The grammatical issue concerns when to use the indicative ("was") vs. when to use the subjunctive ("were"). More formally, it’s the issue of what’s known as “contrary-to-fact conditional clauses.” The rule is one should use “were” in all contrary-to-fact conditional clauses. If the clause could be true , then use “was.”
For example,
“ If I were younger,” - - this usage is correct since I can’t be younger
“ If I were you, ” - - again, correct since I can’t be you
“ If I was President, I would be against invading other countries.” - - correct, since it’s conceivable that I could be President
“If my ten year old were President, she would be against invading other countries.” - - correct, since ten year olds can’t be President
“If my ten year old was (to become) President (some day), she would be against invading other countries.” - - correct, since it’s conceivable
Of course, this rule is violated every day, even among professional writers. Also, people disagree about what’s conceivable.
I’ll leave it to the reader to figure out which concepts (“opinion”, “verb tense”, i.e. "thought"/"think"), if any, are relevant to the correct grammar usage in this case.
sales |
