conditionals: exercises

[pipa98]

Hi!
There's an exercise (if- Sätze, Typ II, Verneinungen- Übung 2) where, in my opinion, the solutions are incomplete. I mean, in order to fill in this gap you could use either 'was not' or 'were not': If it was not/ were not so late, we would play a game of chess. But according to the solutions, 'were not' is wrong.
I'd say it would be even more elegant to use 'were' instead of 'was' or am I wrong?
Best wishes
(I'm still quite bad at writing... so, sorry for my mistakes...)

[Delfino]

Thank you for trying to improve the exercise solutions,
but unfortunately, your suggestion is not correct.

3rd person singular = he, she, it --> was

plural = we / you / they --> were

Therefore, you cannot use were in this sentence.

[pipa98]

Hi!
Sorry, but according to 'English Grammar in Use, Camebridge University Press 2004 (page 78)' you could as well use were: "After if and wish, you can use were instead of was (if I were.../ I wish I were...). I was/ it was are also possible."
So I think the solutions are incomplete, sorry...
Best wishes

[Delfino]

Sorry, but according to 'English Grammar in Use, Camebridge University Press 2004 (page 78)'
you could as well use were:

"After if and wish, you can use were instead of was
(if I were... / I wish it were...).
I was / it was are also possible."

So, I think the solutions are incomplete, sorry...

You are right, according to your source was and were can be used,
although your quote includes a little typo.
Thank you for including the source of your knowledge.

[George]

Hi pipa98 and Delfino,
thank you for this thread.

I have added were not and weren't to be correct.

if-Sätze Typ II

CU
George

[tiorthan]

Just to explain why:

The verb in a type II if-clause is not actually a Past form but a Subjunctive. While for every other verb the Subjunctive is actually identical to the Past, the verb "be" has a different singular subjunctive form: "were".

[Delfino]

Btw. the subsequent 4th edition of English Grammar in Use, Cambridge University Press 2012
includes the same wording on page 78, but also omits any explanation for the use of were/was.