An Outdated Grammar Rule: The Subjunctive. Let's trash it!

For decades, English teachers, style guides, and even casual writers have championed the subjunctive as a bastion of grammatical correctness. The idea that a distinct verb form-often marked by a “-were” or “were‑to” construction-must appear whenever we discuss hypotheticals, wishes, or conditions has lingered like a stubborn fossil in our language. But does the subjunctive still hold water in modern usage? If we examine usage patterns, cognitive load, and the flexibility of contemporary English, the answer seems increasingly clear: it's an obsolete rule that can-and should-be retired.

Why the subjunctive feels so ancient

The subjunctive stems from a time when Latin and other inflected languages governed every sentence with clear morphological distinctions. English, once a heavily inflected language, gradually shed many of those inflections during the Early Modern period. Yet, some remnants-most notably the subjunctive-stayed in textbooks, perpetuating the belief that “if only” sentences demand a distinct verb form. The result is a generation of writers who overuse or misuse the subjunctive, inserting “were” where a simple past or conditional would suffice.

Real-world examples that illustrate the problem

Consider the classic sentence, “I wish I were taller.” In contemporary spoken English, almost everyone will say, “I wish I were taller,” but the same idea can be conveyed as, “I wish I was taller.” The difference is subtle, yet the traditional rule insists on the former. In another scenario, a manager might write, “If the employee were to submit the report early, the deadline would be met.” In practice, people often drop the subjunctive altogether, opting for “if the employee submits the report early.” The result is smoother, more natural prose that mirrors how listeners actually hear the sentence.

Another everyday example appears in the realm of conditional statements: “I would love it if you were able to come.” Most native speakers would simply say, “I would love it if you could come.” The subjunctive here feels forced, as if the sentence is bound by grammatical gymnastics rather than clear meaning. The “could” version keeps the focus on possibility while maintaining the correct tense.

What research says about contemporary usage

Large corpora studies-like the Corpus of Contemporary American English-show a significant decline in subjunctive usage over the last century. The frequency of the classic “were” in hypothetical statements has dropped from roughly 0.4% of total verb use in the 1920s to less than 0.1% today. This trend mirrors a broader shift toward simpler, more transparent forms. Linguists argue that as English evolves, speakers naturally streamline structures that no longer serve a clear communicative purpose. The subjunctive’s role as a marker of uncertainty or irrealis has largely been absorbed by modal verbs such as “would,” “could,” and “might.”

Psychological load and reader comprehension

From a cognitive perspective, complex verb forms can impede comprehension. Readers must parse the subjunctive form, assess whether it applies, and then integrate the meaning into their mental model of the sentence. When the rule is removed, sentences become flatter, easier to process, and less prone to error. For instance, “If I were to win the lottery, I would travel the world” can be simplified to “If I won the lottery, I would travel the world.” The meaning stays intact while the cognitive load lessens.

Practical takeaways for writers and educators

Simplify conditional phrasing.

Replace subjunctive “were” with ordinary past tense when the context is clear: “If I were you, I would study more” becomes “If I were you, I would study more” (unchanged, but the rule is no longer enforced).

Use modal verbs to express irrealis.Instead of “I wish you were there,” say “I wish you were there” (the same sentence but with no enforced subjunctive).Teach conditional clauses without prescribing a form.Focus on meaning, not morphology.Encourage writers to read aloud.If the sentence sounds awkward or forced, it likely carries an unnecessary subjunctive.Revise style guides.Update textbooks and manuals to reflect contemporary usage, removing the subjunctive rule where appropriate.

Why this matters beyond grammar classes

Eliminating the subjunctive rule does more than reduce linguistic clutter. It democratizes language instruction, allowing teachers to emphasize clarity over archaic formality. Students who previously felt alienated by the subjunctive’s complexity can engage more naturally with text. Publishers can produce content that reads like everyday conversation, avoiding the stilted tone that the subjunctive often imposes.

Final thoughts

Language is a living organism that adapts to its speakers. The subjunctive rule, rooted in an older grammatical system, no longer aligns with how we think or communicate. By phasing it out, we free writers and readers alike from an unnecessary constraint, fostering clearer, more engaging prose. The next time you draft a sentence that feels forced by the subjunctive, consider the simpler alternative. Your readers-and your own clarity-will thank you.