My husband's English teacher (as a second language) asked him to write this as a present unreal conditional:

Your mother buys you a sweater for Christmas and you think it is ugly. Do you tell her that you don't like it?

He wrote:

If your mother bought you a sweater for Christmas and you thought it were ugly, would you tell her that you don't like it?

I think the "were" seems wrong, but he seems to be following the rule of using "were" in the present unreal conditional correctly. In other sentences, such as "If your mother were younger," it sounds correct, but in the above example it sounds wrong. However, I can't figure out why, and the teacher didn't mark it wrong. I think it should be:

If your mother bought you a sweater for Christmas and you thought it was ugly, would you tell her that you don't like it?

Am I right? If so, why shouldn't the present unreal conditional form of "to be" ("were") be used there?

(By the way, we are going for absolute textbook English. I recognize that we can debate over whether or not we ought to follow such rules, but what I want to know is the rule!)

You don't really have any other options here...you can't use "was" in present unreal conditional, so your option pretty much always is were in this case...

So, she didn't mark it as incorrect because it isn't. Does it sound great? Not really, but that's not what the testing is about.

Huh. Go figure. Thanks, Lydia!

The unreal verb is bought, not what the sweater was like. So was ugly is correct.

Juan, I'm sure you're right, since you're the expert, but I still don't understand why. The appearance of the sweater is as unreal as the fact that she bought it (and "thought" is also unreal here - I don't think any of us would change that to "think").

"was" is in the subordinate clause for which "thought" is the main verb....for that reason "was" is rendered in the indicative mode.

hmmm...I'm sure Juan is right as well, but why would the teacher mark it as correct? Perhaps were and was were both correct?

I was always under the impression that "was" in general wasn't used in the present unreal conditional...but I am certainly no English major...

"Was" is not the irreal action here, "bought" and "thought" are. If was were, then were would be correct.

Ummm, I would think both are. It's a compound structure. Think of it this way:

If your mother bought you a sweater for Christmas, and (if) it were ugly, would you tell her that you don't like it?

That would be correct...but the sentence is "thought it was."

quote:

If was were, then were would be correct.

But was it were or was that was on first?

Who is on first Ami

Do you say " I thought it were raining" or " He thought it were red" or "She thought it were wrong"? No.

That's why it is 'was' in the example. There is nothing conditional about what was thought.

I must confess I never heard of "present unreal conditionals." But what happened to the subjunctive mood associated with conditionals? "If I were...", "If you were...", etc.

All of FredPuli's incorrect sentences become correct clauses if preceded by the word "if."

Now in the given sentence, If your mother bought you a sweater for Christmas and you thought it were ugly, would you tell her that you don't like it?, it seems to me there are two interpretations, depending on whether the "If" at the beginning of sentence applies to both independent clauses which follow or only to the first.

To clarify the logic I'll format it like computer code:
IF((YOUR MOTHER...CHRISTMAS) AND (YOU THOUGHT...UGLY))
versus
(IF( YOUR MOTHER...CHRISTMAS)) AND (YOU THOUGHT...UGLY)

The first interpretation is equivalent to: If your mother bought you a sweater for Christmas and if you thought it were ugly, would you tell her that you don't like it?

...which makes perfect sense. But is there really an implicit "if" preceding the second clause? I don't know.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Professor,

I agree with Fred and Juan.

"If your mother bought you a sweater for Christmas and you thought it ugly, would you tell her that you didn't like it?" is also possible, and avoids the problem altogether - in the conditional clause.

What about that "didn't"?

Thanks, Juan, I see your distinction.

Professor, I too was unfamiliar with the term 'unreal conditional'. You may find the following references interesting.

My Oxford Companion to the English Language does not refer to ‘unreal' conditionals but does distinguish between ‘open’ and ‘hypothetical’ conditions. Open conditions are neutral, and leave open the question of the fulfilment of the condition. “If you eat an apple, you will be healthy.”

But hypothetical conditions imply that the fulfilment is doubtful or has not taken place.

Hypothetical conditions have a past or past perfect in the conditional clause and a modal (usually would) in the past or past perfect in the main clause: e.g. “If he had recognized us, he would have spoken to us” (but he didn’t recognize us); “If he apologized tomorrow I would forget the whole thing” (but the expectation is that he will not apologize).

This is probably the meaning that the ESL teacher had in mind in using the term unreal; perhaps he/she just wanted to avoid a word, hypothetical, which would require a definition, and to use instead a familiar word, unreal.

Then things get a bit sticky. The article goes on to say that “the past subjunctive were (as well as the simple past was ) is used in the singular first and third persons of the verb be in hypothetical conditional clauses:

“If your sister were here...” (but she is not); “If it were to rain...” (but it is unlikely that it will rain).”

The same reference defines the subjunctive as:

“A grammatical category that contrasts particularly with indicative in the mood system of verbs, and expresses uncertainty or non-factuality.”

It also points out that the use of even the few distinctive subjunctive forms are controversial.

Problem: The ‘present’ subjunctive is used in subordinate clauses referring to both present and past time.
e.g. They are demanding that we pay now. They demanded that we pay then.
In form this subjunctive is identical with the bare infinitive of the verb, which only differs from the indicative (except with the verb be) in the third person singular: e.g. We suggest that he leave soon.

But referring to the past, the subjunctive form differs from the indicative in all persons: e.g. We suggested he leave.

I’m not quoting this because I think that you (or anyone else, for that matter) needs a definition; but merely to show the relationship between the hypothetical condition, and the use of the subjunctive for non-factuality.

I’m intrigued by the phrase “the past subjunctive were (as well as the simple past was ) is used in the singular first and third persons of the verb be in hypothetical conditional clauses.” Yet the reference gives no example of the simple past. Oh, well, we all know that the subjunctive is on its way out. All I can say is, I hope it doesn’t slam the door behind it.

The simple past 'was' is often used in spoken English, instead of the more correct 'were', in "If...." and "I wish..." clauses.

On second thought, I think the problem in the sentence is that two sets of rules apply - which simply makes it look clumsy.

We use unexpected ('wrong') tenses in hypothetical situations, and also in reported thoughts and speech. We never substitute 'were' for 'was' in reported speech.

'I thought I was correct but the teacher said I had made a mistake.'

Sarai is correct to say that 'were' looks wrong in her husband's sentence. Even if it were correct, it would look like a mistake, following 'thought'. There's no rule for this kind of situation - except to re-write the sentence to avoid the construction.

Subjunctives bug my students, too. The rules are not logical:

"My teacher asked that I be on time." (But I may or may not be...)

"The fortune-teller predicted that I will be rich" (But I may or may not be...)

It's easier for learners just to try to memorise which verbs, adjectives and structures may be followed by strange tenses. There aren't so many. Problems do arise when you get clauses within the 'unreal' clauses.

Here's a TOEIC question:

If we had proven that the diamonds _____ to the Crown, they would be in the National Museum today.

a) belong
b) belonged
c) had belonged
d) would belong

In hypothetical/unreal (I prefer 'unlikely') conditional sentences, the speaker can often choose whether or not the situation is 'unreal'.

"If I win the lottery, I will..." and "If I won the lottery, I would..." are both correct; the difference is how optimistic I feel.