Not long ago we were talking in this space about the rules governing the use of “if” and “whether.” Not surprisingly, a conclusion emerged that there are no rules governing the use of “if” and “whether.” It is anarchy as usual.

I quoted from Genesis 8:18: “Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the water were abated.” Then I added, “If the usage was good enough for Noah, it’s good enough for me.”

That smart-alecky comment evoked a torrent of mail. (Well, 22 letters.) Anne Connelly of Lakeland, Fla., was the first to ask, “Shouldn’t you have used ‘were good enough’ instead of ‘was good enough?”‘

Fair question. The answer, I believe, is “it depends.” It depends on a writer’s ear; it depends on the position of the “if” clause in a sentence; and it depends upon the prospective audience. Black tie or turtleneck? Are we dining metaphorically on good china or paper plates? Is this a letter to Aunt Gertie? An essay for Foreign Affairs? The choice of the indicative “was” or the subjunctive “were” is not a matter of “right” usage and “wrong” usage. It’s a matter of what sounds right.

Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage devotes nearly five columns to a delightful discussion of the subjunctive mood. Commentators have been writing its obituary for the past 200 years. The grammatical structure may be dead, but it won’t lie down. In constructions involving “wish” or “if,” good writers have had it both ways. In 1859, Henry Adams remarked in a letter, “… I should feel as if I WERE flirting with my aunt …” In 1890, Adams recalled being carried “as though I WAS a baby.”

As a secretary of state once famously remarked, let me caveat you: The English language is blessed by plenty of “rules” that really are RULES – rules of grammar, rules of style – and unless you’re in a class with Ezra Pound and e.e. cummings, you ought to observe them. Subject and predicate must agree in number! A proper sonnet has 14 lines! Be not unintentionally redundant! But when we’re talking of the subjunctive of wish or probability, writers have some wiggle room. If the subjunctive were good enough for Noah, the indicative is still good enough for me. Onward!

Try another one on your Victrola: Should protective father say to lissome daughter, “I forbid you to see that scoundrel again!” Or, “I forbid you from seeing that scoundrel again!” The probabilities are that Father has just guaranteed that lissome daughter will again be in the sack with scoundrel, but that is not our concern.

On this portentous question authorities are divided. William and Mary Morris are unequivocal: “Forbid” should never be followed by “from.” Bryan Garner says “forbid from” is probably more common today than “forbid to.” The venerable H.W. Fowler says, mystically, “To forbid one ‘from doing’ is an unidiomatic construction on the analogy of ‘prohibit’ or ‘prevent.”‘ I have no idea what Fowler was talking about. Fowler’s successor, R.W. Burchfield, sensibly suggests that if Father is torn between “forbidding to” and “forbidding from,” Father should try another verb, e.g., he could PROHIBIT darling daughter from seeing the scoundrel. That won’t work either.

James Kilpatrick is a syndicated columnist.