Wasn't or weren't?

Karen Duvall · Jul 6, 2008

I often get confused when to use was or were and wasn't or weren't. So please tell me which sentence is correct:

Over-exposure for long periods of time to what my naked senses could hear, see and smell would drive me insane if I wasn't careful.

Over-exposure for long periods of time to what my naked senses could hear, see and smell would drive me insane if I weren't careful.

Thanks!

blacbird · Jul 6, 2008

You'll see both, and generally, either is considered acceptable today. "Were" in a conditional clause of this sort, is the older proper subjunctive case, but in the modern evolution of the language, the standard present "was" has risen to general use.

Some uses of subjunctive, which are fast disappearing altogether from the language, sound very archaic to our ears today. Such as "If you be the person correcting my grammar . . ."

caw

Karen Duvall · Jul 6, 2008

Thanks, caw. It always bugs me when certain grammar rules are "modernized" and I'm not sure what to do. Good to know it could go either way. Much appreciated!

June Casagrande · Jul 6, 2008

I'm not sure your example is actually subjunctive. The subjunctive is mainly for "statements contrary to fact."

Think: "If you were taller." You're not taller. So that's subjunctive.

But, "If I was right," entertains the real possibility that I may have been right. So it's "was."

Your example is a tricky case, but it sounds like you're describing a scenario in which it was quite possible to NOT be careful. If I'm getting that right, this is not subjunctive. Therefore, your correct choice is "wasn't."

Here's a little primer on the subjunctive I posted a while back. http://grammarsnobs.com/subjunctive. The shorthand version: If you're weighing a real possibility, it's "was." If you're talking about something that cannot be true, it's "were."

As blacbird pointed out, rules for subjunctive are getting a lot more breakable. But it's good to know 'em when you're breaking 'em.

Kalyke · Jul 6, 2008

It's a contraction, not subjunctive mood. "...if I was not careful."
not "If I were not careful."

"It would be such-and such, if I was not careful"

I assume this individual is some sort of demon or vampire because the sentence does not make sense for a human being. Our "naked" senses are on 100% of the time, except I guess when we sleep, and even then, we can hear. Even a dog who can hear and smell 100 times better than a human does not go insane with those more powerful senses. (Don't listen to me, I guess).

blacbird · Jul 6, 2008

Use Her Name said:
The contraction actually doesn't matter, but you may be right with the construction of it. I missed that nuance, through inattentive reading.

I hope I've thoroughly confused everyone now. Regards,

caw

maestrowork · Jul 6, 2008

Either is fine with me. To me, it's not really subjunctive.

An editor may suggest otherwise.

Robert Farley · Jul 7, 2008

Analysis:

Example: If I were you (which I'm not).

Comparison: ...if I weren't careful (I'm not "not careful").

What convolutes this for me is the double negative involved in solving the contrariness of the statement.

I would say it is subjunctive.

I also agree that in "modern" usage (translated incorrect and lazy), you can say it any way you want. Whether it's deemed proper or not will depend on your editor's choice.

Here's what dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjunctive said about it:

—Usage note The subjunctive mood of the verb, once used extensively in English, has largely disappeared today. The subjunctive survives, though by no means consistently, in sentences with conditional clauses contrary to fact and in subordinate clauses after verbs like wish: If the house were nearer to the road, we would hear more traffic noise. I wish I were in Florida. The subjunctive also occurs in subordinate that clauses after a main clause expressing recommendation, resolution, demand, etc.: We ask that each tenant take (not takes) responsibility for keeping the front door locked. It is important that only fresh spinach be (not is) used. The subjunctive occurs too in some established or idiomatic expressions: So be it. Heaven help us. God rest ye merry, gentlemen. Were in the phrase as it were, meaning “in a way,” is a subjunctive: His apology, as it were, sounded more like an insult.

Robert<><>

pointman · Jul 8, 2008

It depends whether you mean the person consider himself to be careful as a character trait or whether he should have been careful in the instances where over-exposure is possible. For the former, use weren't. For the latter, wasn't.

ideagirl · Jul 9, 2008

Karen Duvall said:
I often get confused when to use was or were and wasn't or weren't. So please tell me which sentence is correct:

Over-exposure for long periods of time to what my naked senses could hear, see and smell would drive me insane if I wasn't careful.

Over-exposure for long periods of time to what my naked senses could hear, see and smell would drive me insane if I weren't careful.

