quote:
wager ... bet. I'd say they were true synonyms.

Is there any subtle difference in saying, "I'd say they are true synonyms"?

Just a guess:

1. I would say they were true synonyms.

2. I would say "They are true synonyms."

I would say "They are true synonyms."
I can say, "They are true synonyms."
I could say, "They are true synonyms."
I should say, "They are true synonyms."
I would say, "Good luck, Meshal."

EYE might say, "We must say, "They must have said ..... "

I'll wager all bets are off.

It's not a tense; it's a mood. The future subjunctive mood.
I'd say they are ... means simply are.
I'd say they were ... means If pressed and without prejudice, in my humble opinion, although I'm not 100% certain, they are ....

Yes, I agree with Arnie. Had he said, "I'd say they are true synonyms," I'd think he definitely thought them true synonyms. With, "I'd say they were true synonyms," I'd expect a "but" after that phrase, something like: "I'd say they were true synonyms were I a normal person, but in fact I'm a highly educated linguist and I know they're not."

BTW, are there really true synonyms? I wonder if there aren't always teeny, tiny subtle differences. Otherwise, why 2 words that mean exactly the same thing.

future subjunctive mood

Not sure, but I thought the future subjunctive took the infinitive, as in:

1. If I were to drink Budweiser I should turn into a pumpkin.

2. If I were to be nominated I would not run.

I think that "I'd say they were true synonyms" is just the past indicative. It doesn't seem optative, jussive, contrafactual, or tentative, to me.

3. If I were king, I'd get medieval on him.

Doesn't seem like the future to me and not the past.

4. If he be king, it'd be a disaster.

Hmm, interesting ...

quote:

Otherwise, why 2 words that mean exactly the same thing.

So that we can have lots of variety in our word choice?

"I'd say they were true synonyms." I vote for past subjunctive, present tense.

"I'd say they were true synonyms."

I vote for irrealis.

I've not heard of "irrealis" before, and I am having trouble understanding it. Here is what Wiktionary says about it: "irrealis (not comparable)
(grammar) Of a verb: inflected to indicate that an act or state of being is not a fact.
Although the only irrealis mood in English is the subjunctive mood, some other languages include additional irrealis moods, including cohortative, jussive, speculative, and optative."

Some linguists call "were" in "if I were" the irrealis instead of the subjunctive.

The reason is that it doesn't function like the subjunctive.

I demand that it be done.

"be" here is the subjunctive. You can put any verb in the subjunctive:

I demand that it cease.

But if you substitute "were" with another verb, the simple past form is used:

I wish I were in New York.
I wish I went to New York more often.

I know that lots of sources, including wikipedia, say that "went" here is the past subjunctive. But why invent a grammatical category where none exists? "went" is identical to the simple past. It doesn't have a past tense meaning, but grammatically it is the simple past.

Anyway that's the argument for saying that "if I were" is not the subjunctive.

I'll bet they are true synonyms

I'll....

I'd say they were true synonyms.
I'd say they are true synonyms.

There might be a difference of meaning between these two, but I don't think that the first is the subjunctive or the irrealis. It's the simple past tense. I can substitute another verb:

I'd say they behaved like true synonyms.
I'd say they behave like true synonyms.

I think the subtle difference in meaning here is the same as in the "were - was" sentences.

quote:

Some linguists call "were" in "if I were" the irrealis instead of the subjunctive.

I always find it difficult to know when to use "were" in sentences using "if" (as in "If I were") or "whether" (as in "whether I were"). Sometimes I think I should use "were," but it sounds better with "was." Is there an easy way to remember?

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:

quote:

Some linguists call "were" in "if I were" the irrealis instead of the subjunctive.

I always find it difficult to know when to use "were" in sentences using "if" (as in "If I were") or "whether" (as in "whether I were"). Sometimes I think I should use "were," but it sounds better with "was." Is there an easy way to remember?

I don't think that there is a difference. "If I were" and "if I was" are synonymous. Some people say there is a difference, "were" is for contrary-to-fact statements, and "was" is for factual statements.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/50/I0025000.html

But for me they're the same. As Zwicky says in the irrealis link I mentioned initially:

"The Cambridge Grammar calls the "were" form the irrealis form. It is surviving robustly in expressions like "if I were you", but even there it has a universally accepted alternate "if I was you", and there is no semantic distinction there to preserve."

