Skip to main content

“It were” versus “were I”: the proper subjunctive for this statement



I wouldn't have been surprised to learn it were already named Lingua Mathematica, and I submit that as the best reason to give it that name (and not some other).



Based on my understanding, I think this is correct, but it sounds worse than common uses of the subjunctive I'm already familiar with (e.g. “if I were an Oscar Meyer weiner…”). Is it correct?


Note: I'm interested in prescriptivist English grammar here, not meaningless practicalities like being understood by people. There's no need to remind me that I'll be well understood only by saying “to learn it was.”


I am more confident of “I would not have been surprised if I were to learn it is already named Lingua Mathematica…” and not quite as much more confident in “I would not have been surprised were I to learn it is already named Lingua Mathematica…” which sounds extra hoity-toity.



Answer



The problem arises with the use of ‘to learn’. There is no difficulty with ‘surprised if it were already named . . .’ That’s because irrealis were is used to express unreal meaning. By introducing the clause with if, the writer envisages a situation in which it might be named Lingua Mathematica, when actually it isn’t.


In the sentence as drafted, however, what is it that the writer would have been surprised to learn? It is the fact that it bore the name Lingua Mathematica. The writer’s surprise is hypothesized on the assumption that it is so called, and that makes were inappropriate.


(In describing the modal use of were as 'irrealis were', rather than subjunctive, I have followed the practice of ‘The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language’.)


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more