I think I gave you a logical explanation, but perhaps not the answer - No, we can't say ‘Had he breakfast this morning?’ - the correct answer is 'Did he have breakfast this morning'. For the reasons already given.

My understanding is that in both AmE and BrE, 'different from' is the norm. But in BrE we also have the choice of 'different to', and are probably more likely to use it before 'that' and 'what'. My dictionary also allows 'different than' as an AmE alternative, but I know that's controversial, so I'll leave that to the North Americans to sort out.

Here are a couple of examples from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:

American English is significantly different from British English.
(British English) It's very different to what I'm used to.
(North American English) He saw he was no different than anybody else.

And here is H.W.Fowler:

'That different can only be followed by from and not by to is a superstition.'

That's from a brief discussion at http://www.dailywritingtips.com/different-from-different-to-different-than/

@Stavros K. - To me, yes, it sounds stilted. It's very unusual, in BrE a least, to use 'whom' as a direct object. In your example I would simply say 'Who'.

We can usually get round the problem in relative clauses by missing it out altogether

'The people (-) the new tax proposal really benefit are those with families.'

And with prepositions we can usually shift them to the end.

'Who should I give this to'

But there are a few occasions where it's difficult to avoid.

'The delegates, many of whom had come a long way, were feeling pretty tired.'

And there it seems to me to sound less stilted.

@Hairy Scot - I wouldn't call you a pedant for using 'were', my objection is only if you insist that my saying 'was' is wrong. My impression is that you no longer live in the UK, but probably in North America (we say back to front, not backward). Language in the UK has become a lot less formal, and what is accepted as standard has changed a lot since the 50s and 60s. - I was taught to say 'to whom should I give this book?', but I would just get funny looks if I said that today.

@New Reader - 'different from / that / to' is the subject of a lot of noise on the Internet, and no doubt another PITE post somewhere. But you really should have checked a dictionary first, laddie (or lassie)! I would indeed say 'different from' with a noun or pronoun. But I speak BrE where 'different to' is also perfectly acceptable, and is probably preferred when the next word is 'that' or 'what'. These examples are from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:

'American English is significantly different from British English.'
(British English) 'It's very different to what I'm used to.'

And here is H.W. Fowler:

'That different can only be followed by 'from' and not by 'to' is a superstition.'

So tsk tsk, yersel!

'By the time' is referring to 'arrived', not 'had finished'

'By the time' really means 'before (the time)' - try it this way:

'The lesson had finished before he arrived.'

The lesson could have finished an hour ago or two minutes ago, it wouldn't make any difference to the sentence.

Sorry - that should be "have a shower", obviously

Hi. The verb 'have' has three main functions:
As a main stative verb, eg: possession as in have a car, have an idea etc
As a main active verb, eg: have lunch, gave a shower etc
As an auxiliary(helping) verb in perfect tenses - I have already done it.

You can use the inverted 'Have you' construction when 'have' is an auxiliary verb and a stative main verb, but not when it's an active main verb. Then you have to invert with the appropriate auxiliary.

Do you have lunch every day?
Are you having lunch today?
Have you already had lunch?

When 'have' is the auxiliary verb you must of course invert.

When 'have' is a main stative verb you have a choice, in BrE at least:

Have you any idea where he lives?
Do you have any idea where he lives?

I tell my foreign students they are safer always using the 'Do you?' forms rather than the 'Have you?' forms when 'have' is the main verb. Which I think is also more common in the States. The 'Have you?' form, although sometimes used in the UK, is more formal. In BrE we tend to use 'have got' for possession anyway.

And the same goes, of course, for negatives.

Sorry, that should have been:

- The ''were" construction is really all that's left, apart from in fixed expressions, so it's not really surprising that's disappearing too, albeit very slowly.

Typing is not one of my fortes.

Wow, what a lot of issues to address! So I'll start with the easiest ones.
@Willy wonka, much as as I like chocolate, I can't let you get away with this one - "If I lived in Paris, I would visit the Eiffel Tower.", is a perfectly standard example of what is known in EFL/ESL circles as a second conditional. Just google 'Second conditional'.

