Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Is the subjunctive going out of fashion?

Yesterday, I corrected the "English Teacher's" grammar exercise, today I
read in a British newspaper a quote by Freddie Starr: "I am so unlucky that
if I was to fall into a barrel of nipples I'd come out sucking my thumb".
I could understand it if Starr were American, but he is British, by Plus TV
referred to as "the bad boy of British comedy".
Or am I missing something? Are the British no longer saying: "If I were a
rich man I'd buy a Rolls-Royce"?
---
Xakero

 rich man I'd buy a Rolls-Royce"?
Perhaps they used to say so before RR Motor Cars was taken over
by them Germans.
:)
Matteo

 rich man I'd buy a Rolls-Royce"?
It's optional these days, but it sounds better (more educated) to use the
subjunctive.  I personally would say "If I were..." but then again, I am a
language student and probably more perfectionist about such matters! ;-)  My
advice (if you're studying English) is to stick with "were" in this case.
Joanna

 referred to as "the bad boy of British comedy".
If I were an American I would say "I'm so unlucky, if I fell 
into a barrel..."  leaving out all the "that if I was to" 
fluff.  But the Brits like it.
So by now you should be able to detect, I *am* an American.
;-)
Rick

 fluff.  But the Brits like it.
I don't mean to sound fussy, but that sounds like really bad English to me!
I don't think that's representative of how Americans speak at all.  Sure,
there are shorter ways to say that sentence, but wouldn't you at least use
the conditional tense - ie:  "I'd be (I would be) so unlucky if ..."
"I'm so unlucky" implies that at this minute you are unlucky, when you in
fact continue with a hypothetical / future possibility.  Forget the
subjunctive - as far as I know, all proper English speakers, American or
British, would definitely use "I'd be" in this case.  The subjunctive may be
dying out in modern English, but the conditional tense is alive and well!
Can another American in the group please tell me if I am way off here?
Surely Americans wouldn't say "I'm so unlucky, if I fell into a barrel..."
If so, then the future of the English language is in jeopardy! ;-)
I do speak British-English but I'm not one of those obsessive people who
insist that British English is the *only* English.  In fact, I encourage
foreigners to study American English (as my prior postings will prove).  I
hope I haven't given bad advice!
Americans, please come forward and defend yourself! ;-))))
Jo@nna

 advice (if you're studying English) is to stick with "were" in this case.
And now, oh horror, I see an English grammar website teaching "if I was"
(
http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/IF4.cfm
) with the condescending
footnote that it is correct, and very common, to say "If I were" instead of
"If I was".
---
Xakero

 "If I was".
Either is fine, but I use the subjunctive probably because I have been
studying Italian and French for so long and it makes it easier for me that
way.  In fact, I didn't know much about the English subjunctive until I
started studying the romance languages.  Many textbooks have incorrectly
told me "The subjunctive does not exist in English" but that's completely
untrue.  It's true that it's fading away though - if you were ( ...;-)...)
to read 'older' English novels, you would see it everywhere ("She suggested
that a meal be* prepared.");  Have a look at this website:
 
http://www.ceafinney.com/subjunctive/
I agree with the sentiments of the author - "God Save The Subjunctive!"
;-)))
Joanna

 I don't mean to sound fussy, but that sounds like really bad English to me!
You must have read it wrong. The orginal sentence included "I'm so
unlucky." There's nothing wrong with rkm's sentence as informal
writing, and the sentence doesn't sound to me like it was intended for
a formal publication. You might add "that" to make it sound better.
I'm so unlucky that if I fell into a barrel I would (etc.)
He's just saying he's unlucky in general. He's suggesting what would
be likely to happen to an unlucky person like him "if he fell." The
problem in the original sentence is that it used "if I was to fall"
which sounds wrong. On the other hand, "if I were to fall" is correct
but it sounds academic and you'd probably see it more often in formal
speech.

If so, then the future of the English language is in jeopardy! ;-)
Well they could say: "I'm so unlucky, if I fell into a barrel it would be
full of tea".
That would qualify them as non-Brits, at least.
saluti,
Peltio
who thinks that Ati is a good brand of tea : ]

 I'm so unlucky that if I fell into a barrel I would (etc.)
Whoops - I was just basing my response on what he had written in his own
post, which was "I'm so unlucky, if I fell into a barrel" - (that on its own
would be wrong)
Sincerest apologies rkm!
Jo@nna

 I agree with the sentiments of the author - "God Save The Subjunctive!"
Thank you for this link, which I shall revisit whenever I feel nostalgic.
I grant that a language is what people make of it and I guess it can't be
helped that certain things gradually disappear from use, whether I like it
or not. To some extent, I think, it is also the fault of educators who fail
to insist that their students use correct English. While there are many
instances where two different forms are equally correct, e.g. dreamt and
dreamed, I shall continue to believe that "If I were" is the only correct
form, regardless what newer editions of text books and dictionaries may say.
On the other hand, if enough people start saying "I thinked" instead of "I
thought" and the new version makes it into reputable dictionaries, I
shall -- grudgingly -- accept it, except that by the time this could happen
I should probably no longer be of this world.
---
Xakero

 I should probably no longer be of this world.
You should hope so!  If someone proposed that to me I would in fact reply
"Over my dead body!"
I think we have this fierce pride about English because it took us so long
at school to master it (or because we had to endure the wrath of English
language teachers like the one I just mentioned)  Then there comes a moment
when one realises it was all worthwhile (For me it was reading "Hamlet" for
the first time).  I still have all my English exercise books from when I was
a child ... ahhh I'm getting nostalgic now ... ;-p
Jo@nna

 
No apologies needed among friends. :-)
I agree "I'm so unlucky, that if I fell..." would read better.
I was trying to write it down as I imagined myself saying it 
at some future time, so maybe this would convey my thought 
process: "I'm so unlucky... <pause while I think up a 
suitably funny example> if I fell into a barrel..."
Certainly "that if I fell" sounds better when written/read.
Another thing I wrote, which no one took issue with, was
"leaving out all the".  To me, this should be "leaving out 
all of the", but I notice in modern American writing, the 
word "of" is left out.  What's the British take on that?
Rick

 word "of" is left out.  What's the British take on that?
I would use either.  In speaking I'd probably leave out the 'of' whereas in
writing, my brain is so hard-wired to be ultra-precise that I'd probably
include it.  I think that where English writing is concerned, you always opt
for more rather than less, just to be on the safe side! eg Always "do not",
never "don't"! ;-)
Jo@nna
BTW  I think the Italians in the group must be having a good old laugh at
our transatlantic linguistic problems! :-p