Rose needs your help ASAP!

[rose]

I need to collect some data for my research. Please, help me out with it!
I need only native English speakers to look through the sentences and give their answers. There is no right or wrong answer. I just need to find our how 4 different, and at the same time similar expressions are used by the native English speakers nowadays.

Question:
a) If I was to tell you how I found out this word, you'd believe that.
b) If I were to tell you how I found out this word, you'd believe that.
c) If I am to tell you how I found out this word, you'd believe that.
d) If I be to tell you how I found out this word, you'd believe that.

Your answer can be any combination of these 4 sentences: ex. A and B; A and D; A,B, C; or even A,B,C,D.

P.S. Guys, I'm interesed only in usage "If I was/were/am/be" the rest is not important.

[BC]

a) If I was to tell you how I found out this word, you'd believe that.
naa....

b) If I were to tell you how I found out this word, you'd believe that.
naa...

c) If I am to tell you how I found out this word, you'd believe that.
naa...

d) If I be to tell you how I found out this word, you'd believe that
naa...

I'd say none of the above is correct.


I would say:
If I were to tell you how I found this word, you'd believe that. 

[edit]  But if I had to pick it would be 'B'

[Freebird]

Hi Rose -

Although I'm not quite sure what you're looking for, I only see b as having correct grammar.  And, maybe c.  Does that help, or am I off the mark of your request?

Jim

[catzenmouse]

a) If I was to tell you how I found out this word, you'd believe that.
naa....

b) If I were to tell you how I found out this word, you'd believe that.
naa...


c) If I am to tell you how I found out this word, you'd believe that.
naa...

d) If I be to tell you how I found out this word, you'd believe that
naa...

I'd say none of the above is correct.

If I were to tell you how I found this word, you'd believe that.

Think BC's right on the money here. None of the sentences work for me.

 If I were to tell you how I found out about this word, you'd believe that.

Is another possibility.

If you absolutely have to have one of the original list as the answer then I would say "B" is the closest.

Ken

[rose]

This is a research on usage subjunctives in modern English. Subjunctives offen state some condition (if I was/were/am/be to play piano...). Unfortunately there is no recent corpus which I can access, thus, I'm gathering all this information from you.  

[BC]

if it's for a study, might be better as a poll..

[Daknack]

I dont thing she is looking for "correct" grammer but rather spoken and accepted as being not outside of the norm.

A...  Would be easily accepted most places without much of a second though

B...  Also would be considered without a second thought and probably be more easily accepted.

C...  I dont think would sound right to anyones ear.

D...  Accepted easily in the Ghetto and the Inner cities.

[Freebird]

Rose,

Yes, I was looking only at the verbs.  Were is definately correct, and was / be are definately incorrect.  I am, however seems right to me since it speaks to the future.  So, I'll go with were and am as being the most widely accepted.  The be verb used in this context is widely used in ebonics.

Jim

Sorry to change my mind, but after thinking about it Rose, I believe "were" is the only correct verb.  If I use the verb "am", then it conflicts with you'd, or your would.  If "am" were the correct verb, then "you'd" would need to be changed to "you will".  I hope that wasn't too confusing, but I believe "b" is the only correct sentence amongst the 4.

[viking]

Ken is correct. You need to put in the word 'about'.

[rose]

Ken is correct. You need to put in the word 'about'.

I repeat that the only thing in which I am interested here is the phrase "if I was/were/am/be" the rest can be anything you want. By the way, that sentence which seems so many people didn't like is from "Dombey and Son" of Charles Dickens. He used all 4 forms in his books, but nowadays it is different. My goal is to find out which forms are still used, and which forms became archaic. If, for example you don't use particular form, but some people in Ghetto use it (thank you DaKnack), it also great information for me.

[jb]

By the way, that sentence which seems so many people didn't like is from "Dombey and Son" of Charles Dickens.

I'm sorry to say, Dickens was born in 1812, almost 200 years ago, languages evolve.  Any phrase he was apt to use in the early/middle 1800's would most likely sound archaic and as such would feel clumsy or "funny" to our modern day ear.  Even more so to an American ear since we don't really speak English anymore.

[andrewfi]

Given that you are interested only in the first part of the sentence, the second is the most 'correct'. Whilst all four forms were found in Dickens' writing I think we would probably agree that the meaning he was conveying was different in at least two of the citations and so they are not a basis for a good comparison. (No, I am not going to look and check, the language itself makes a clear suggestion!)

1 & 2 are two forms conveying the same meaning, but the second is more conventionally correct. Most people would use the first version in everyday speech and, god forbid, writing as well.

3 is conveying a different meaning to the first two instances and the last would appear to be a deliberate attempt at conveying a colloquial and, nowadays, archaic spoken form.

[55North]

Rose, in what you ask, the answer can be B and C as regards the verb 'to be'.  (the vernacular use, rather than logic).  If A and D were once used, so be it, but are definately not modern usage.
 
I also agree with Catzenmouse that today, the word 'about' would be required as stated.

[rose]

Thank you everybody for your help! I've got a picture.

I want to shift the attention to something what I think is good to point out:

I'm sorry to say, Dickens was born in 1812, almost 200 years ago, languages evolve.  Any phrase he was apt to use in the early/middle 1800's would most likely sound archaic and as such would feel clumsy or "funny" to our modern day ear.  Even more so to an American ear since we don't really speak English anymore.

