Usage of 'were'

[Nene4english]

Hi All,

I am confused with the usage of 'were' in the following sentence.

"Even if there were no policies to undermine it, globalisation is suffering its biggest reversal in the modern era".

I know that 'were' with 'if' is used in conditional statements and, in such cases, a 'would' is expected to express an unreal situation. However, the sentence above doesn't have any 'would' in it and moreover, it used present continous (globalisation is suffering).

I am completely lost in this usage. I would be grateful if someone could shed some light on it.

Rgds,
Nene.

[Alan]

Hi Nene,

In your sentence 'were' is in fact the subjunctive because it is expressing something that is 'unreal' and 'hypothetical'. To me the sentence should continue: 'globalisation would be suffering ...'

Alan
_________________
English as a Second Language
You can read my ESL story Present Simple

[Gray]

I am confused too but I don't think that there is anything incorrect.

"Even if there were no policies to undermine it, globalisation is suffering its biggest reversal in the modern era"

It can be concluded that --

If there were policies to undermine the globalization, it would have suffered its reversal. The author is emphasising on the present situation by citing a possible cause that didn't exist before.

To me, it is acceptable to say "globalization is suffering", though natives could have different view on it. Please review.
_________________
First lesson - English, not english. I, not i. ~A student of English

[Alan]

Hi,

Perhaps a better balance could be reached with: Even if there were no policies to undermine it, globalisation is nevertheless suffering ...

Alan
_________________
English as a Foreign Language
You can read my EFL story Progressive Forms

[Gray]

[Nene4english]

hi Alan/Gray,

Thanks a lot for your replies. However, I am still confused as to the meaning of this sentence. Firstly, is this usage correct as they are trying to combine a hypothetical condition with a real situation(present continous)? I think the 'it' in this sentence(undermine it) is refering to something else but not globalisation. Here is the full paragraph(taken from a renowed magazine):

"The links that bind countries’ economies together are under strain. World trade may well shrink this year for the first time since 1982. Net private-sector capital flows to the emerging markets are likely to fall to $165 billion, from a peak of $929 billion in 2007. Even if there were no policies to undermine it, globalisation is suffering its biggest reversal in the modern era."

Rgds,
Nene.

[Cerberus™]

Nene, I agree with you: a hypothetical condition is coupled with an actual priciple clause. I think classical grammar would condemn it. The meaning is clear, though, and I should think many might use a similar construction, nowadays.

Instead, the author could have written:

Even if there were no policies to undermine it, globalisation [would] still be suffering its biggest reversal in the modern era. [Nevertheless, they make the situation even worse than it might have been.]

-or-

Even though there [are] policies to undermine globalisation, [they are not the reason why it] is suffering its biggest reversal in the modern era. [The situation would have been bad anyway, though it might have been somewhat better than it is now.]

[Gray]

[Cerberus™]

The unreal, hypothetical situation is: no, there are no policies to undermine it.
The actual situation is: yes, there are policies to undermine it.

When you are talking about a condition that is not currently real, you use the secondary subjunctive (which is "were" here).

[Gray]

[Cerberus™]

Ah, Gray, I can see that you have thought about it thoroughly, as usual. An excellent attitude! I think I understand what you did; the matter appears to be quite complicated. To summarize, I am afraid that I must disagree with you.

Original sentence: "Even if there were no policies to undermine it, globalisation is suffering its biggest reversal in the modern era".

---

1. You interpreted this sentence in an unusual way because it was never correct in the first place, or so I believe. A pas subjunctive in the "if" clause usually requires "would" in the main clause: instead, the author forgot "would".
Consider the two ways I proposed to frame this sentence correctly. Both have roughly the same meaning:

"Even if there were no policies to undermine globalisation, it [would still be] suffering its biggest reversal in the modern era. [Nevertheless, there are such policies and they make the situation even worse than it might have been.]"
-or-
"Even though there [are] policies to undermine globalisation, [they are not the reason why] it is suffering its biggest reversal in the modern era. [The situation would have been bad anyway without such policies, though it might have been slightly better than it is now.]"

I am quite sure that this is what the sentence was supposed to mean.

---

2. Consider these two passages:

Example A.
"If the earth were flat, people would fall off at the edges. Thank God it has always been round!"

This is the standard way to talk about a situation which is, so far, hypothetical only. The past subjunctive "were" is in the "if" clause, and "would" in the main clause.

Example B.
She: "I have discovered that a comet could not have destroyed the dinosaurs at all! It is impossible, I have found new evidence to this effect. Now we shall have to abandon our research into such a comet and find new jobs."
He: "That is exciting news! You are the expert, so I believe you. But even if the dinosaurs were not destroyed by a comet, then there must still be another cause of their extinction. Therefore, we need not give up our jobs: let's do some research into other causes!"

This construction is much less common. "Were" is simple past in "even if the dinosaurs were not ...". You could rephrase it like this:
"Even if I accept (which I do) that the dinosaurs were not destroyed by a comet, then my argument (for keeping our jobs) is still valid: that there must be another cause ...".
As you see, the main clause has "must", which is in the present tense.

This construction is somewhat strained here, somewhat unnatural, although possibly correct. You would rather use "if" only, instead of "even if" - and leave out "still". A construction with "even though the dinosaurs ..." seems even more natural.

---

3. I believe you tried to interpret the globalisation sentence after example B. But construction A is much more common. I believe the author intended "were" to be a past subjunctive in "even if there were no policies ...".

If not, the sentence would hardly make sense: the "even if" clause would hardly be relevant to the main clause. We should then interpret it as follows:
"Even if [we accept that] there have been no policies to undermine globalisation, [this still does not contradict our position that] globalisation is suffering its biggest reversal in the modern era."

Note that I have replaced "were" with "have been", to make sure it is not taken as a subjunctive. Is this how you interpreted the sentence?

I had to think very hard to come up with this: although I believe this interpretation is remotely possible, it is highly unlikely. First, the author would probably have used "even though": that would have made the sentence much clearer, if he had intended the meaning that you proposed. Secondly, he would have used "have been": that would have given the necessary link between "if" clause and main clause. Thirdly, a faulty sentence of the type "if the earth were flat ..." is much more probable. Nevertheless, only context could prove it.

- The present perfect "have been" is used when
a.) you are talking about the past and
b.) its results are mostly relevant to the present situation.
You take a present perspective on the past.

- The simple past "were" is used when
a.) you are talking about the past and
b.) it is relevant to the things that happened in the past.
You take a past perspective on the past.

(By the way, there are also other uses of both simple past and present perfect.)

---

4. About the context you laid out: I believe it is impossible. In 1 you say that there were no such policies a few years ago; in 2 you say that there were indeed such policies a few years ago. This looks like a contradiction.

[Gray]

This is awsome, I would say I am reading a chapter from a grammar book ;) Jokes apart, thank you very much for the in-depth analysis on the subject.

[Cerberus™]

[Gray]

[Cerberus™]