之所以要用were 還是因為語言的流傳的關係 這裡用mood解釋
也解釋了if i was....之所以會逐漸取代if i were的原因 跟趨勢
這是目前我找到最棒的解釋(雖然覺得應該也沒人對這原由有興趣啦)
Originally this use was restricted to a separate moodform of the preterit, the
preterit subjunctive, and the unreality was denoted by the mood rather than
by the tense.
But in course of time the distinction between the forms of the subjunctive
and those of the indicative came to be blotted out, and now in 99 per cent. of cases it is
impossible from the form to tell which of the two moods is used, thus, e.g. if he came,
drank, held,sent, ended, etc.
The only forms in which the distinction survives are was
(indicative) and were (subjunctive), and even here it should be noted that the plural form
were belongs to both moods.
It is no wonder, therefore, that here, too, the indicative should
come to be used instead of the subjunctive, and since the seventeenth century we see an
increasing tendency to say I wish he was…, if he was…, as if he was…instead of the
earlier were, a tendency which has to some extent been counteracted by the teaching of
grammarians that were was the correct form, at any rate in serious literature. As,
however, no inconvenience has ever been felt by the fact that there is no corresponding
difference in other verbs (if I had, did, etc.), it seems doubtful whether the theoretic
opposition to if he was, etc., will be strong enough to prevail against the natural evolution of
language.
reference
Essentials of English Grammars by Otto Jespersen
※ 引述《Dramaman (奢侈牛仔褲)》之銘言：
: 牛津敏
: 哈哈哈
: 我發表一下我的看法好了
: 因為這個問題我學假設語氣的時候也有想過
: 後來自己用以下的方法說服自己
: 1. 假設語氣和直說法的差別：
: 其實英文的邏輯是：假設的時態會比「直說法」的時態早一步
: 所以：與現在事實想反，用過去式；與過去事實相反，用過去完成式。
: 這個目的是為了區分假設和直說法。
: 2. 混淆的出現：
: 如果今天，假設語氣不是用were，而是was
: 那這樣的句子
: 1. If he was the murderer, he would be caught.
: 和
: 2. If he were the murderer, he would be caught.
: 如果依照目前規定的文法來看，第二句很明顯是「與現在事實相反的假設」。
: 但是第一句？
: 應該是：直說法的過去式。就如剛剛所說，如果要講「與過去事實相反」，
: 要用過去完成式，但是如果和原本的時態一致，代表「直說法」。
: 這句話代表說話者：不清楚過去情況的 he 是否為 murderer，也不清楚他是否被
: caught.所以說話者不能夠用假設，因為用了假設，等於說話者知道一切都是相反的。
: 3. difference makes meaning.
: 我覺得文法都有後面的道理，但是一以概之就是差異是造成意義的根本。
: 只所以要分 was/were，我覺得（我這樣說服自己），是為了區分「與現在事實相反」，
: 和「直說法的過去式」。
: ※ 引述《sindar (目標)》之銘言：
: : 請問各位老師 假設語態的一個令我困惑很久的問題
: : 一般來說 在教學時我們都會敎
: : "與現在事實相反要倒退一個時態便成過去式 而BE動詞無論主詞人稱 單複數 一率用were
: : 所以我們一率用if i were you"
: : 任何文法書 總是直接說"BE動詞一率用WERE"
: : 但是 到底為什麼"一率要用were"? 到底最早是如何規定的? 如何約定俗成的?
: : 除了以＂這是文法上習慣的規則＂來解釋之外
: : 有沒有一個邏輯上說的通的解釋 說明這到底是如何規定出來的呢？
: : (雖然口語上已經可以用if i was you，但這裡是論純傳統文法上的狀況)
: : 在任何文法書上，都沒有提出"最早"為何是使用if i were you
: : 美國的文法討論區有發問過，但是仍只有這樣的解釋:
: : One of the functions of subjunctive mood is to express an idea or a
: : statement that is contrary or hypothetical to real present. In such cases,
: : the past form of ‘to be’ verb (is/am/was/were...etc) is always ‘were’,
: : regardless of the subject, gender, and number.
: : 另一個解釋：語言是約定俗成的(arbitrary) 但是這還是無法讓我信服
: : 請問各位老師
: : 有沒有歷史性的演進 或是語言學上的解釋
: : 可以解釋為何用"were" instead of "was"
: : 在此先謝謝大家的解答囉
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 114.44.98.75
※ 編輯: sindar 來自: 114.44.98.75 (03/12 07:38)