"Were to go" or "was to go" here?

Question

Being connected through multiple connections at the same time would be a good protection against this, as you'd maintain an acceptable speed even if one of your connections was to go slow or disconnect altogether.

Context.

I'm unsure of whether it should be was to go or were to go slow.

It's one of your connections, so that makes me think it should be singular as in was.

However, it's preceded by a pluralized noun, connections, so that makes me wonder if perhaps it should be were. Also, my instincts tell me that were to go sounds better.

Are one of these wrong, or are both correct?

Answer 1

@Fiksdal ! The context you've provided include past forms: "would" and "was to" which clearly indicate that it's in second conditional form.

In the second conditional, when the verb in the if-clause is a form of be , we use "were" instead of was. Note that 'this use of were is possible and recommended with all subjects(It doesn't matter If it's in singular or plural). Was is also becoming acceptable, but many grammarians still insist that you should use were.

If she were my daughter, I wouldn’t let her drop out of school. (NOT If she was my daughter, …)

If I were you, I wouldn’t trust him. If they were really interested in the offer, they would contact you.

In some cases, however, if I was is also possible. For example, when are talking about real situations that happened in the past, the use of if I was (or if he /she / it was) is considered more correct.

If I was in a hurry, I usually skipped my breakfast.

If she was angry, she would shut herself up in her room.

you can also check this link- Use of "were to" in English grammar For better understanding this might help you http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/wereto.html