"once got out it will be catastrophic"

[PeterMollenburg]

I agree. Still clumsy. The “will” in particular does not sit well with me. On the back of Iverson’s suggestion, I suggest this rewording :

It strikes me that emotions of all types buried in our subconscious appear to be so much more intense than we acknowledge/understand/realise, to the extent that were they to enter the conscious mind, the result could be potentially catastrophic.

Thanks! the "to the extent" part really makes it clearer. But I don't know why it is "were they" not "when they"?

‘Were they’ is the subjunctive form. It’s not as definitive as ‘when they’.

‘When they’ implies it is absolutely going to happen, meaning these emotions will reach the conscious mind, there’s no question, it’s absolute, as science based research has proven this and everyone knows it as fact. Hence why your use of the word ‘will’ doesn’t sit well with me. It’s too definitive, far too certain.

Your phrase appears to be wanting to be more hypothetical, theorising. Thus, the subjunctive sounds more appropriate. The subjunctive gives a ‘what if clause’, that is if these emotions ‘get out’ (i.e. reach the conscious mind), this is what could occur. The subjunctive is not as imaginary as the conditional (if I had a million dollars, I would...) and the outcome depends on certain things being subject to occuring based on other things - If those emotions ‘were’ to... it could lead to....

Additionally, you could use the subjunctive with ‘would’.
Eg If those emotions were to get out/enter the conscious mind, it ‘would’...

However, ‘would’ again implies you are certain of the outcome (subject to the emitions getting out).

‘Could’ provides less certainty. Compare these two:

Eg. Were those two bombs to explode, the three soldiers in close proximity “would” die. (You are certain of the outcome).

Were those two bombs to explode, it “could” bring down that nearby building. (It might bring it down, but you do not know that for certain).

“Were” is the subjunctive plural form of ‘to be’, and is used in the two examples above because they are outcomes subject to certain events occuring. If the events do not occur (the bombs going off) the outcomes are not possible.

[learningchayse]

I agree. Still clumsy. The “will” in particular does not sit well with me. On the back of Iverson’s suggestion, I suggest this rewording :

It strikes me that emotions of all types buried in our subconscious appear to be so much more intense than we acknowledge/understand/realise, to the extent that were they to enter the conscious mind, the result could be potentially catastrophic.

Thanks! the "to the extent" part really makes it clearer. But I don't know why it is "were they" not "when they"?

‘Were they’ is the subjunctive form. It’s not as definitive as ‘when they’.

‘When they’ implies it is absolutely going to happen, meaning these emotions will reach the conscious mind, there’s no question, it’s absolute, as science based research has proven this and everyone knows it as fact. Hence why your use of the word ‘will’ doesn’t sit well with me. It’s too definitive, far too certain.

Your phrase appears to be wanting to be more hypothetical, theorising. Thus, the subjunctive sounds more appropriate. The subjunctive gives a ‘what if clause’, that is if these emotions ‘get out’ (i.e. reach the conscious mind), this is what could occur. The subjunctive is not as imaginary as the conditional (if I had a million dollars, I would...) and the outcome depends on certain things being subject to occuring based on other things - If those emotions ‘were’ to... it could lead to....

Additionally, you could use the subjunctive with ‘would’.
Eg If those emotions were to get out/enter the conscious mind, it ‘would’...

However, ‘would’ again implies you are certain of the outcome (subject to the emitions getting out).

‘Could’ provides less certainty. Compare these two:

Eg. Were those two bombs to explode, the three soldiers in close proximity “would” die. (You are certain of the outcome).

Were those two bombs to explode, it “could” bring down that nearby building. (It might bring it down, but you do not know that for certain).

“Were” is the subjunctive plural form of ‘to be’, and is used in the two examples above because they are outcomes subject to certain events occuring. If the events do not occur (the bombs going off) the outcomes are not possible.

Thank you so much. that is so informative!
What I am still confused is: is "were they" the reversed way of saying "if they were" ?

[learningchayse]

What would you say if you want to express similar idea.

Maybe a formulation based on a condition would function better - like for instance:

My suspicion is that if all the strong emotions we've got in our subconscious got out into the open (then) all hell would break loose ..

That is some level I want to achieve!
How can you come up something simple, fun, natrual yet with a formulation?
Does your prose come out natrually or by design(formulation)?
Could you share your secrect of English learning?
Why most danish are fluent English speakers?