"If I was you" sounds ungrammatical to me...like, "I ain't going to go."

Really, it makes no difference?

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
"If I was you" sounds ungrammatical to me...like, "I ain't going to go."

Really, it makes no difference?

They're synonymous for me, but I'm not saying they're synonymous for you! I guess that for you, the traditional distinction still applies, at least in some cases.

...and now that I think about it, I think I might be more likely to say "if I were you" than "if I was you". But in all other cases I can think of, I'd say "if I was".

Maybe we should ask Zwicky!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

I agree with Kelleh.

"If I was you" seems to imply to me that I might have been you - which is impossible.

"If I were you" suggests a course of action that I might take had I been you, and does not imply that I might have even been you.

It's a nice distinction but one I would be reluctant to lose.

Although I would be more likely to say "If I were you", I don't make a semantic distinction between that and "if I was you". I don't agree or disagree with either of you, since this seems to be a dialect difference.

I agree with Richard. When I say, "If I was you", I typically follow it with "I would have done X". When I say, "If I were you", I follow it with "I would do X". Still it is clear from the following statement whether we are in the past tense or not.

I don't think I have ever, apart from in jocular imitation of someone else, said "if I was you".
The distinction I'd make is between "if I were you" (which I'd use most of the time) and "if I'd been you" (which I'd use in some of the circumstances where "was you" is being suggested.)

quote:

Maybe we should ask Zwicky!

I'd love to. Does he have contact information there?

I wonder if this is one of those prescriptivist/descriptivist discussions.

I said Zwicky, but actually it was Pullum who wrote the bit I'm referring to. He makes the comment in this post.http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001148.html

There is a prescriptivist rule for distuinguishing "was" and "were" in this case.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/50/I0025000.html

quote:

In conditional sentences the clause introduced by if may contain either a past subjunctive verb (if I were going) or an indicative verb (if I am going; if I was going), depending on the intended meaning. According to the traditional rule, the subjunctive should be used to describe an occurrence that is presupposed to be contrary to fact, as in if I were ten years younger or if Napoleon had won at Waterloo. ... When the situation described by the if clause is not presupposed to be false, however, that clause must contain an indicative verb, and the choice of verb in the main clause will depend on the intended meaning: If Hamlet was really written by Marlowe, as many have argued, then we have underestimated Marlowe's genius.

Pullum says that this distinction is lost. However, a number of people here still claim to have the distinction - or if not exactly the distinction described above, some of you people do make some sort of semantic distinction. Other people commenting on the Language Log link above say the same thing. As a descriptivist, I'm not going to tell you guys that you're wrong!

Pullum's email is here http://people.ucsc.edu/~pullum/

Gooofy, you're new to this site, but we've been talking about the prescriptivist/descriptivist differences for quite awhile here. I consider myself, generally, to be a descriptivist now...after lots of discussion here. I can understand that language evolves.

However, while it's not black and white, aren't there a few rules? Like...using a period a the end of the sentence and not just rambling on? I will write Geoffrey to see what he has to say, though I suspect he won't answer me. I just am not that important!

aren't there a few rules?

There are quite a few rules. Language is, after all, rule-based. The main difference between the prescriptivists and the descriptivists is that the former write about language as (they feel) it ought to be, and the latter describe it as it is.

quote:

Originally posted by zmjezhd:
aren't there a few rules?

There are quite a few rules. Language is, after all, rule-based. The main difference between the prescriptivists and the descriptivists is that the former write about language as (they feel) it ought to be, and the latter describe it as it is.

And the precriptivists try to contain the best aesthetic values of language as they perceive it, whereas descriptivists perpetuate both the good and the bad —as they are— at any point in time. The main fallacy is the attempt to separate two camps that in fact overlap. Common usage slowly sees the abandonment of some of the uglier words, phrases and grammatical solecisms, but not all.

At its best, prescriptivism describes and promotes a prestige dialect. I don't have a problem with this, since all English speakers benefit from knowing standard English.

But many prescriptivists use their own opinions and taste in prescribing rules, instead of looking at the facts. There will always be ambiguity and other "undesirable" things about language - language is imperfect and rough around the edges. Some prescriptivists are inconsistent - they single out some things they don't like and ignore others. I guess they have to be, since they can't deal with everything.

