I'm mostly finished with Elantris and I have noticed a technique/style/habit of Sanderson that I find very curious.
There are a lot of sentences phrased like the following: "It was as if he were meant to fail from the onset."
And for some reason in my mind I automatically correct this sentence to be phrased: "It was as if he was meant to fail from the onset.
But Sanderson does this a lot, dozens and dozens of sentences. So many than no editor could miss them all, which makes me conclude that, logically, they are correct.
Are both of these correct, what's the deal here? Why would someone use "were" for a single subject when "was" is designed to do the job?
Posted by annepin (Member # 5952) on :
"Were" used to be the correct form to indicate the subjunctive mood--expressing wishes, desires, conditions, thoughts contrary to fact. "He barked as if he were a dog."
However, I've noticed increasingly people use "was" for this situation.
Funnily enough, I'm always tempted to do the reverse as you--to fix all the conditionals to what I consider the correct form.
[This message has been edited by annepin (edited April 30, 2008).]
Posted by Doctor (Member # 7736) on :
Interesting. So, since most readers won' notice or won't care, that leads me to ask what are the positions/opinions of publishers, agents, and editors on this one?
Posted by annepin (Member # 5952) on :
It's become acceptable now to use "was" instead of "were" for the subjunctive mood.
Posted by Wolfe_boy (Member # 5456) on :
I almost gagged when I tried to pronounce subjunctive, and I think my brain might melt if I had to think about what that is and its specific uses too much.
Jayson Merryfield
[/goes off to find another less mentally demanding thread]
Posted by smncameron (Member # 7392) on :
Were sounds right to me. I would 'though' instead of 'if' though.
Posted by KayTi (Member # 5137) on :
I choke when I read the subjunctive done incorrectly. I'm not grammar girl, as anyone who's received a crit from me knows, but this is just one of those things that BUGS me when it's wrong. It's as if I were the only one on earth who cares. But if you were going to care about a grammar rule, I'd encourage this one.
A handy mnemonic for this is that song from Fiddler on the Roof - "If I Were a Rich Man" (ba-dah-de-da-dum-dah-de-da-dum-da-de-da-dum-da-doh.) Once you get that stuck in your head, you can't forget!
Posted by Toby Western (Member # 7841) on :
There's a nice line in “The History Boys” where Bennett takes a break from portraying the English public school system as a hotbed of homosexual shenanigans and has the fruity old General Studies teacher describe the subjunctive as “the tense of possibility“ .
My own instinct is to use it, unless I'm consciously trying for a more colloquial tone. Even then, I always feel recklessly modern and daring when I write “He wished he was...” rather than “He wished he were...”
Posted by InarticulateBabbler (Member # 4849) on :
I'm guilty of passing the old subjunctive "were" to the "was" mostly because my grammar check tags it every time, and I find it easier than just ignoring every use. I keep telling myself "When I'm a bestselling pro, I'll use commas, subjunctives, and italics the way I was taught--the way I feel is right." Just look at most of the other bestsellers, it's a license to write the way they want. Posted by Doctor (Member # 7736) on :
But what I'm concerned about is an agent looking it over and deciding to chuck the manuscript because the writer is a NOOB. So, I'm curious which style they tend to prefer.
Posted by annepin (Member # 5952) on :
I think that might depend on the editor, Doctor. If you are unsure, I'd stick with the old school "were". Any editor worth his or her salt will know that was once the proper way, even if he or she prefers "was".
Edited to add: I think I've seen "was" in enough books that you wouldn't be marked as a noob even if you used it.
[This message has been edited by annepin (edited May 01, 2008).]
Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :
Well, in my WotF story, I had a native German speaker say "was" when she should have said "were," and the editor asked about it. I said I wanted to keep it in to show that she didn't know English all that well, so it stayed. I sort of wish I'd let the editor change it to the correct usage, even though it was dialog.
I'd recommend that you use correct usage in narration, whether your characters speak correctly or not. If you don't use the correct word, the editor is going to wonder if you really know what you're doing.
Same goes for using whom correctly and so on. (My pet peeve is when someone says "I am nauseous"--meaning sickening--when they actually mean "I am nauseated"--meaning sickened.)
Posted by annepin (Member # 5952) on :
Yes, that one irks me. Also the confusion surrounding "healthful" and "healthy".
Posted by Doctor (Member # 7736) on :
That's a good idea, I'll use it. Even though I'll have to make an effort to get into the habit. Thanks everyone!
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
I figure anything goes in dialog, or first person singular. But it's tricky to pull off. A couple pages back in one of my latest, I found myself writing a few stretches of dialog for a character born and raised in Haiti. Now how do I pull that off without (1) making the character look like an idiot, and (2) making myself look like a bigot? (Answer, heavy revision, finding a couple of phrases I like and working them up right, and more to come in the next draft, till I get it right. Plus some listening to some guys I knew who are from Haiti, too...)
Posted by wetwilly (Member # 1818) on :
An English teacher ringing in here..."were" is correct in this case. It is definitely common and very accepted in speech to use "was" instead, but the grammar rule is still that "were" is correct. In written English (a completely different animal than spoken English), using "was" in the subjunctive case is incorrect.
