This would be a good title, but I said “would.”

I recently heard an announcer identify a player by saying “You know who it is? That would be Slim Summers.”* It really touched a nerve. I know grammar isn’t really a popular topic, and most people think we learn enough of it just by using English every day, but this really highlights a problem with common use: we are misusing solid constructions and impoverishing our language in the process. “Would” is subjunctive, a little-used verbal mood. It is the mood of potential, not actuality. (The subjunctive drives Latin students nuts because of this.) Its most common use is to present something that is contrary to fact. And it’s a great way of indicating possibility. “If you came to class, you would know what’s going on.” “I would help if I could, but I’m swamped.” “He might be a father, but he sure ain’t a dad”** “If I had a million dollars, I’d buy you a green dress.”*** All of these are good uses of the subjunctive: these are either false or questionable situations, and the grammar reflects that possibility, either false (he might be the biological father, but he certainly isn’t an involved parent) or unlikely (my having a million dollars). The important factor to remember with the subjunctive is that there’s an inherent “but” modifying it. Sometimes it’s stated outright (“but I’m swamped”), sometimes not. It’s always there, though, and that is the real value of the subjunctive. In saying “That would be Slim Summers,” though, the announcer has cast the identity into doubt. It would be him except what? It’s his twin? It’s his stunt double? It’s someone else entirely? I heckle the announcer because that’s the most recent (and common) use I’ve heard, but I’ve noticed the encroachment of the subjunctive elsewhere. When I was hired by one employer, the human resources people running the orientation said “The papers would be on the table after the presentation.” They would, but what? But you forgot to make the copies? You forgot to bring them? The table disappeared? Or if what? If we want them? Will they disappear from the table if we don’t want them? Rather than saying “they are on the table,” or “they will be on the table” (in keeping with “after the presentation”), the subjunctive establishes a contrary-to-fact statement, and I wonder what the reality is. The subjunctive fell out of common use in English long ago. Why, then, is it creeping into use again? Are we unsure of our authority? Are people mis-using this construction to sound more complex, more educated, more intelligent? Because, like so many things, those that know the truth, those that can read (or listen) carefully, will hear this misappropriation, this incorrect usage, and will think less, not more, of the speaker. Or, rather than communicating well, it will spread confusion, as the careful audience will be distracted by the possibility, as I was at orientation. But ultimately, the writers who specifically choose the subjunctive for its original purpose will be misread and misunderstood, and the depth of expression allowed by the subjunctive will be lost, and that is a shame. *As I wasn’t really paying attention, I forget the player’s actual name. Extra credit to the first person to identify “Slim Summers,” though! **Crash Test Dummies, “Androgynous” ***But not a real green dress; that’s cruel. (Thanks to Barenaked Ladies for this quote!)