Context: Let's say I'm telling someone a story that happened years ago:
I did not let intimidation debilitate me, whether it be being new to the sport or not knowing anyone on my team.
I did not let intimidation debilitate me, whether it was being new to the sport or not knowing anyone on my team
Posted Aug 20, 2019, 1:43 PM UTC
The second
why?
Since you are talking about something that happened in the past, the you would not say "it be being" you would say "it was"
The first one is ungrammatical. The verb in "it be" is an infinitive that's been stripped of its "to" element. That verb-form is used in the present subjunctive mood, and requires a that statement. This sentence doesn't have a that statement.
Counterfactuals using whether are also conjunctive-mood situations, but a conditional dependent clause in a counterfactual uses the past subjunctive when counterfactually referring to the present (whether it were), and the pluperfect subjunctive when counterfactually referring to the past (whether it had been). This sentence has a conditional counterfactual clause referring to the past, so the pluperfect subjunctive tense is correct.
But the sentence has another problem. The two clauses are not linked in a sensible way. If you can't see the problem clearly, remove the conditional element from the dependent clause: I did not let intimidation debilitate me, I was new to the sport. This is a comma-splice. It's two independent clauses in one sentence. With the conditional whether in the second clause, that clause becomes dependent, but it still doesn't link to the first clause. You need a because in there or some other word(s) to establish that the first clause is the result of the conditional in the second clause.
Here is a version of the first sentence with these issues fixed
There's still a stylistic problem with the sentence. Where is the intimidation coming from? It appears fist in the sentence, but the sentence never presents a figure acting in an intimidating way. The reader is left a bit puzzled. Try this:
The second sentence is ungrammatical, too. The subjunctive mood is required here. If using it is not preferred, the conditional counterfactual needs to be removed. The second sentence also is missing a link between the conditional clause and the result.
All of the above is about proper grammar, but of course in vernacular speech many rules of grammar are broken. The other posters, like many native speakers, don't know the grammar rules involved for using the subjunctive mood; the rules are pretty obscure and tricky. Even with the missing link between the clauses and the conditional counterfactual, though, the second sentence will sound right to many people only knowledgeable about vernacular speech.
The second one.
I personally would also change the comma (,) to a semicolon (;). This is just because the second clause is expanding on the first clauses idea; it's often good to use a semicolon when you do that to indicate that intention to the reader.Using a semicolon would be completely wrong. Semicolons can only be used between independent clauses. The second clause is strictly a dependent clause. You're right, though that something is needed to indicate that the first clause is the result of the second, conditional clause. Without a because or something simiilar, it's technically word salad.