Grammatical Reminder

I am a very adamant believer that grammars are descriptions of language conventions and not rules that must be followed. The simplest "proof" of this is how a descriptive grammar can and does account for language change, that is to say, how a language adapts to communicate effectively in an ever changing metaworld. This does not, however, allow for a willy-nilly use of language; quite the opposite. Because language functions on the basis of shared linguistic conventions (i.e. "grammar"), for effective communication to occur each communicator (encoder-decoder) must operate within those conventions. There is, thankfully, enough flexibility in every grammar to allow for creativity, error, and ignorance, but in the main the conventions must be followed. If they are not, misunderstanding results. Part of the beauty of language is in its conventions (aside from the creative breaking of conventions for a specific rhetorical purpose). So here is another friendly reminder to the public that it sure would be nice to return to a long standing convention--the "was" or "were" use.

Indicative: "I was a young boy"; "I was at the post office yesterday."
Subjunctive: "If I were rich I would buy a boat"; "If I were you, I'd use a hammer."

The indicative reports on actual, historical reality that is verifiable in time. The subjunctive reports on possible or theoretical reality that may or may not become verifiable. By using the "was" first person singular verb in subjunctive constructions we lose the subjunctive descriptivity and clarity in communication.

If (no pun intended) a person is using the subjunctive marker "if" and is speaking in the first person ("I"), then "were" must be used. The difference is between "I am" and "If I am to become/do/etc." and the latter conventionally uses "were" as the verb.