I still think the title is grammatically correct.
But I think we should stop an english grammar discussion here. getting slightly of topic
Why???
I still think the title is grammatically correct.
But I think we should stop an english grammar discussion here. getting slightly of topic
Today's society in one post.You know, studies have shown that foreigners who had mastered English as their second language are usually the harshest judges of what is acceptable in English and what is not. And you know why? This is a strategy to claim a higher position in society - or as Bourdieu called this phenomenon - they appropriate the language as a sort of social capital in order to promote themselves and raise their own worth on the social network market
Why???
OMG the words "stars", "shine", "night", "alive" and "invincible" in the same song. I guess they lyrically tick all thewrongright boxes there
"If love was a crime then we would be criminals"... hmm, ok. Blue is blue and red is red too
The title of this song is correct.
"Were" is only used with plurals "trees were, we were, they were, cats were", it's used with "you" (because it might mean more than one person) and is used with "I" as an exception of the rule.
The rest goes with "was". Spoon was, Rain was, Road was, Love was.
Here is a guideline:
Use were (instead of was) in statements that are CONTRARY to fact; like a wish.
subjunctive mood
If I were a rock singer...
If she were a boy...
If the dog were a cat...
Here is a guideline:
Use were (instead of was) in statements that are CONTRARY to fact; like a wish.
subjunctive mood
If I were a rock singer...
If she were a boy...
If the dog were a cat...
I've never heard anything like that even from native speakers i talk to all the time (let alone my english teachers).
It must be very old fashioned?
Yeah, I think that's the main point here - it's kinda old-fashioned. It's what you're supposed to do, grammatically, but I actually can't remember ever hearing someone use 'if I were' in spoken English, and I'd probably give them a weird look if they did. Similar case with who/whom, in my opinion. Yeah, perhaps the commonly used choice doesn't adhere to the old grammatical rules, but if you're using a descriptive (rather than prescriptive) view of language, the rule should change to suit the users, not the other way around. I feel like it's a bit silly to be overly picky about grammar rules that nobody adheres to anyway.