Usage of the future subjunctive

Solution 1:

I really wouldn’t call that a future subjunctive. It’s merely a periphrastic construct that emphasizes the irregular were so that its counter factuality comes through more strongly. It’s actually a past subjunctive form. Witness:

1. If I were you, I wouldn’t do that.
2. If I had a ball, I’d throw it to your dog.
3. If I ate like that, I’d die.
4. If I were to eat like that, I’d die.

As you see, there’s no difference between the last two entries. Therefore, there is no future subjunctive here at all.

Compare this with languages that do have a future subjunctive:

• Por donde fueres, haz lo que vieres. Spanish for “Wherever you go, do as you see.” (When in Rome...)
• Aunque él me quitare la vida, en él confiaré. Spanish for Job 3:3, “Though He should take my life, in Him shall I trust.”
• Não entraremos se falarmos assim. Portuguese for “We won’t get in if we talk like that.”
• Se eu estiver cansado não vou ao cinema. Portuguese for “If I’m tired I won’t go to the cinema.”
• Logo que eles chegarem, nós começaremos a comer. Portuguese for “We’ll start eating as soon as they get here.”
• Quando chegares, liga para o escritório. Portuguese for “Once you arrive, call the office.”

By the way, the supposedly future subjunctive case from English would be simply this in Spanish:

• Si comiese así, me moriría. Spanish for “If I ate like that, I’d die.”

The first clause is in the past subjunctive and the second is in the conditional.

I’ve never before heard English described as somehow having a future subjunctive: would that it were so! I submit that that particular Wikipedia page has simply gotten it wrong.

Solution 2:

"If I were to own a dictionary, I would know how to spell"
"Tomorrow, I will the be owner of a new dictionary, and will be very happy"

Solution 3:

The type of construction referred to as the "future subjunctive" belongs to the more general type of construction with modal meaning

[be] + (infinitival verb phrase)

which is used to indicate a future action that is thought to be iminent and probable, and is used especially to express obligation, e.g.,

You are to leave at once.

Let's call it the prospective construction. When the verb [be] appears in its preterite form, there are two main interpretations. First is to indicate a reference time in the past, as in

Thomas was to leave on the 3:30 train.

Which means that at some time in the past, it was thought probable that Thomas would leave on the 3:30 train (regardless of what may have eventually happened). The preterite form, however, is not restricted to indicating past time. Instead, preterite forms may take on a modal meaning, used to refer to contemplated or counterfactual actions, e.g.,

If Thomas was to leave on the 3:30 train tomorrow, I would regret missing the chance to have dinner with him.

The verb [be] is unique in English because it has an alternate form (sometimes called the irrealis) with similar function as the modal preterite. The following sentence has similar meaning with the previous one:

If Thomas were to leave on the 3:30 train tomorrow, I would regret missing the chance to have dinner with him.

In the case where the irrealis form of [be] is used in the prospective construction, you refer to a prospective meaning coupled with a counterfactual meaning. Counterfactual meanings often involve future actions, but not always, so I think it would be more appropriate to call this construction proximate irrealis, or something along those lines.

Solution 4:

But consider these examples:

1. If I go to the concert, I will enjoy it.
2. If I go to the concert, I might enjoy it.
3. If I go to the concert, I would enjoy it.
4. If I went ["were to go"] to the concert, I will enjoy it.
5. If I went ["were to go"] to the concert, I might enjoy it.
6. If I went ["were to go"] to the concert, I would enjoy it.

1, 2, 5 and 6 are corrent constructions; 3 and 4 are incorrect. I would describe 1 and 2 as in the indicative, 5 and 6 as future subjunctives. 2 expresses conditionality and uncertainty, and overlaps in meaning with 5, but to my mind, in 5 uncertainty is expressed in the conditional clause in a way it is not in 2. And at the least, the correctness of the use of the form "went" in what is clearly a statement about the future is best justified by recognizing it as a different form, even though the forms are homonyms.

Maybe I'm over-thinking this, but I believe the future subjunctive in English still has a (barely) discernible function.