A Dictionary of Cont..

deed is a deed containing such a covenant, as
distinguished from a quitclaim deed, which conveys
without any assurances only such title as
the grantor may have. In the law of insurance, a
warranty is a statement or promise, made by the
party insured, and included as an essential part
of the contract, falsity or nonfulfillment of which
renders the policy void. Warranty may also mean
a judicial document, as a warrant or writ. Guoranty
means a warrant, pledge, or promise given
by way of security. As a verb it means to guarantee.
Guaranty is used in England in many
contexts where Americans would use gunruntee
which, in the United States, is by far the commoner
of the two forms in all uses.
was; were. These two words form the past tense
of the verb be. Was is always singular and cannot
be used with a plural subject. We cannot say
we wus, fhey was, or you wus. Were is usually
plural, but it may also be used, under some circumstances,
with a singular subject.
Were is used with the pronoun you, even
when you refers to only one person, as in were
you there, Charlie? This has been standard English
since about 1820. Before that, educated
people said you were when speaking to more
than one person and you was when speaking to
only one, as in you was mistaken, lohn. This
was a useful distinction that may someday come
back into the language. At present we have no
standard way of showing whether you is singular
or plural and resort to makeshift plural forms
such as you people, you all, and the unacceptable
yous.
The other cases in which were may be used
with a singular subject are not as clear-cut as
this. It is not true that the singular were can
always be used after the word if. Sentences such
as in my childhood I admired a mun if he were
rich, where were is wrong and was is required,
show that the writer is using were self-consciously,
out of anxiety about his grammar, and not
out of any feeling for the old literary forms.
Were is the singular, as well as the plural, in
the old past subjunctive of be. It is therefore
permissible to use it with a singular subject wherever
a past subjunctive is appropriate, principally
after the verb wish and in hypothetical
statements that are indefinite as to time, as in
I wish I were wonderful, suppose it were true,
and if I were living in a desert. (See subjunctive
mode.) But, with two exceptions which will be
discussed later, the singular was may also be
used in these same constructions, as in I wish Z
was wonderful, suppose it was true, and if I
was living in a desert. This is not a recent development.
Was has been used as a past subjunctive
in literary English for more than three hundred
years and is the preferred form today.
In current English there are two constructions
in which were is preferred to the subjunctive
was. One is the simple expression if I were you.
Wus is also used here, and is not wrong, but were
is generally preferred. The other is a purely
literary construction. The idea that is ordinarily
expressed by an if clause may be expressed with-
547 wash
out the if, by placing the verb before the subject,
as in were I in a desert. Formerly, was might be
used in this way. Sterne, for example, wrote
was I in a desert. But this is no longer standard.
In present-day English were is required in this
construction and was cannot be used. In any
other construction where both forms are pcrmissible,
was is now felt to be more forceful,
more vivid, than the singular were.
As a rule, the singular were cannot be used in
a statement about the past. If we are uncertain
about the facts, the indicative was is required,
as in if he was thirty when I met him. Sometimes
if introduces a statement which we know was
true and this also calls for the indicative war, as
in she was sixty if she was u day. If we know
that what we are saying is contrary to the facts
and we are speaking about a specific event, the
past perfect with had is required, as in if he had
been there. In speaking of the past, the singular
were is used only in descriptive statements,
which are relatively timeless, and only when
these are known to be contrary to the facts, as
in he looked us grim us if he were made of stone
and he treated her us tenderly us if he were her
own mother. Even here, was is permissible and
hod been is generally preferred.
To sum up, the singular were is used with the
pronoun you in the expression if I were you
and in hypothetical statements with inverted
word order, such as were he here. It may be
used, but need not be, to express what is imaginary
or doubtful, provided the statement refers
to the future or is indefinite as to time, as in
if he were given a chance. In current English
was is heard more often than were in such state
ments. Some grammarians claim that were is
required in a contrary-to-fact statement that
does not refer to a specific past event. But these
same men also complain that was is now invading
this “last stronghold” of the singular
were. The invasion has been under way for
several centuries and no one should be frightened
into using were where was seems more natural.
It is almost impossible for anyone who has a
high school education to use was where were is
required. But the writer who gets self-conscious
about his subjunctives can very easily use were
where literary English requires was. To be safe,
one should write as one speaks.
wash is more frequently used in compounds in
America than in England. Wushbourd is of
American origin. American washbowl is English
washbasin. American washcloth or washrag is
English face-cloth or face-flannel. American
washroom (often a synonym for privy) is English
lavatory, which is often, to an American’s
annoyance, a mere washroom. American wushday
is English washing day. Both English and
Americans say washstand and washtub. Wushhouse,
an English term for a small separate outbuilding
used solely for washing clothes and
containing the coppers (in America called boilers
or tubs) is unknown in the United States. In both
England and America the older word to describe
a woman who washed clothes for hire was