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

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more