I hope no one minds me coming into this discussion late!

quote:

I wonder if this is one of those prescriptivist/descriptivist discussions.

I don't think that it is. I think its a difference of what is considered gramatically acceptable in the U.S., vs. what is considered acceptable in the U.K. We had a very similar go-around recently on the OEDILF, and it came down to many from British Commonwealth nations saying it was acceptable to say "I wish I was," and everyone from America saying you must say "I wish I were" to be grammatical. There also seemed to be an element of class distinction in the U.K. version.

The irrealis discussion is "too many" for me--I'll need to study linguistics more before I can follow it.

BTW, this past weekend, as part of our class reunion activities, some of us went to a racetrack where we placed several bets which were also wagers and several wagers which were also bets. "Race 10, $2 to show on horse #4." We even won some of the betwagers/wagerbets!

Wordmatic

quote:

And the precriptivists try to contain the best aesthetic values of language as they perceive it, whereas descriptivists perpetuate both the good and the bad —as they are— at any point in time. The main fallacy is the attempt to separate two camps that in fact overlap. Common usage slowly sees the abandonment of some of the uglier words, phrases and grammatical solecisms, but not all.

But, Pearce, and with all due respect, who's to say what is "good" and what is "bad?" Have you ever used Word and had it change your "which" to "that" or vice versa? That happened to me just today...my "which" sounded better, damn it! You see, the prescriptivists sometimes get all holier than thou about what is "right" and what is "wrong." Oftentimes, the style guides don't even support them, but never mind. I'm not saying people on Wordcraft are that way, but I have seen it elsewhere. I have also found that those prescriptivists are often rather ignorant about language and uses of words. They just like using their rules in order to put people down.

Wordmatic, the English posters here seemed to agree that "I wish I were" was always used, as opposed to "I wish I was." I didn't think it a UK/US difference, but I didn't see the post on OEDILF. Sometimes I find people over there, in order to argue for their limerick, make an excuse that their culture uses that verbiage or stresses the word differently or pronounces the word differently...in all cases making the limerick work for them.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

I see no problem with the usage "I wish I was". For a minute, I thought the lyrics were "I wish I was an Oscar Mayer weiner", but that is obviously wrong. I am really unable to distinguish between the two in normal usage. Similarly, I use "If I was you" all the time, although I doubt I would write it, it seems idiomatic.

The OEDILF thread was started by a young British school teacher who'd grown up "working class" (an expression I've never understood, because if we have jobs, aren't we all "working class?") who felt the use of the subjunctive was something that upperclass twits used to lord over those from less wealthy backgrounds. It got pretty heated. Several others from BC nations agreed with him that it would be grammatically correct to say "I wish I was you," though they disagreed as to whether it meant the same thing as "I wish I were you."

Richard was there too--and I may be reporting this conversation inaccurately. It's been awhile since I've read it and I really have no desire to go back and review it!

WM

quote:

Originally posted by Seanahan:
I see no problem with the usage "I wish I was". For a minute, I thought the lyrics were "I wish I was an Oscar Mayer weiner", but that is obviously wrong. I am really unable to distinguish between the two in normal usage. Similarly, I use "If I was you" all the time, although I doubt I would write it, it seems idiomatic.

The lyrics are "I wish I was an Oscar Mayer weiner," but I thought the ad writers were just being "cute," because the words are sung by kids. I never say "If I was you," and if I was you, I still wouldn't say it! I'm afraid as an aging English major I may be one of those prescriptivists, though I am prepared to admit that different usages are correct in different places and cultures.

Kalleh re your point about MSWord grammar check being prescriptivist: I often find that MS Word "corrects" something that is perfectly acceptable grammar, so I generally ignore it. I would go on your own instincts for which/that, etc.

Wordmatic

Wordmatic,

Your British schoolteacher may have grown up working class, but by becoming a teacher he 'bettered himself' and moved 'up' to the middle classes.

As a teacher he should use, and encourage his pupils to use, 'Standard English', not a dialect. To look at things solely from a pragmatic point of view, there are many people who feel that the use of dialect English is 'wrong' and betrays some sort of lack of intelligence. These same people can often be in a position to affect a person's life; for instance in a job interview or college application.