[StringerBell]

Also, I tried another one in an attempt to avoid the tricky part:
It strikes me that emotions of all types buried in my subconscious seem to be so much more intense than my reality can handle.

How does it sound?

Are you speaking about only yourself, or are you speaking about other people, too? Using "my" makes it seems as if you are only talking about the emotions buried in your subconscious; you are not talking about this applying to people in general.

For this reason, many of the suggestions you got have been rephrased with "we" or "our" instead of "me" or "my" because it seems as if you are stating something that is applicable to many people, but maybe your intent is to only refer to yourself?

[PeterMollenburg]

I agree. Still clumsy. The “will” in particular does not sit well with me. On the back of Iverson’s suggestion, I suggest this rewording :

It strikes me that emotions of all types buried in our subconscious appear to be so much more intense than we acknowledge/understand/realise, to the extent that were they to enter the conscious mind, the result could be potentially catastrophic.

Thanks! the "to the extent" part really makes it clearer. But I don't know why it is "were they" not "when they"?

‘Were they’ is the subjunctive form. It’s not as definitive as ‘when they’.

‘When they’ implies it is absolutely going to happen, meaning these emotions will reach the conscious mind, there’s no question, it’s absolute, as science based research has proven this and everyone knows it as fact. Hence why your use of the word ‘will’ doesn’t sit well with me. It’s too definitive, far too certain.

Your phrase appears to be wanting to be more hypothetical, theorising. Thus, the subjunctive sounds more appropriate. The subjunctive gives a ‘what if clause’, that is if these emotions ‘get out’ (i.e. reach the conscious mind), this is what could occur. The subjunctive is not as imaginary as the conditional (if I had a million dollars, I would...) and the outcome depends on certain things being subject to occuring based on other things - If those emotions ‘were’ to... it could lead to....

Additionally, you could use the subjunctive with ‘would’.
Eg If those emotions were to get out/enter the conscious mind, it ‘would’...

However, ‘would’ again implies you are certain of the outcome (subject to the emitions getting out).

‘Could’ provides less certainty. Compare these two:

Eg. Were those two bombs to explode, the three soldiers in close proximity “would” die. (You are certain of the outcome).

Were those two bombs to explode, it “could” bring down that nearby building. (It might bring it down, but you do not know that for certain).

“Were” is the subjunctive plural form of ‘to be’, and is used in the two examples above because they are outcomes subject to certain events occuring. If the events do not occur (the bombs going off) the outcomes are not possible.

Thank you so much. that is so informative!
What I am still confused is: is "were they" the reversed way of saying "if they were" ?

No, it’s the subjunctive form of ‘to be’. The subjunctive is much more commonly found in French and even more so in Spanish I believe (and I’m sure many other languages), but it does exist occasionally in English, yet often goes unnoticed, as the subjunctive form is either identical to other verb forms (so you literally don’t notice that the verb form is actually in the subjunctive), or is no longer in common use in the phrase in question (it’s often optional - confirmation perhaps that it’s gradually disappearing).

Still, there are circumstances in which the subjunctive in English is more natural to use it rather than not.

If you have trouble understanding it’s application, perhaps just try to remember set phrases like in your phrase that I offered my alternative for containing ‘were’. In other words, just accept that when certain outcomes are dependent on another action occuring first, which in itself not definite, the verb form may change (to the subjunctive), but it’s relatively rare. Confused? I think that’s about all I can offer, so redirecting yourself to some kind of English grammar resource that mentions the subjunctive might be best.

[Iversen]

Does your prose come out natrually or by design(formulation)?
Could you share your secrect of English learning?
Why most danish are fluent English speakers?

Well, here in Denmark it is hard to avoid the English language - especially if you spend a lot of time studying, working with things on the internet and watching TV.

[learningchayse]

Also, I tried another one in an attempt to avoid the tricky part:
It strikes me that emotions of all types buried in my subconscious seem to be so much more intense than my reality can handle.

How does it sound?

Are you speaking about only yourself, or are you speaking about other people, too? Using "my" makes it seems as if you are only talking about the emotions buried in your subconscious; you are not talking about this applying to people in general.

