TinyProf's Grammar Workshop 🎓

---

1. What We're Solving

We're examining a fascinating passage from a 17th-century text and asking: why did the author use "had" and "were" here, and could we swap "were" for "would have been" or "would be" without breaking the grammar?

This question sits at the intersection of historical grammar and logical precision — two things that matter enormously in careful writing.

---

2. The Approach

Understanding what the original construction is actually doing is essential before attempting substitutions. Think of it like understanding a recipe before you start swapping ingredients — you need to know why each ingredient is there first.

Our strategy:

• 1. Identify the mood and tense of the original verbs
• 2. Understand what logical relationship the sentence expresses
• 3. Test each alternative against that logic

---

3. Step-by-Step Solution

Step 1: Recognise the Subjunctive Mood

Look at the core conditional structure:

> "if I had it, then it were but the creature..."

Notice something immediately: "were" is paired with "had," not "had had."

In Early Modern English (roughly 1500–1700), the past subjunctive was used differently from Modern English. Here's a quick comparison:

| Function | Modern English | Early Modern English | |---|---|---| | Unreal present condition | If I had it | If I had it | | Unreal present result | it would be | it were |

So "were" here is the past subjunctive form of "to be," functioning as the equivalent of Modern English "would be."

> 💡 Early Modern English used "were" where we would say "would be." It's the same logical job, just dressed in older clothing!

---

Step 2: Understand the Logical Timeframe

This is the crucial step for evaluating the alternatives.

What is the author imagining?

He is imagining a present or ongoing hypothetical: > "IF I had [this thing right now], THEN it [would currently be / were] just the creature helping me."

He is not imagining something that happened and then concluded in the past. The scenario is:

• Condition: a present imagined possession ("if I had it")
• Result: a present imagined state ("then it were/would be")

This is a Type 2 conditional (unreal present/future):

``` IF + past simple → WOULD + base verb IF I had it → it would be ```

---

Step 3: Evaluate "would be" as a Substitute

> "if I had it, then it would be but the creature..."

✅ Grammatically acceptable? — YES!

"Would be" is the standard Modern English equivalent of the Early Modern subjunctive "were." The logical timeframe matches perfectly — both express an unreal present result, and the meaning is fully preserved.

"Would be" is essentially a translation of "were" into contemporary grammar, not a distortion of it.

---

Step 4: Evaluate "would have been" as a Substitute

> "if I had it, then it would have been but the creature..."

❌ Grammatically acceptable? — NO, and here's the critical reason:

"Would have been" belongs to a Type 3 conditional, which looks like this:

``` IF + past perfect → WOULD HAVE + past participle IF I had had it → it would have been ```

This construction refers to an unreal PAST situation — something that didn't happen and is now finished and closed.

Burroughs is not describing a closed past scenario. He's describing an ongoing, imagined present reality. Substituting "would have been" would accidentally imply:

> "At some specific past moment that is now over, it would have turned out to be the creature..."

This changes the meaning and creates a tense mismatch with "if I had it" (which is present unreal, not past perfect).

> 🚨 Notice that "would have been" pairs naturally with "if I had had it" — the past perfect. But the text says "if I had it" — past simple. These two don't belong together!

---

Step 5: Summarise the Whole Passage's Logic

Let's read the full conditional structure with the complete context:

| Part | Text | Function | |---|---|---| | Desired condition | "I would fain have such a thing" | Expressing a wish | | Unreal condition | "if I had it" | Past subjunctive — imagined present possession | | Unreal result | "then it were but the creature" | Past subjunctive — imagined present state | | Real contrast | "but now it is the grace of God" | Indicative mood — actual present reality |

The author is making a beautifully structured logical contrast: the imagined world (subjunctive) vs. the real world (indicative). That contrast is the whole point of his argument about contentment.

---

4. The Answer

| Alternative | Acceptable? | Why? | |---|---|---| | "were" (original) | ✅ Correct | Early Modern past subjunctive for unreal present result | | "would be" | ✅ Acceptable | Modern equivalent; same logical timeframe preserved | | "would have been" | ❌ Not acceptable | Implies a closed past scenario; creates tense mismatch with "if I had it" |

The core principle: "Were" and "would be" are interchangeable here because they both express an unreal present condition and its imagined present result. "Would have been" is not interchangeable because it shifts the scenario into a completed past, which contradicts the grammar of "if I had it" and distorts the author's meaning.

---

5. Memory Tip 🧠

Try this rhyme to remember conditional matching:

> "Had" pairs with "would be" — present and free, > "Had had" pairs with "would have been" — past and complete!"

Or think of it as tense echo: the verb in your result clause must echo the timeframe set up by your condition clause. If the condition is "present unreal" (had), the result must also be "present unreal" (were/would be) — not "past completed" (would have been).

---

You're working with genuinely sophisticated grammatical territory here. The fact that you're noticing these distinctions puts you ahead of most readers! Keep asking why the grammar works, not just what the rule says. That's how real understanding develops. 🌟