> I don't think the presence or absence of a contraction has any bearing on the correctness of the verb form.
>

Logically, I'd tend to agree. Unfortunately, an astonishing amount of syntax has always appeared to be structured around what simply "sounds right" to a native speaker. Not a surprising conclusion, given that most native speakers don't pick up syntax and structure in a formal sense. It's largely an unconscious process beginning from infancy.


> "If Dave was not/wasn't a babe" says to me that you aren't sure if he was a babe or not. "If Dave were not/weren't a babe" says to me that you know he IS a babe but are speculating on how things would be if he were not. Since Dave is not a babe, it does not make sense to use this sentence format.
>

Whoa. Hold it. Time out. Back up. I seem to be majorly misunderstanding something there in your last statement, "it does not make sense to use this sentence format." That is, to which tense format are you referring? Are you implying that in this *extremely* special case, regarding the admitted impossibility of the current babebosity of Dave ("Since Dave is not a babe..."), the correct form of Penny-stamp's syntactical derivation ought to be, therefore,

"If [Dave] WAS a babe..."

primarily for this very special, *specific* instance of the phrase involving Dave?

Wolf " / / " spirit