What is the difference between these two sentences?

Question

One: If the sun were to rise in the west, I would marry you.
Two: If the sun rose in the west, I would marry you.

Answer 1

There is, in fact, NO difference in the meaning (though you might choose the first for practical reasons).

Good evidence from the answers so far that people do not really know how the subjuntive is formed! Actually, that's not surprising, since in MOST cases the "past subjunctive" forms are IDENTICAL to the "past indicative" (which is why the subjunctive is so little used, and so often misused in English). The major exception is forms of "to be".

"If I were rich, I wouldn't have to work hard." / "If I had a lot of money, I wouldn't have to work hard." -- BOTH of these are subjunctive forms, it's just that it is more OBVIOUS with "were". But in either case the "would" of the second clause makes it clear that it is a subjunctive (that this is contrary-to-fact --you are NOT rich....)

So, for your sentences -- "If the sun rose, I would. . ." and "If the sun were to rise, I would. . . ." have the SAME meaning (and BOTH use "past subjunctive" forms)!

See this CHART !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood#The_subjunctive_in_English


Now it's very likely that someone who wanted to make crystal clear to listeners that the subjunctive was being used would choose the construction "were to rise" since the "were" is distintively subjunctive. But, in fact, there is no grammatical difference between the two.

Answer 2

You obviously don' want to marry her,the sun rises in the east
One:The sun has to rise in the west everyday to marry you,
Two:The sun had to rise in the west(today)to marry you

Answer 3

rise would mean it was going to happen... the sun will rise....
rose means it happened ....the sun rose in the west..... but the big thing here is the sun sets in the west and rises in the east.. so it will never happen

Answer 4

the guy is sure that he wants to marry the chick but is kinda waiting for the sun to rise in the west so theres a possibility hell marry her

in the 2nd sentence the guy is telling the chick how much he does not want to marry her so its somewhat like saying in ur dreams

Answer 5

Hmm. The first one offers possibility-if the sun WERE to rise in the west, while the second offers no hope of possibility.

Answer 6

the version is the demanding. the first sentence is "present demanding": declaring what i'd do interior the prevailing second if i have been you is study problematic. the second one sentence is "previous demanding" so the prospect of interpreting has already befell, and so the fellow is searching back on the previous and declaring what they might have finished. so as that they propose extremely diverse issues. imagine about it this way: If their were 2 students sitting in an exam room, and one stated to the different "If I were you, i'd study problematic." it doesn't make sense because their is not the prospect for study, so truly he says "If I were you i'd have studied problematic".

Answer 7

One speaks of a future event, two speaks of a past event. But practically speaking, if someone utterred either of these sentences to his prospective spouse the meaning would be the same, i.e. "forget it, it will never happen" ...

Answer 8

one: meaning at least one time in the future
two: meaning habitually rose, or maybe just once, it's more vague, could be interpreted in both ways
(but it's NOT the past tense in this sentence, it's like "If you gave me five bucks" vs "If you were to give me five bucks", still subjunctive)

Answer 9

the first is a proper subjunctive -- a presentation of a hypothetical, but impossible future

the second is a summary of the impossible based in all past events.

Answer 10

The first one is saying if you scored this penalty I would marry you.

The second one is saying If hell froze over I would marry you.