1

Consider the following sentence. This is an exercise from a grammar book, the portion in bold is the answer to a blank.

if we are to believe the media hype, the world should have ended several times over in the last decade.

why should we use "we are to believe", isn't "we were to believe' a better option here?

Improve this question
4
  • 1
    No: the difference is mainly one of formality, irrealis "were" being more formal than present tense "are". Additionally, older speakers tend to prefer the former.
    – BillJ
    Dec 17, 2021 at 10:26
  • 1
    @BillJ: I disagree. I'd say If we are to believe X usually implies the speaker / writer is inclined to believe X, whereas If we were to believe X strongly implies he doesn't believe it. Obviously in the specific case here, that "usual" interpretation doesn't apply. (We know that because the world didn't end several times over the past decade! :)
    – FumbleFingers
    Dec 17, 2021 at 12:36
  • 1
    To me, AmE, both usages sound disbelieving, though the "If we are to believe" sounds a touch more formal and haughty. Reason: Conditional believing suggests that it'd be a stretch to believe, inherently assuming that believing is rather easy.
    – FeliniusRex - gone
    Dec 17, 2021 at 14:29
  • 1
    I don't think the degree of modal remoteness plays much of a part in a remote conditional like this one. Generally, irrealis "were" is an untidy relic of an earlier system, and some speakers usually, if not always, use a present tense form (or the preterite where appropriate).
    – BillJ
    Dec 17, 2021 at 14:50

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .