This is a wonderful site to enhance our grammar!!

I have one question: Which is the correct option?? a) - If I didn´t live in Japan, I wouldn´t eat sushi daily. b) - Were I not live in Japan, I wouldn´t eat sushi daily.

This a sentence with second conditional. I think option b is correct, but it is very elegant yet unusual. Am I right? Thanks for your feedback!!

  • Welcome to EL&U. "Which is correct?" type of question is off-topic here. Please make sure that you take the tour and visit our help center for additional guidance. – user140086 Jan 13 '16 at 6:21

The first way is the preferred form. Were I not to live uses inverted form where the verb comes before the subject. If this is not a question, then inverted form is considered an archaic usage.

Use If I didn't live... instead of Were I not to live...

| improve this answer | |
  • I don't agree that one is preferred to the other. Both are contextually relevant to appropriate situations. But I shan't vote you down. – Blessed Geek Jan 13 '16 at 7:52

"Were I not to live in Japan" implies to me something more subtle about how at some point in the past a choice or accident that landed you in Japan is the crucial factor in how much sushi you eat today, regardless of where you are now.

"If I didn't live in Japan" suggests to me that the reason you eat as much sushi as you do presently is the fact that you live in Japan now.

Of course, either idea can be written more precisely, and either option may have additional meanings or implications that do not necessarily require you live in Japan at the time you utter the sentence, but as a matter of suggestion these two do not mean the same to me, even though both are unabjectionable.

I do think you need "to," though. Otherwise, you may need "have lived."

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.