@Valentina. I don't think anybody was accusing you of being pedantic for using 'were', nor do any of us deny that 'were' is correct. It's just that some of us think that 'was' for unreal conditions is just as correct, at least in normal spoken English. Most of us use formal English very rarely.

Would the Egyptian tourist authority campaign of a couple of years ago really have used, "I wish I was in Egypt" as their slogan if it was commonly perceived to be such bad grammar. (Check it on YouTube)

You say you were taught at International House in the 70s, which means your teachers probably went to school in the 60s, as I did. At that time the teaching of prescriptive grammar was the norm in British schools, but that hasn't been true for the last forty years or so. If you doubt me, read David Crystal's 'The Stories of English'.

I was taught a lot of things then that would just get you funny looks today, such as obligatory 'may' for permission, 'to whom should I give this book', etc. British English has changed a lot since those days. And got a lot less formal.

For what it's worth, in modern EFL, we teach both forms, telling the students about the different registers, and letting them decide for themselves.

@mediator - "Anyone who was educated in a British senior secondary school would definitely disagree with you." - 'you're turning me schizophrenic, as apparently I have to disagree with myself - except I don't know exactly what you're talking about, as I've never heard this expression used in Britain, nor have my (British) colleagues, and Google hasn't been much help either, although the term does seem to be used in India. Do you mean a secondary school for seniors, or some supposedly superior school?

Anyway Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, who are all on record as saying 'If I was prime minister ...' all have pretty impeccable educational backgrounds.

@Mediator - "Correct usage has nothing to do with any kind of "prescriptive" bible." - but so many of these so-called rules were indeed introduced by the prescriptivists between the 18th and early 20th centuries. Again if you don't believe me read David Crystal's book. Crystal, as I'm sure you will know, is probably the greatest living authority on the history of the English language as spoken in Britain.

@Hairy Scot - Nor is anybody saying that "If I was ..., I would", is a correct example of the subjunctive. What I'm saying, and I think I differ a little from Porsche here, is that because indicative and subjunctive are almost identical, apart from this one exception, in Britain at least, people are ditching the subjunctive altogether, and using the indicative. JMMBallantyne mentions for example what I would call the present subjunctive - "I recommend that the minister approve the policy paper". Now I know that this form is used in the States, but it's pretty well dead in the UK, except in very formal documents. Swan (Practical English Usage) - "Most subjunctive forms are formal and unusual in British English. In 'that' clauses, British people usually prefer should + infinitive pr ordinary present and past tenses."

The ''were" construction is really all that's left, apart from fixed expressions, so it's not really that's disappearing too, albeit very slowly.

And for all those who look down their noses at MWDEU. I'm afraid you're betraying your own ignorance or perhaps prejudice. MWDEU is one of the most highly regarded books on usage, especially among linguists. It includes plenty of examples from British literature as well as American and is also highly readable. But I admit it is strongly descriptive.

Finally I would like to put my cards on the table, and would be very happy if others were to do the same. I am a 60-something British born and bred native speaker of BrE, RP to be precise, so not exactly at the informal end. I have a reasonably good higher education, teach English to foreigners for a living and blog about English grammar.

I'm getting a little tired of being told my English is not correct by people, one or two of whom I find little qualified to do so. In particular, the comments of one of the most virulent critics on the 'were' side on this post are riddled with grammatically unnatural sentences and unlikely language of a formality rarely heard among British speakers. But I did have a friend from Sri Lanka, for whom I think English was his first language, who spoke in a very similar way.

I would suspect that only PerfectPedant and possibly JMMBallantyne might have some first-hand knowledge of current British English. I'm only making this point because the original question related to the non-use of the subjunctive by a British politician, and I think the position of the subjunctive is very different in British English, to that in American English.

What about a bit of live and let live? You say tomato and I say tomato, etc. By the way I hope you all spotted my heinous breaking of your rule, which was entirely spontaneous. That's just the way it came out. Sorry about the length by the way.

There is an excellent discussion on this topic by prominent professor of linguistics Mark Liberman at Language Log, with the relevant MWDEU entry embedded

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2637