A Student's Introduction to English Grammar

§8.4 Irrealis were 59

The difference between [63a] and [62iia] is one of style level: were is here somewhat
more formal than was.
This use of were is highly exceptional: there is no other verb in the language
where the modal remoteness meaning is expressed by a different inflectional form
from the past time meaning. The irrealis mood form is unique to be, and limited to
the 1 st and 3rd person singular. It is an untidy relic of an earlier system, and some
speakers usually, if not always, use preterite was instead.
Be is also unique in having three different present tense forms (instead of the
usual two) and two different preterite forms (instead of one). This is by far the most
irregular verb in the entire English vocabulary. Here is its full paradigm:

[ 64 ] PRIMARY FORMS

NEUTRAL NEGATIVE

1st sg 3 rd sg Other 1st sg 3rd sg

Present am is are aren'P isn 't

Other

aren't

Preterite was were wasn't weren't

Irrealis were - weren't

SECONDARY FORMS

PLAIN FORM PAST PARTICIPLE GERUND-PARTICIPLE

be been being

We include the irrealis forms among the primary forms, because there is a negative
irrealis form, and also because of the close relation with preterite was and wasn't.
This is why we distinguish the two major subsets of inflectional forms as 'primary'
vs 'secondary' rather than by the more transparent (and more usual) terms 'tensed'
and 'non-tensed'.^8

7 Aren't appears with I st person singular subjects only in clauses where it precedes the subject: we get
Aren't I? but not 'I aren't. The form %amn 't is restricted to certain regional British dialects, and 'ain't
is definitely (notoriously) non-standard, so there isn't a standard 'n 't form of be for the I st person sin­
gular present when the subject precedes. However, I'm not is available, using the reduced 'm form of
am with the separate word not instead of a negative form of be.
g The non-negative forms in [64] are labelled 'neutral' rather than 'positive' because they occur in both
positive and negative clauses (e.g. That iJ. true and That iJ. not true). Traditional grammar calls our
irrealis a 'past subjunctive', contrasting with 'present subjunctive' be. But there are no grounds for
analysing this were as a past tense counterpart of the be that we find in constructions like It's vital that
he be kind to her. We don't use 'subjunctive' as a term for an inflectional category, but for a syntactic
construction employing the plain form of the verb (cf. §I.I).