It is for similar reasons that I ensure that I don't split infinitives or start sentences with conjunctions in my formal writing, particularly at work. I don't want someone to feel that I am 'ignorant' and don't know the 'rules'. Prescriptivists still rule, alas, in many areas.

quote:

It is for similar reasons that I ensure that I don't split infinitives or start sentences with conjunctions in my formal writing, particularly at work.

I do it all the time - but then I have no boss except my customers.

quote:

The lyrics are "I wish I was an Oscar Mayer weiner," but I thought the ad writers were just being "cute," because the words are sung by kids.

Are you sure about that? Wikipedia says it was "I was I were", and ghits don't settle anything.

Well you are right! Of course, I wouldn't take from any ghit, and I remembered it as "was," but the Oscar Mayer web sitesays "were." I'm wondering if it originally was "was," and there were complaints that it was not grammatical, because I distinctly remember the original, many years ago, singing "was," and sort of cringing.

Several decades ago, Winston cigarettes were advertised with the line, "Winston Tastes Good, like a ciagarette should." There were numerous complaints about that one, but they never changed the slogan.

Wordmatic

quote:

Several decades ago, Winston cigarettes were advertised with the line, "Winston Tastes Good, like a ciagarette should." There were numerous complaints about that one, but they never changed the slogan.

Would people have preferred "tastes well"?
Or maybe "tastes deliciously"??

Should've been, "Winston tastes good, as a cigarette should!"

Of course, nowadays, cigarettes are not supposed to taste anything but bad!

quote:

Originally posted by wordmatic:
Should've been, "Winston tastes good, as a cigarette should!"

oh, as.

like has been used as a conjunction for hundreds of years. It seems so random to pick on this usage.

It's a good thing I don't have to worry about this sort of thing in my writing; I'd be awful at it.

quote:

It is for similar reasons that I ensure that I don't split infinitives or start sentences with conjunctions in my formal writing, particularly at work. I don't want someone to feel that I am 'ignorant' and don't know the 'rules'. Prescriptivists still rule, alas, in many areas.

I think that is a really good point, Arnie. And, yet, sometimes I feel that the most anal prescriptivists are themselves just ignorant. I think the problem is knowing where that line is.

Sean, the original question wasn't about "I wish I were," it was "If I were you." While "I wish I was" could sound halfway okay to me (I think about the Oscar Weiner song too; I think it originally was "I wish I was"), I haven't heard many people say, "If I was you." Others here have said the same thing (not considering the OEDILF discussion which I haven't seen and don't intend to look at). I think the 2 phrases are different.

I think I am just a sensitive soul, Kalleh. I don't like the idea that I might have upset someone, even a prescriptivist.

I've mentioned before that I work for Ofsted, the government inspection body for schools in England. I am in daily contact with headteachers and senior educationalists and wouldn't like any of them to think "They are telling us how to teach kids and yet they employ someone who splits infinitives."

I won't discuss whether a modern teacher would recognise a split infinitive if it bit him/her on the nose; that's a whole other can of worms.

I may be rather anal about this, and am probably over-reacting, but that's how I feel.

Now, Arnie. I wasn't referring to you in that post. I could never think of you as an "anal prescriptivist" (well...maybe when it comes to "moot point" ). As I had said further above: "I'm not saying people on Wordcraft are that way, but I have seen it elsewhere." My definition of an anal prescriptivist is someone who sees language purely like mathematics; that is, each sentence has a way it must be written; it's black or white. You absolutely must never end a sentence with a preposition, for example, or it is dead wrong. Those people, I've found (NOT YOU!), are really not all that bright. They treat writing like a rote system and show no creativity with using language. I have seen quite a few people like that, even some editors.

[Purely off subject: I used "those people" above. Once I was writing about people with disabilities, and I had said, "These people...". My document was being reviewed by a woman who led a disabilities group. She let me know, albeit sweetly, that the use of "these people" in that context was highly inappropriate. I was embarrassed!]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

I didn't really think you were, Kalleh. I was saying I was being rather anal in following the rules, not through conviction, but so that I don't upset the truly anal prescriptivists.

arnie, I supppose that makes you a "neo-perscriptivist."

When Kalleh sees that word, doubtless we will have a new double dactyl.

Hic, this one is yours. You are definitely our in-house limerick/DD specialist. Besides, I've already written one on "anal prescriptivists"...which, BTW, I rather like.

Speaking of prescriptivism, I found this interesting article on Nathan Bierma's blog.