Posted: Mar 13, 2019 3:27 am
scott1328 wrote:“If I were president, I would legalize it.”
The subjunctive form of the verb in your “type three” conditional statements use the third person plural form of the verb. It can also omit the “if” if the verb is placed first and subject second
“Were I president, I would legalize it.”
“Had I a million dollars, I would buy it.”
English has a second subjunctive form that is derived from the verb’s uninflected form. Whereas the form that derives from the past tense is used for counter factual statements, the form the derives from the infinitive form expresses a requirement, preference, or necessary condition of its subordinate clause. This form is also used in imperative statements.
“I prefer that it remain a secret”
“He was running, lest the policeman catch him”
“The law requires that be prosecuted only after indictment by grand jury”
note in these examples the uninflected verb with a singular subject.
You are entirely correct to point out the alternative form for counterfactual statements (If I was president/ If I were president)
The subjunctive is one of those things that is alive and well in other languages but seems to be an increasingly marginal item in English, confined to the most formal registers and mainly occurring in written rather than spoken language.
I've often wondered about the slow decline of various items in language. 'Whom' is another item that seems to be dying a slow death, and the 'whither away', 'whence came he' directional question words from up thread are also pretty much moribund now.
Pure speculation on my part, but I think that the preference in spoken, casual language for 'If I was...' may be due to the hearability of the 'z' at the end of 'was' as opposed to the much less hearable (especially for non-rhotic speakers) sounds of the word 'were'. (Usually pronounced 'wuh' or even just 'w'. )
There is another example from spoken English that I think may parallel this.
English is usually pretty rigorous about the singular/plural distinction. There is a dog/there are two dogs.
But, if you listen to spoken English, you will hear the singular form 'is' (reduced to /z/) used liberally with plural referents.
There's a dog. There's loads of dogs/There's a few dogs/ There's a lot of dogs and even 'There's two dogs.'
Even though the correct (!) form should be 'There are' for plurals, (There are a few dogs, There are a lot of dogs) in fast speech, this gets a bit tongue-twistery using the scwha sound. 'Thururuh few dogs.'
Using the singular version makes it more hearable and may be an example of language change happening before our eyes.
For a really good account of pronunciation changes in language, I'd recommend 'The Unfolding of Language' by Guy Deutcher.
https://www.amazon.com/Unfolding-Language-Evolutionary-Mankinds-Invention/dp/0805080120/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2R4NYILWM25J0&keywords=the+unfolding+of+language&qid=1552447374&s=books&sprefix=The+unfolding+of+%2Cstripbooks-intl-ship%2C381&sr=1-1