @StoneyB: That would be a tricky one to prove conclusively using Google Books, but I think I can assure you the vast majority of native speakers would say "If he knew that she had* nymphomania he would"* (but I'm sure your version would be more common than "If he knew she were nymphomanic* he would"* :) – FumbleFingers Aug 23 '12 at 03:05
  • @FumbleFingers You may be right, BUT: if the sentence ran "If he knew she doesn't have leprosy, she __ nymphomania . . . " What would they say there? – StoneyB on hiatus Aug 23 '12 at 03:08
  • 1
    @Jerry And really it's not about teaching kids to speak English, is it? Their peers will do that. It's about teaching them what their peers don't know, how to read and write English (same thing at bottom, I'd say, but ...). If they read better and write better they'll think better and speak better, and maybe eventually end up Chief Justices instead of seasonal construction workers. – StoneyB on hiatus Aug 23 '12 at 03:12
  • @StoneyB I couldn't agree more. These specific cases in which the large majority of native speakers use the incorrect form are interesting. If I'm going to go against what most people would intuitively say (even other teachers probably) I want to be sure that what I am saying is correct. – Jerry Aug 23 '12 at 03:16
  • @Jerry Yah. And you want to be able to tell them the difference between colloquial usage and literary usage and help them understand that the difference is not one of good and bad but where and when. Long may you wave. You're in an heroic profession. – StoneyB on hiatus Aug 23 '12 at 03:19
  • Haha Thank you. I'll accept our conclusion for now but I'm going to keep my eye open for some examples like this in grammar books. – Jerry Aug 23 '12 at 03:25
  • 1
    Any thoughts on:
    1. If he was aware that I am home, he would call. (You must be home when saying this.)
    2. If he was aware that I was home, he would call. (You needn't be home when saying this.)

    link

     – Rachel Aug 23 '12 at 07:35
  • @Jerry: Given you say you're an ESL teacher, I really think you should reconsider your definition of "correct" English. That's a reasonably large sample from Google Books, showing that barely 1 in 2000 people use what you're pleased to call the "correct" form. You're entitled to have quirky ideas yourself, I guess, but you shouldn't teach other people such non-standard English. – FumbleFingers Aug 23 '12 at 12:00
  • "Correct" is always ambiguous: every language community has its own standards of correctness. Every speaker and writer has to ask In which communities do I want to participate? In which communities do I want to be regarded as an insider? In which communities am I willing to be regarded as an outsider, provided I can make myself understood? How many dialects I am willing to take the trouble to master? . . . My answer (and it's only mine) is that I'm perfectly willing to be not 1 in 2,000 but one of 200,000 in 400,000,000 - because it's the 200,000 I'm most concerned to communicate with. – StoneyB on hiatus Aug 23 '12 at 13:12
  • @StoneyB: All I can say is I'm glad I already speak English, and don't need to learn it from someone with that attitude. Do you tell your students before they enrol that you intend to teach them what you consider correct English, even though only 0.05% of native speakers might agree with you? – FumbleFingers Aug 23 '12 at 13:31
  • @FumbleFingers By no means! I don't have students now; but if I did I would be telling them You know how to talk to your peers. If you want to talk to 40-year-old senior executives you need to learn a different language. If you want to talk to 70-year-old Medicare recipients, that's another language. If you want to talk to researchers in medicine or sociology, that's a different language, too. And if you want to talk to scholars of mediaeval history or English literature you need to learn their language. What do you want to learn? If I don't know it, I know how to learn it alongside you. – StoneyB on hiatus Aug 23 '12 at 17:04
  • You get better results if you strip the leading part, and just try for things like knew she were, knew he were, knew it were, etc. Many hits that way. Particularly, we should live every day as conscientiously and as hohly [sic] as if we knew it were the last. The first attack of the Federal fleet that was made during the latter days of December, 1864, was confined entirely to Fort Fisher, they paying no attention to Battery Buchanan—indeed if they knew it were here is doubtful. No, she was not there, but he would see her here, if he were still here, if he knew she were here. &c&c&c – tchrist Aug 26 '12 at 23:35
2

Am, for the reason you give. Perhaps this will help you explain it:

Tell your class "I know X. Does he?"

There are three possible answers—either

  • he does know X or
  • he may know X or
  • he doesn't know X.

Accordingly:

  • (He doesn't know X, but) "If he did know X, he would call."
  • (He may not know X, but) "If he does know X, he will call."
  • (He does know X, and) "**Because he does know X, he will call."

The same X in every case.

Now, walk your class through it with X = [the name of somebody in the class].

Then do the same thing with X = "that I'm home".

Then substitute "knew" for "did know", and "knows" for "does know" - they probably have sorted those out already.

StoneyB on hiatus
  • 68,905
  • Oh. Perhaps I should change my answer text. It never occurred to me anyone would expect to see "am" here (it's neither here nor there whether it's here or home! :) – FumbleFingers Aug 23 '12 at 01:50
  • @FumbleFingers - Your text directed me to an error in my text, too, so we're both getting smarter. . . Me, if I said "I was home" either I'd follow it with "he would have called" or I'd transcribe it "If I wuz home". I'm snotty that way. – StoneyB on hiatus Aug 23 '12 at 01:56
  • Your logic may be impeccable, but it's too exhausting for me to follow right now. Pretty obviously very few writers (and even less speakers, imho) sign up to this logic. I think maybe because it's just too complicated. People don't have time to think that much when they're talking! – FumbleFingers Aug 23 '12 at 02:02
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers Well, my daddy the English perfessor allus tole me to think first, then talk. After 64 years it's a habit and I can skip the thinking part mostly. – StoneyB on hiatus Aug 23 '12 at 02:05
  • 3
    @FumbleFingers That's like arguing that I can't catch a ball because the trigonometry is too hard. However, like you, I can't believe that a native speaker would ever say "am" in this context. –  Aug 23 '12 at 02:08
  • @David Wallace: Well, in my first answer I ignored the "logic" issue and just went with the "Eat shit! - a million flies can't be wrong!" line. But even though I still haven't taxed my brain enough to follow Stoney's explanation of why the overwhelmingly more common usage is shit, I managed to see a perfectly logical explanation for what we *do* say/write (including the not-quite-dead-yet subjunctive! :) – FumbleFingers Aug 23 '12 at 02:32