I assume that "future conditional subjunctive" is not really a term. But that's pretty much what I'm asking about.
I often find myself addressing the scenario where (x) one thing "A" may happen in the future, and (y) if "A" happens, "B" will result. Often, this occurs while I'm arguing that "A" should not be allowed to happen.
I would like to write:
"If A happens, then B will result."
My colleague insists that, because we don't want A to happen, we must write:
"If A were to happen, then B would result." (Sometimes he will try, "were A to happen, . . . ")
I think both "were to happen" and "would result" are incorrect. And "were to happen" seems unnecessarily awkward.
Similarly, I'd write: "If you don't stop A, then B will happen." Colleague would write "If you don't stop A, then B would happen."
And, finally, when generally discussing what A would cause, I would just write "A will cause x, y and z." Colleague would write "A would cause x, y and z."
Colleague's reasoning is that because we do not want A to happen or B to result, we need to use the "subjunctive." Otherwise, if we use the indicative, we are somehow conceding that A will, in fact happen.
My thought is that we want to make an unambiguous statement that A will result in B. We don't want to introduce any doubt that A will not result in B.
And, I've read that there is no future subjunctive in English.
Is there a correct answer?