Russ Parsons, a food journalist and sometimes contributor to this very publication, recently took to Twitter to question a peculiarity in how the Irish use English. Having relocated from California, he is still getting acclimatised to the Irish idiosyncrasies. One thing that’s been puzzling him is the Irish tendency to use the conditional tense where the past tense would typically be used.
An example of this is when people say they “would have done” something, implying that they actually carried it out. In contrast, in other English-speaking regions, such a phrase usually suggests that something stopped them from completing the task.
Curious to understand this linguistic anomaly, Parsons wondered aloud, specifically naming Frank McNally as someone he’d like to hear explain it. And while it may seem surprising, McNally attests he had already examined this issue as far back as 2010, during the bank crisis, which he believed offered some illumination on the subject. He promised to revisit this perspective later.
Delving into Terry Dolan’s Dictionary of Hiberno-English, McNally gives us an insight into our extended application of “would”. A linguist from Liverpool University quoted by Dolan observed:
“There is a striking propensity among Hiberno-English (HE) speakers to supplant the simple present tense with the conditional (would) and the simple past tense with the conditional perfect (would have). For instance, ‘Are you worried about what your children eat?’ would be answered with, ‘Yes, I would be’; ‘We would have been very close’ is used to mean ‘We were very close’; ‘He would have gone to school with me’ signifies ‘He in fact did go to school with me’.
Both Dolan and the Liverpool linguist admit that for non-Irish this use of language is confusing but didn’t delve much into why it is so. Circa 2010, McNally theorised this was partially due to the Irish condition, hence some intentional obfuscation of outsiders could not be discounted as a possibility.
Please forgive me while I paraphrase myself:
“Perhaps this is simply Hiberno-English echoing long-standing influences from the ancestral language. However, I wonder if the Irish (Past) Conditional is a relic of 800 years of subjugation, during which time we mastered the art of referring to historical events without self-incrimination.
“For instance, when the War of Independence raged, my forebears could have often provided sanctuary to members of the local guerrilla group, concealing them in a hidden niche beneath the hayshed. I’m not affirming that they did, of course. Merely suggesting that they could have done so. Frequently.”
Beyond my lexicon, I’ve also recognised – based on first-hand usage – an iteration of the Irish Conditional that can substitute for the future tense.
This was part of my regular vernacular, commonly in eateries, where after perusing the menu, making a selection, I would convey this to the server, for example: “I might opt for the steak, thank you.”
This custom still persists and definitely confirms that I have settled on the steak. This is my closing remark on the subject, and the waiter can go ahead having received this confirmation. However, I can perceive how it may flummox the unaccustomed.
During the bleak 2010 period, triggered by the banking crisis, I speculated that this could also be a residue of history:
“The Irish (Future) Conditional, despite conveying a resolute intention to order the steak, also encompasses any potentialities that may obstruct this aspiration. It subtly urges the waiter to voice any reason for not proceeding with the steak order.
“It also embodies the fatalistic nature of the Irish mindset. By stating that we might order the steak, we safeguard ourselves against all potential setbacks: the possibility that the kitchen may run out of steak; the risk that the chef’s grilling attempt may result in catastrophe; and similar eventualities.
“Here, I believe the straightforward future tense thrived during the prosperous years, when we became excessively confident that merely requesting for something ensured receipt. But now amidst the gloomy aftermath, which deep within we anticipated, we’ve reverted to playing safe.”
It’s true that I’ve previously confessed to my continued use of the “might have” phrase, even in the present day when dining out. In fact, my habitual use of the phrase was particularly noticeable during my recent sojourn to California, a place once familiar to Russ. At times this elicited puzzled glances. However, residing in a nation plagued by frequent mass shootings and in a state poised atop shifting tectonic plates, where regular, palpable earth tremors are a norm and the impending threat of a severe earthquake looms, voicing things such as “I might have the house burger” always struck me as a reasonable enough safeguard.