The new Coen Brother’s film Hail, Caesar! was recently advertised with a trailer focused on the strange English expression “Would that it were so simple.” (if you haven’t seen it, check it out here!). This is an interesting construction, which at first appears to be would that + past tense, and might otherwise be seen as “Would that I knew”, “Would that there was another way” or many other possibilities. It is also not always joined with that, for example would he knew the answer, though this is far less common. It is not a strange tense, though, merely an idiomatic use of more archaic language, combined with the subjunctive.
Why we can say “would that it were”
Would in this construction is not a past tense form of will – it is an old-fashioned, different meaning of would, to mean wish. The form would that is effectively the same as wish that or would rather that. These two sentences effectively have the same meaning:
- I wish that I knew the answer.
- Would that I knew the answer.
Notice that this use of would has an idiomatic use, however, and is mostly used without a subject. Without a subject, this idiomatic expression can carry a slightly different emphasis, making the expression more passive or general than the simple I wish that. While it might therefore translate to I wish that in the archaic (old) use of the word, it is more accurate to translate it to If only… in idiomatic use. It is not necessarily connected to a subject’s wish, therefore, more a general sense of longing (though of course in context it will be clear who is expressing that longing!).
The other point to consider is that we have it were rather than it was, which indicates the subjunctive mood, not the past tense – the subjunctive is used when expressing wishes/desires (covered in more detail here), which gives another clue to would’s real meaning here.
Hence, would that it were so simple is an archaic, idiomatic way of saying if only it were so simple. And considering it might confuse a lot of people, the expression is fairly apt!
Is there any chance that this is related to the German and Dutch use of “wollte”/”wou” (past tense of will/wil) which means indeed “wished” or “wanted”?
Oh that would be an interesting explanation – I don’t know myself the etymology there, but that seems like a logicial connection!
Would that they were related..
I use the expression often and was expecting it to be ”shakesperian”. Guess that I was wrong, again..
My grandmother used to say this all of the time in New England. Sort of Brahmin. Some of my teachers used it in high school too. I don’t think I’m being British.
I wouldn’t necessarily equate more archaic English with British English; it’s interesting that actually a lot of more traditional English is better preserved in certain parts of the US than in the UK, as the language evolved differently in the two countries.
” lot of more traditional English is better preserved in certain parts of the US than in the UK”
Maybe in some isolated communities in Appalachia, but not so much elsewhere.
There’s an interesting exploration of this phenomenon in Bill Bryson’s books, actually, where he traces how certain language quirks that came over with the first settlers survived better in America that in England where the language evolved differently.
Ahem – it is “would” + (verb in subjunctive mood), not “would” + (verb in past tense). https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/getting-in-the-subjunctive-mood
Yes, thanks for pointing that out! I mentioned only what it generally appeared as without clarifying, more focused on the use of ‘would’ than how it’s also a subjunctive phrase rather than past simple. I’ll make that clearer!
I enjoyed reading your back and forth. Would that children today might be so curious and well-spokem.