For this reason, many of the suggestions you got have been rephrased with "we" or "our" instead of "me" or "my" because it seems as if you are stating something that is applicable to many people, but maybe your intent is to only refer to yourself?

Right, I've changed my mind in this try since it was something drawn from my personal experience, I would rather keep it "I" than to generalize it to "we".

[learningchayse]

I agree. Still clumsy. The “will” in particular does not sit well with me. On the back of Iverson’s suggestion, I suggest this rewording :

It strikes me that emotions of all types buried in our subconscious appear to be so much more intense than we acknowledge/understand/realise, to the extent that were they to enter the conscious mind, the result could be potentially catastrophic.

Thanks! the "to the extent" part really makes it clearer. But I don't know why it is "were they" not "when they"?

‘Were they’ is the subjunctive form. It’s not as definitive as ‘when they’.

‘When they’ implies it is absolutely going to happen, meaning these emotions will reach the conscious mind, there’s no question, it’s absolute, as science based research has proven this and everyone knows it as fact. Hence why your use of the word ‘will’ doesn’t sit well with me. It’s too definitive, far too certain.

Your phrase appears to be wanting to be more hypothetical, theorising. Thus, the subjunctive sounds more appropriate. The subjunctive gives a ‘what if clause’, that is if these emotions ‘get out’ (i.e. reach the conscious mind), this is what could occur. The subjunctive is not as imaginary as the conditional (if I had a million dollars, I would...) and the outcome depends on certain things being subject to occuring based on other things - If those emotions ‘were’ to... it could lead to....

Additionally, you could use the subjunctive with ‘would’.
Eg If those emotions were to get out/enter the conscious mind, it ‘would’...

However, ‘would’ again implies you are certain of the outcome (subject to the emitions getting out).

‘Could’ provides less certainty. Compare these two:

Eg. Were those two bombs to explode, the three soldiers in close proximity “would” die. (You are certain of the outcome).

Were those two bombs to explode, it “could” bring down that nearby building. (It might bring it down, but you do not know that for certain).

“Were” is the subjunctive plural form of ‘to be’, and is used in the two examples above because they are outcomes subject to certain events occuring. If the events do not occur (the bombs going off) the outcomes are not possible.

Thank you so much. that is so informative!
What I am still confused is: is "were they" the reversed way of saying "if they were" ?

No, it’s the subjunctive form of ‘to be’. The subjunctive is much more commonly found in French and even more so in Spanish I believe (and I’m sure many other languages), but it does exist occasionally in English, yet often goes unnoticed, as the subjunctive form is either identical to other verb forms (so you literally don’t notice that the verb form is actually in the subjunctive), or is no longer in common use in the phrase in question (it’s often optional - confirmation perhaps that it’s gradually disappearing).

Still, there are circumstances in which the subjunctive in English is more natural to use it rather than not.

If you have trouble understanding it’s application, perhaps just try to remember set phrases like in your phrase that I offered my alternative for containing ‘were’. In other words, just accept that when certain outcomes are dependent on another action occuring first, which in itself not definite, the verb form may change (to the subjunctive), but it’s relatively rare. Confused? I think that’s about all I can offer, so redirecting yourself to some kind of English grammar resource that mentions the subjunctive might be best.

Thanks for your detailed reply. Really apprieciate it.
Yes, guess I'll just remember set phrases like the ones you provided and look for some grammar resource relating to "subjunctive form".

[learningchayse]

Does your prose come out natrually or by design(formulation)?
Could you share your secrect of English learning?
Why most danish are fluent English speakers?

Well, here in Denmark it is hard to avoid the English language - especially if you spend a lot of time studying, working with things on the internet and watching TV.

Hmmm. I guess a learner-friendly environment does help, both online and offline.
I am still wondering what should I read or do to come up with ideas like"hell break loose"?
Sometimes I am trying to explain somthing in a dull narrative way because I cannot find a vivid image!
And I guess that is the creativity part, the part that lightens up. I know there are a lot of writing styles, but I do like this kind of touch.

[learningchayse]

Does your prose come out natrually or by design(formulation)?
Could you share your secrect of English learning?
Why most danish are fluent English speakers?

Well, here in Denmark it is hard to avoid the English language - especially if you spend a lot of time studying, working with things on the internet and watching TV.

I was so blind. Just found out plentiful information in your language log!!!
Thanks!!!