<p>"This is ten percent luck, twenty percent skill
Fifteen percent concentrated power of will
Five percent pleasure, fifty percent pain
And a hundred percent reason to remember the name!"</p>

<p>Did Mike Shinoda get a 2400?</p>

<p>lol okay to my questions...</p>

<p>"I would not have killed myself if I had known I ______ loved."</p>

<p>Do we put "was" or "were" in the blank? I'm pretty sure it's was, but I'm just making sure...
I'm trying to learn conditionals and tenses in general pretty well...</p>

<p>What if I'm still loved? Does that make being loved a completely past event or do we use present perfect here...? Definitely sounds wrong but, again, I want clarification with technicalities here...
"The dead guy who said this <was and="" still="" is=""> dead." <--Is this grammatically correct or not?</was></p>

<p>Not sure about the question about conditionals but I <em>think</em> "was" is correct for the first sentence.</p>

<p>I don't have a 2400 but I do have a 800 Writing (80 m/c) if that qualifies me.</p>

<p>I think it should be "was." You would only use "were" with things like "They were dead" not "He were dead." Get what I mean? I'm pretty sure I'm right but you can go ahead and double check.</p>

<p>^You also use were in the conditional tense, which I think is the OP's main question.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure it's was, because that clause is not a conditional or precursor to the conditional tense. And you can use "were" for third person singular. Example: if he were to have known that he was loved, he would not have killed himself. You use were here because it introduces the conditional (I believe the "were" tense is the imperfect subjunctive in spanish, not sure about english name). However, since "he was loved" is a fact, it is not were. If the sentence WERE (to drill this concept in): If he ____ loved, he would not have killed himself. the blank WOULD be filled with were, because it again introduces the condtional. Hopefully you see the difference. When a clause introduces or explains the use of the conditional (which you can tell if "would" appears), it is were, regardless of singular or plural. Another example: Oh, if only I were rich! This clause doesn't introduce the conditional in this case, but a conditional usage is implied if the sentence were to be elaborated (You would logically ask after someone said that with: What would you do [if you were rich]?). Versus: I was rich, which is just a factional statement.</p>

<p>So: if_<strong><em>, _</em></strong><strong>would</strong><strong><em>. If you see this format, were should be the verb in the first blank. Unfortunately, we have no conditional tense in english, but the second blank will generally contains the present perfect (have</em></strong>__) or present tense.</p>

<p>You also use "were" with some other cases where a subjunctive is needed. I wish you were here. It was recommended that he were to go to the movies. Were I there, I would have done something (simple inversion of if...would).</p>

<p>If you want to learn tenses really well, learn a language. That's really how I learned a bunch of english grammar rules. I learned spanish. The two don't match perfectly, or even close, because english is freaky, but you learn a whole lot about tenses.</p>

<p>@ mabsjenbu123
hahaha my bad; it's just that when people see ALL CAPS AND THE NUMBER 2400 THEY TEND TO CLICK THE THREAD. and yes of course that qualifies you. im not trying to sound elitist or something crazy like that.</p>

when you said:</p>

<p>If he ____ loved, he would not have killed himself. the blank WOULD be filled with were, because it again introduces the condtional. </p>

<p>I'm pretty sure the blank should be filled with "had been". I think you were looking for an example like "If the weenie were cheaper, I would buy it." Anyways, I see what you mean when you said "was" is correct. It doesn't directly follow "if" and doesn't act as the conditional...</p>

<p>Thanks, all of you</p>

<p>Oh, but what about my last question, which reads:</p>

<p>"The dead guy who said this <was and="" still="" is=""> dead." <--Is this grammatically correct or not?</was></p>

<p>The dead guy who said this were dead. That is very incorrect.</p>

<p>The dead guy who said this is dead. That is correct. I don't see why "were" would be used here. </p>

<p>Yeah, had been is also legit. To me, they both sound right. I don't know the nuances that well, so I'll defer to you.</p>

<p>hahahaha I MEANT</p>

<p>"The dead guy who said this was and still is dead." like....literally..."was and still is" is part of the sentence...</p>

<p>is that correct? saying "was and still is"?</p>

nah - I didnt take any offense - I know that "2400" lured me to click this thread so u succeeded :]</p>

<p>My opinion: I actually think "was and still is" is wrong. If you take out the "and still is" your sentence becomes The dead guy who said this was dead. You can't say something when you're dead. So, I think that the correct form would be "The dead guy who said this is dead." Also, you delete dead at the beginning of the sentence, because it's redundant. If anything, it may still make your sentence incorrect, as dead guys can't say something (it depends on when you interpret the dead to set into affect). I don't really see why you wouldn't just say: The guy who said this is dead. There is nothing wrong at all with that.</p>