0

I am wondering which is grammatically correct out of 'If there were more time' and 'If there was more time' or, if both are correct, whether one is preferred?

I believe it ought to be 'were' as the clause is in the subjunctive mood, however 'was' sounds significantly more correct to me (as a native English speaker from England). So which is it?

Searching an exact match in Google for each gives 4 million results for 'were' and 10 million results for 'was', though Google searches are not the basis for proper grammar.

While other questions cover 'If there were' vs 'If there was', this example seems to be a special case for me and I am interested in the choice specifically in the construction relating to 'time'.

Jasper
  • 24,268
  • 4
  • 54
  • 86
Alex W
  • 111
  • 1
  • 4

3 Answers3

0

This is a bit of a complicated issue -- the English subjunctive is in a bit of a grey area in common usage, as it's been in the process of disappearing for quite a long time and is used differently in different dialects and registers. I suggest reading through this answer on English Language & Usage, which gives the topic a much more thorough treatment than I could give it here. The short version is that both are correct and which is more appropriate depends on the context as well as the speaker's personal preferences.

Sparksbet
  • 1,118
  • 7
  • 11
  • I cannot upvote your response as I lack the reputation. The link and information you gave were helpful. The other answer is more in-depth, however. When I attain the privileges I'll upvote you both. – Alex W Aug 13 '18 at 22:19
0

Please see the accepted answer in the duplicate target.

In short, both are perfectly fine, with some difference in style. In Present-day English, the preterit – e.g., did, stood, took, played – can be used to denote modal remoteness, and this has extended over to was as well.

However, there's a single vestigial form of be (were) for a 1st/3rd person singular subject which is used to indicate modal remoteness. There are no other such forms. Assuming you're talking about a non-factual/unreal situation, if there were/was more time means "if I had more time".

(Apologies for having no imagination in the examples below.)

Here are a couple of examples that try and clarify what's meant by real and unreal situations using the sentence in the question:

Unreal situation in the present:

Kim is working hard on their project, which they need to finish before the clock strikes noon. Kim glances at the clock, which shows 11.55 a.m.

Kim: "If there were / was more time, I'd be able to complete the project." (=but there isn't any time left)

Unreal situation in the past:

Pat: "Why did you get a B on your exam?"

Kim: "If there had been / were / was more time, I would've aced it." (=but there wasn't enough time)

Real situation in the present:

Pat enters the room and spots Kim and Bran playing games on Kim's PlayStation.

Pat: "Have you finished your project?"

Kim: "Nope."

Pat: "Wait, when's the deadline?"

Bran: "We've got until noon, I think."

Pat: "Have you given up? If there is / were / was more time, why aren't you working on it?" (=there's still more time)

Real situation in the past:

Kim: "We didn't manage to finish the project."

Pat: "Oh, when did you get home?"

Kim: "I don't know. Three maybe?"

Pat: "And when was the deadline?"

Kim: "At six."

Pat: "If there were / was more time, why didn't you finish the project?" (=there was more time)

  • I cannot upvote your response as I lack the reputation, but the dissecting of the cases is very clear. I'm not sure what modal remoteness is, however, nor a vestigial form. – Alex W Aug 13 '18 at 22:21
  • @AlexW Don't worry about upvotes. Simplified, a vestigial form is the only surviving form of something larger (an entire system of forms in this case). Modal remoteness relates to modal, rather than temporal (time-related) meaning some verb form may express. Compare the words in bold in the following: 1) If you had* enough money, we'd buy a car* 2) I had* a dog* – note that they're both preterits, but only what's expressed in sentence 2 is situated in the past. Situation 1 is in the present, with had signaling modal remoteness (in this case counterfactuality) instead! –  Aug 14 '18 at 00:11
  • That makes sense to me! I had assumed vestigial form was a specifically linguistic term I hadn't heard of but it appears to be a more general concept. – Alex W Aug 14 '18 at 00:18
-4

Firstly the clause is not in the subjunctive mood, actually it is a conditional tense (IF).

The proper tense is ‘was’, ‘were’ is not necessary (no reason).

If there was more time, I would not be struggling to complete the task.

Unless you are to express (subjunctive) an ‘offset’ to prevent confusion in the if-clause:

If he were a nice guy, he would be helping you much.

The ‘were’ is used to prevent confusion for a dead subject (if ‘was’ is used) not for a reason of a non-factual. ‘IF’ is clearly a non-factual expression. It makes no sense to express a non-factual in a non-factual context.

When someone says ‘he was a nice person’ it means the person is no longer alive - it evokes a lifetime-effect of an individual level predicate (refer to Carlson Class).

MeGrammar
  • 21
  • 2
  • 1
    He was a nice person does not mean that he's now dead. It just means that he's no longer a nice person . . . in fact, he still could be a nice person, depending on if there's more that follows. – Jason Bassford Jul 29 '18 at 02:21
  • 1
    "If there were enough time" is indeed in what is known as the subjunctive in English. The conditional form of "to be" is "would be", not "were." Referring to the English subjunctive as conditional is going to be deeply confusing to learners, as those terms are used for different things in English grammar. – Sparksbet Jul 29 '18 at 02:26
  • @JasonBassford To express the person is still alive as per Carlson class, ‘He was a nice person’ is to mean the person is already dead. If you are to mean the person is no longer a nice person, you will need to write ‘He used to be a nice person’. If a person is nice, no matter when, we say ‘He is a nice person’. – MeGrammar Jul 29 '18 at 02:28
  • 1
    He was a nice person until something terrible happened to him and he became bitter and reserved. If he is not currently a nice person, you certainly do not say that he is. – Jason Bassford Jul 29 '18 at 02:31
  • @JasonBassford ‘He used to be a nice person until something terrible happened to him...’ is the proper way to say it. If he is not nice then you need to use ‘He is not a nice person now but he used to be a nice person’ - see individual level predicate of Carlson class. – MeGrammar Jul 29 '18 at 02:33
  • @Sparksbet My apology if my explanation was confusing. ‘Were’ cannot be used in the context (the example) that you have given, ‘was’ is proper - i believe we are referring to the first clause and not the second one (‘would be’). – MeGrammar Jul 29 '18 at 02:40
  • 3
    Well, that's just wrong. "were" can and is frequently used in that context. – Sparksbet Jul 29 '18 at 02:47
  • @Sparksbet A frequent use of word doesn’t mean it is always correct. Sometimes the predicate becomes the one to determine the meaning of a certain context be. I am stating the fact of ‘Carlson Class’. – MeGrammar Jul 29 '18 at 02:53
  • 3
    Carlson classes are irrelevant to the question at hand and do not influence the fact that "If there were enough time..." is perfectly correct and proper in many if not most contexts. – Sparksbet Jul 29 '18 at 02:58
  • @Sparksbet If you say so... can’t argue further when one has already made up his mind. But I remain at my stand. :) – MeGrammar Jul 29 '18 at 03:05