In reading Ephraim Urbach’s Sages, about what the Rabbis (that is, the venerated rabbis of the Talmud) have said about certain topics, I noticed a tendency of Mr. Urbach and the Rabbis quoted to use the phrase “as it were” whenever talking about God in a way that was inconsistent with His being, such as when He was depicted as anthropomorphic or anthropopathic.
For some reason, I picked up that practice, using “as it were” to indicate, I suppose, “not literally as written” or “as this is supposed.”
As an example, I was discussing how members of a religion were trying to bring their religion back on the right path, as it were: I used “as it were” to indicate that “right path” is used to describe what they believed but not what I would necessarily agree with. But I think I may be using it incorrectly.
Long story short: what does “as it were” really mean and when is it supposed to be used?
There is no really precise definition for it; it’s idiomatic. Note that it’s a subjunctive construction. But essentially, IMO, it’s a sort of syntactic disclaimer that “the way I feel compelled to express this concept is not precise and involves a bit of personification, metaphor, or anthropomorphism.”
“Be” is correct, subjunctive use. It’s disappearing, though, because in general we don’t know what the subjunctive mood is anymore, or we get by and convey the meaning without a need for it. Kind of.
Saying “the powers that are” just doesn’t ring right, though. Not because I’m just not used to hearing it, but it’s like scratching a blackboard. It’s like “If I was sick” instead of “If I were sick,” which are “obvious” use of the subjunctive that many of us still use and recognize.
Consider this: “I want that he be here tomorrow.” You’re not using the infinitive “be” here but rather a subjunctive form. Contrast with “I want that he is here tomorrow.” Teeth-grating, no? And, yeah, this construction is often replaced entirely with “I want him to be here tomorrow.”
“I think that he need not worry” is another good contrast. I think a lot of people use “I think he doesn’t need to worry” because they’re uncomfortable with the “he need” usage, and they know that “he needs” would just be wrong. Hey, I avoid uncomfortable grammer situations all the time, too.
The subjunctive in English is a wonderful mood that makes English vastly more expressive, and it’s a true shame that it’s disappearing from the common venacular.
But why is “the powers that be” subjunctive? I understand “I want that he be here tomorrow”, because in that case he isn’t necessarily going to be here tomorrow, it’s just that you want him to be. But don’t “the powers that be” really exist? It’s not like you’re just hoping or speculating that the exist. Is it subjunctive just because you’re not specifying what those powers are?
Well, context, then. When do you say “the powers that be”? Almost exlusively in a context such as, “they powers that be (whoever they are).” The uncertainty calls for the subjunctive.
I’m genuinely sorry, WeRSauron, but I tend to gag when I hear “…as it were” and other such utterances.
To me they sound so affected, so condescending, so desperately British. Do you really need to voice phrases such as that and “…if you will”?
Maybe my problem is that people who use these expressions, tend to overuse them to the point where I want to puke on their waistcoats.
There have to be better, more interesting ways to impart the same thought without resorting to cliches.
If you were “discussing how members of a religion were trying to bring their religion back on the right path,” and just ended the sentence right there, don’t you think your audience would understand what you’re saying, and there would be no need for the “as it were”?
It’s kind of a chestnut, but the classic use of “as t were” is the politically correct minister calling his flock to repentance with:“Unless you repent, so to speak, and are baptized, as it were, you will be, to a certain extent, damned.”