Subjunctive case means it is a sentence that is contrary to fact. For example, "He wished he were anywhere but there." The fact is he actually was there, but the sentence makes a statement that is contrary to fact (he is somewhere else), so it is subjunctive case. In subjunctive case, use the plural verb "were" instead of the singular "was."
Why? Beats me, but that's how it is.
Posted by Doctor (Member # 7736) on :
Thanks everyone, I appreciate it. And wetwilly, you just might find more grammar quesions from me coming down the line.
Posted by AstroStewart (Member # 2597) on :
Why is it that in English, "was" vs. "were" is the only verb we change based on subjunctive tense? For the longest time I had no clue why it is correct to say "I wish I were going with you" instead of "was" because it's the only verb that changes based on subjunctive tense. It wasn't until learning to speak Spanish in high school that I finally learned about subjunctive in a way I understood, because in Spanish: a) The subjunctive form of most verbs does not happen to be identical to the past tense form, so there is not that confusion. It's a completely separate conjugation. b) A lot of verbs have subjunctive form, not just "to be". For example, if you were to say "I wish I drove here" in Spanish you would use a subjunctive form of "to drive" which would be different from the sentence "I drove here."
Anyway, just a long way of saying, I wonder why English only has the 1 verb that has a subjunctive (at least that I can think of, are there any more?) Why not either allow a subjunctive tense for everything or just ditch it all together?
Posted by wetwilly (Member # 1818) on :
That's easy, AstroStewart...it's because English is the most messed-up, random, nonsensical hodgepodge of sounds and rules on the entire planet.
I blame it all on the 18th century grammarians. <shakes fist> Don't get me started on THOSE guys.
Oh, sometimes my nerdiness really hurts my soul.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Put the blame much further back. After the Romans left, Britain was successively invaded or colonized (take your pick) by different groups who spoke different languages...then became a bunch of different independent-from-each-other-usually kingdoms, each of which wound up speaking its own dialect...then when they got together, virtually all of the words of each dialect, and the rules of pronounciation and sentence structure and spelling were absorbed into what became English...then there was further layering on of Norman French...which is why there are so many words in modern-day English for the same thing.
English never got cleaned up because the notion of, say, appointing an official academic body to decide just what is and isn't good English (as the French do with French), offended too many English-speaking peoples' notions of freedom and human dignity.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
A little Google-browsing, and a look through my old Websters dictionary..."was" seems to derive from Danish, presumably the part of England known as the Danelaw...but I was unable to trace "were" any further than old English.
Anybody got access to a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary? It's not online-for-free, or at least I can't locate it. There's likely a correct and thorough exploration of the topic under both words...
Posted by wetwilly (Member # 1818) on :
yeah, the OED isn't anywhere for free. It costs a bunch of money no matter how you access it.
One of my dreams is to one day own a leatherbound set. This will go in my big library in my house with the ladder that goes around the shelves on the outside walls.
Teaching English and writing Sci-Fi is bound to make me rich enough. Right?
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
I'd'a settled for the one-volume OED with the magnifying glass...it might've been a hard squint but I'd've had a lotta solid information about words on hand...
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
From a site that will remain nameless---even though there's an ad for it on this page:
Pricey however you slice it. Might be worth it, but I've bought too many pricier items this half of the year already.
Posted by Doctor (Member # 7736) on :
bit torrent OED ... $0.00 not that I would ever go for such a thing, but, you know, while we're on the subject...
Posted by Chaldea (Member # 4707) on :
Ya'll piqued my curiosity, so I went to my "Modern English Usage." It's set up like a dictionary and the words are alphabetical (unlike thesaurases--thesauresi? lol), but tells you how to use words, not just meaning or spelling.
I looked up "were" and here's 3 examples: If I were you... Were he alive... It were futile... but I think this needs an "If" at the beginning.
The trick I use is to be aware of "if" in a sentence. Lots of times ifs occur in the subjunctive.
My English usage book also has a large section on subjunctives. If anyone's interested you might check it out, published by those Oxford people and I don't think it's that expensive. Anyway, I bought mine at a used book sale, though it might have been in the "free" cart at the Friends of the Library store.
To me, using was instead of were sounds like fingernails on the chalkboard. Maybe my nerd side is showing, or else I got the old ruler cracked over my knuckles one too many times!
Posted by oliverhouse (Member # 3432) on :
Not that anyone cares, but technically it's the subjunctive mood, not tense (etc.). Same with the imperative mood. I don't know why, or what "mood" actually means in this context (it's also called "mode", I guess), but there it is.
Now go impress someone at a cocktail party. Or not.
Regards, Oliver
Posted by TaleSpinner (Member # 5638) on :
My Concise OED (Eleventh Edition), which I bought for a few bucks in Staples, talks of the "subjunctive form" of a verb, as distinct from the "indicative form". It's used for what's imagined, wished or possible.
My Concise OED observes that "subjunctive form tends to convey a more formal tone, but there are few people who would regard its absence as actually wrong."
If I were an editor, I'd wish its use wherever imaginably possible.
