another grammar question?

Question

please explain to me when i should use
"if i were to do something"
and when i should use
"if i was to do something"
basically i need to know what's the difference between "if i was" and "If i were" (or theoretically for if he/she was, he/she were, and so on)

Answer 1

You should never use "If I was" in that construction. Sentences of the sort "If I were to do something" are in the subjunctive mood, and hence require the subjunctive form of "to be," which in the past-tense first-person singular is "were" and never "was."

"Was" is in the indicative mood.

Answer 2

You don't use the second option.
The first is a subjunctive.

Look up subjunctives.
The second sentence is ungrammatical, but if you used more context and full sentence examples it'd be easier to answer your question;-)

Answer 3

"Were" is correct but it sounds kind of snobbish-British in the States in colloquial language. Let's face it: everything changes, evolves... language is no exception. I'd wager that a few decades from now everybody will say "if I was".

Answer 4

It's interesting that you're using that in a prepositional Phrase....."if I were" = prepositional phrase.

Typically using WAS is singular - defining "I". I was sick... You wouldn't say "I were sick"..... Were usually defines a plural.... WE WERE..... not WE WAS.....

Don't listen to those who say relax..... we are trashing our wonderful language. There is a right way and wrong way.... I would like you to re-post and give us the answer to this question.

Rule of thumb is that WAS defines singular and WERE defines plural.

Answer 5

You have overtaxed my English grammatical knowledge. Congratulations.

Answer 6

Technically, "If I were" is correct. That's the subjunctive mode.

Answer 7

"If I was you..." perfectly proper in Texas and the deep South.

"If I were you..." the way a Yankee or pretentious snob would say it.

Either way is correct in the USA - relax and enjoy our living language.