== Scope == 

 I think there is often confusion about the scope of moods (and tenses, for that matter), in that people extend them too far throughout a sentence. For example, I often find something like this: 
 * If that were true, I would tell you why I loved you. 
 when I think that the following is actually intended: 
 * If that were true, I would tell you why I love you. 
 I think it's likely that the temporal confusion of subjunctive "were" leads a person to render the rest of the sentence to match a past tense, because mixing tenses is something that people seem to have trouble doing; for example, I often find something like this: 
 * I told you that I was younger than you! 
 when I think that the following is actually intended: 
 * I told you that I am younger than you! 
 Similarly, in reference to the first example, it is possible that a person might be trying to interpret the entire sentence within a uniform counterfactual mood, such that "loved" is properly rendered in the present tense (using the subjunctive mood). However, using such an expansion of scope diminishes the richness of expression. For example, to me, the first example's first sentence: 
 * If that were true, I would tell you why I loved you. 
 actually means: 
 * If that were true, I would say to you: "I loved you in the past, and this is why..." 
 etc. 

 What are your comments, and could we somehow address these concerns in the article?