1

I am wondering what the phrase imply, because I am unsure whether I am using it correctly in writing.

As far as I know, "were" is used we talk about a theoretical situation. However, I am thinking it does not imply logical necessity as with "is".

Take the following two examples:

If you were to insure this is done properly, you need to be equipped with this.

If you are to insure this is done properly, you need to be equipped with this.

The second sentence implies necessity, but the second seems awkward at best, because the two parts doesn't seem to match.

  • In the first sentence, it should be you would need. Aside from that, both sentences are fine. (Barring the fact that, as the answer says, it should be ensure.) – Jason Bassford Supports Monica May 2 at 3:57
1

It depends on the context...

Take the first sentence:

If you were to insure this is done properly, you need to be equipped with this.

This generally implies that the situation is hypothetical, as in looking at all the possibilities and the outcomes of each.

With the second sentence:

If you are to insure this is done properly, you need to be equipped with this.

This implies that it is something that is to happen. For example, “if you are going to do this, you need this.”

Comment if you have any questions!

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.