"Weren't," because from that sentence, it sounds like the speaker is careful--so what he or she is describing here is not true: it's a condition contrary to fact. So the subjunctive link posted here earlier makes it clear that "weren't" is what you want:
http://grammarsnobs.com/subjunctive
Conditions contrary to fact: if I WERE NOT careful (which I am), then X would drive me insane.

Of course it's possible for the speaker to not be careful, but that doesn't matter--that's not the distinction that divides subjunctive from not-subjunctive. (Look at that link: suppositions represent things that are possible, but they're still in the subjunctive--"If I were to go, I'd be late").

alleycat · Jul 9, 2008

I don't think that's subjunctive either. It's not implying that you're not careful, merely stating what would happen if you . . . weren't. ;-)

ideagirl · Jul 10, 2008

alleycat said:
I don't think that's subjunctive either. It's not implying that you're not careful, merely stating what would happen if you . . . weren't. ;-)

Yep... but to do that--to express what would happen if X were true--you use the subjunctive. That's what the subjunctive grammar pages are talking about, among other things, when they refer to 'conditions contrary to fact' or 'suppositions.'

veronie · Jul 11, 2008

June Casagrande said:
I'm not sure your example is actually subjunctive. The subjunctive is mainly for "statements contrary to fact."

Think: "If you were taller." You're not taller. So that's subjunctive.

But, "If I was right," entertains the real possibility that I may have been right. So it's "was."

Your example is a tricky case, but it sounds like you're describing a scenario in which it was quite possible to NOT be careful. If I'm getting that right, this is not subjunctive. Therefore, your correct choice is "wasn't."

Here's a little primer on the subjunctive I posted a while back. http://grammarsnobs.com/subjunctive. The shorthand version: If you're weighing a real possibility, it's "was." If you're talking about something that cannot be true, it's "were."

As blacbird pointed out, rules for subjunctive are getting a lot more breakable. But it's good to know 'em when you're breaking 'em.

I need some education. I thought subjunctive was "contrary to fact" in the sense that it is in the realm of possibility, but not currently fact. (But, I learned subjunctive in Greek before I learned it in English, so I may be confused.)

ideagirl · Jul 12, 2008

veronie said:
I need some education. I thought subjunctive was "contrary to fact" in the sense that it is in the realm of possibility, but not currently fact. (But, I learned subjunctive in Greek before I learned it in English, so I may be confused.)

"Contrary to fact" is one situation where you'd use the subjunctive, but not the only situation. Did you click on that link that was provided a couple of times upthread?

Dawnstorm · Jul 12, 2008

The point of confusion comes with past tense, I think.

Conditional 1:

If I am not careful, I will go insane.

Conditional 2:

If I was/were not careful, I would go insane.

These forms are based on a moment-of-speaking default. In past-tense narrative they transform:

Conditional 1:

If I wasn't (NOT:weren't) careful, I would go insane.

Conditional 2:

If I hadn't been careful, I'd have gone insane.

Basically, in past tense narration, conditional 2 transforms into conditional 3, because the situations over and done with. But conditional 1 does not transform into conditional 2, because both c1 and c2 are present tense; the "wasn't" in the past tense narration c1 isn't the subjunctive form of the c2, but the past tense of the verb in c1.

Summary:

1. If I were...

Subjunctive. Formally obvious.

2. If I was...

2.a) If "was" refers to the moment of speaking: subjunctive
2.b) If "was" refers to the past: past tense.

Initially, I disagreed with June; I tried to post, but none of my arguments made sense to me. Heh. I think it's tense and that the subjunctive looks like past tense but refers to the present that causes the problem. (Note that whether subjunctive mood and tense can co-occur in a verb is a question of theory. It's not logically mutaully exclusive. So under some theories 2b might be both subjunctive and past tense, but the "was"-form definitely carries the past tense information. Doesn't sound plausible to me, but then not all theories sound plausible to me. Anyway, that's beyond the scope of this thread, I think.)

Wasn't or weren't?

Karen Duvall

Chalice the Hatchet Knight

blacbird

Karen Duvall

Chalice the Hatchet Knight

June Casagrande

Kalyke

blacbird

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray

Robert Farley

pointman

ideagirl

alleycat

Still around

ideagirl

veronie

practical experience, FTW

ideagirl

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here