Why are you sorry to say it? I know this fact, I did research on a corpus of XIX century. The goal of my thread is to find out how people speak now. I concentrated my research on one smal part of English: subjunctives. I want to find out if they still are used. I don't care about the rest of the sentence. This fact I've stated several times.

jb, on this board we discuss a lot of problems, one of big issues is COMMUNICATION. Ability to hear what the other person tells or asks you and make a reasonable respond on it. This thread is a good and simple example. First, I did'n state clear on which part of the sentence to focus attention (I just assumed that it was clear). Assumpions lead to misunderstanding and first replies show that what is clear for me not always is clear for the others. After I've realized that, I've edited my first post. I though that now it will be clear. But there were still some people, who kept answering, stressing those parts of a sentence, which as I've stated were not important.  In my reply I went off topic to let people know that it was a phrase from the book. You, jb, ignored the whole point of the thread and instead of answering the simple question went into discussion of Charles Dickens. Why wouldn't you just answer the simple question and instead of that went into the offtopic discussion?

That is how I see the situation. I think it's a great example of miscommunication. I accept that others can see it in a different way, they are welcome to describe their version here. The point which I want to stress is: if we can't communicate on such simple level, how can we expect to communicate with our partners in much more complicated situations?

[jb]

Rose,

We, who are married to RWs, fight this battle everyday.

Principal among our problems are English synomums and homonyms, sometimes even antonyms.  I wasn't trying to go off topic, but in ordinary conversation I'm more worried about what does my wife understand when I say words like "mean"; "I mean this definition" (this is what I meant), or "I'm feeling very mean (ugly/hostile) today,  and how about "mean" as an average?  And there's the math, RMS; "Root/Mean/Square".  Or how about words like "lie", (to tell a falsehood, or to assume a physical position) or "their, or there".  English is full on these pitfalls. We work very hard at our communications here.   

My wife is very patient with me, and I've learned to chose my words carefully.

[BC]

D sounds like something my wife would say....

me: "Sweetness you getting ready to go shopping?"
her: "I be do!"

Rose,

If you have a translation program try the following statements and see if they translate to proper RU phrases:

I be do
I go by legs
It is not I am
It was you are

[rose]

Rose,

If you have a translation program try the following statements and see if they translate to proper RU phrases:

I be do
I go by legs
It is not I am
It was you are

It's amazing, I LOVED "I go by legs"! I even can imagine it!
I don't use translators and even don't know where to look for them.
Studing in my "English Corpus" class I've realized that since I'm not a native English speaker it is difficult for me to "feel" the whole depth of the language on the level we study it.
As to the poll, I produced quite interesting and unexpected result. Majority of linguists claim that subjunctive forms (in my case "If I were") are substituted by indicative forms ("If I was"). But your answers has shown that it is not quite right. All of you liked subjunctive better than indicative. Maybe one day thank to you I'll write my Ph.D on this topic and will become famous!!!

[Mamma D]

I think that you would most likely say...

If I tell (verb) you how I got this word.......

Tell is the verb, and the noun *you* is the subject in this sentence.

[catzenmouse]

D sounds like something my wife would say....

me: "Sweetness you getting ready to go shopping?"
her: "I be do!"

Rose,

If you have a translation program try the following statements and see if they translate to proper RU phrases:

I be do
I go by legs
It is not I am
It was you are

... and don't forget "say me please"

[BC]

It's amazing, I LOVED "I go by legs"! I even can imagine it!

Rose,

One of my relatives in a very high US government English language education position came to visit us one summer.

She left quite enlightened.

We had a grand time together.

[Jumper]

Rose , only B seems correct to the modern ear (IMHO)

and i agree with Ken if "about " is added it seems much more pleasing ,or cvorrect, to the ear.
without it, its like a note of music is missing in a familiar song..
Despite correct grammer, some things as language evolves ,
just sound wrong currently.


LOL BC!

*I go by legs*

makes perfect sense from a Russian speaker .. i can see how she would translate/say that

although my wife hasnt said that particular phrase in english -
many other similar things come out ,that generally beome humorous to both of us.I'm often glad that i have a fairly basic understanding of fundamental Russian! As those type of things make perfect sense without having to ponder what the heck she actually meant..lol
Most of the time she catches it herself and laughs.

[Mamma D]

Rose needs to know that the Kings/Queens English (UK), and American English are not the same...Grammer and vocabulary are some times quit differant.

I thought it would be a snap and found it was not! So if they are being taught Kings English....American English may indeed seen out of step!

Mamma D

[andrewfi]

Rose, I think it likely that your authorities are entirely correct, in terms of common usage. Sadly, your question was posed in such a form that we respondents were on our guard. It is also likely that the people who might have made a different choice, having seen the responses already posted, either chose not to respond, or responded in a manner that demonstrated their agreement with the group mind.

Either that, or this group is much more erudite than the norm of native English users. (doubt it somehow!) Perhaps if you are planning to make a serious study, you need to find a means of measuring response that is not so open to group bias. If you feel that the users of the internet are sufficiently representative of your chosen universe then you might want to take a look at this: http://info.zoomerang.com/signup.htm If you spent a little money on Google Adsense ads to drive people to your survey you might find a more realistic outcome. There are other survey systems out there, Zoomerang simply happened to to be the first of many that Google offered me.

[Jet]

Either that, or this group is much more erudite than the norm of native English users.

You damn skippy we is! We be gots some of the best conversators ever, right here.