4

  1. I could play with my dear friends tomorrow at the seaside. Unfortunately, my sister happened to fall ill. I'll have to break my promise and stay at home to take care of her.

  2. I could play with my dear friends tomorrow at the seaside, but this all depends on whether my mom will allow me to.

I made up the two examples. Though it's not perfect, I just use them as tokens for my understanding. The idea around them is the key point here.

From my understanding, these two could are quite different:

Could in #1 is equivalent to "would be able to", meaning that I'm not likely to go to the seaside tomorrow. But I would be able to if my sister hadn't been ill. As PEU 124.7 indicates, could is used to express irrealis ideas.

Could in #2 is equivalent to "might", meaning that I'll probably go to the seaside if my mom allows me to. This is an example of the tentative usage of could.

PEU1 124.7 Could can be used to criticise people for not doing things.

You could ask before you borrow my car. (irrealis usage of could)

Could have + past participle is used for criticisms about the past.

You could have told me you were getting married.

Is my understanding right?

1. PEU = Michael Swan's, Practical English Usage.

Community
  • 1
Kinzle B
  • 7,105
  • 27
  • 87
  • 143
  • 3
    I'm not convinced #1 is valid. Since the "playing" is irrealis in the past, it's no longer a possibility. So it should be "I could have played...". And had his sister not been ill, OP would have been* able to play*. – FumbleFingers Jun 14 '14 at 20:56
  • But the time is set in tomorrow. How could the "playing" be irrealis in the past? @FumbleFingers – Kinzle B Jun 15 '14 at 11:27
  • 1
    Because it became an unreal possibility in the past, when your sister fell ill and you realised that particular potential future was no longer an option. – FumbleFingers Jun 15 '14 at 12:25
  • In #1, can I say "I would play" or "I would have played" instead of "I could have played" with the intended meaning maintained? @FumbleFingers – Kinzle B Jun 15 '14 at 12:41
  • If it's would rather than could, you'd still normally use past tense ("I would have played [yesterday, now, tomorrow], but I broke my leg"). But it does become possible to use present tense, if you want to emphasis that at the time of speaking you're still willing to play (or would be willing, were it not for the fact that you've broken your leg). – FumbleFingers Jun 15 '14 at 13:05
  • Your comments beautifully solved my previous question on bounty. I recommend you answering that one for future visitors. @FumbleFingers – Kinzle B Jun 15 '14 at 14:05
  • @ Zhanlong: You've asked a number of extremely "searching" questions about tense and conditionals, where sometimes the potential nuances go well beyond what the average native speaker might be aware of and consciously make use of himself. So in some circumstances what *I* think may really be little more than personal opinion, where others see things differently. That's to say, there's not always a single "right answer" for some of the things you ask about, but I'm glad if what I say helps you get a better understanding of the limits of "precision" in normal English usages. – FumbleFingers Jun 15 '14 at 14:55
  • You have helped me a lot. You are right about that. The question is I cannot know whether a nuance could be easily discerned by a native speaker or not. Some of your asnwer may be your personal opinion but There is no way I can tell. At least I can tell what it could mean and what it could not mean when a modal verb is used in a certain way. Your answers are fine guidances for me. BTW, in the chatroom, two native speakers had exactly the same opinion with you on this "searching" question. Never underestimate your answers. They may help in a way you are not even aware of. @FumbleFingers – Kinzle B Jun 15 '14 at 15:39
  • I hope you won't be irritated, but having looked at the earlier question, I now think this one's a possible duplicate of Tense agreement in the past irrealis conditionals. Perhaps StoneyB will have a crack at it. If not, I might. – FumbleFingers Jun 15 '14 at 16:29
  • They are related, but I think they are not the same somehow. That's why I recommended you answering it. :-) @FumbleFingers – Kinzle B Jun 15 '14 at 16:35
  • I realise it's a bit ridiculous for me to be telling you what you're asking about, but it seems to me that once you'd made that edit 13 hours ago, you extended the original question so this one becomes just a specific "sub-point" within it. I also think a comprehensive answer to the "original original" should [have] address[ed] the implications of using *would have* just as much as *could have*. – FumbleFingers Jun 15 '14 at 16:53
  • Hmm, then that's my fault, but I swear when I asked this question I didn't realize these two were related. I was asking it because I had doubts with this one: http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/11485/the-nuance-of-could-have-done @FumbleFingers – Kinzle B Jun 15 '14 at 17:03
  • After reviewing my question, I think I am to blame for my impoliteness, but you are right about this repetition. Jimsug's answer is good and beneficial for future visitors, so I'm going to keep this question. @FumbleFingers – Kinzle B Jun 28 '14 at 17:08
  • I'm not aware of any impoliteness for which you could accept blame. Maybe you could consider opening a chat thread on Tense agreement in the past irrealis conditionals (which I think in the absence of a canonical post by the likes of StoneyB should be the place to explore this matter in detail). But even if you could delete this answer, I think that would be a bad idea. It's a tricky area both to raise and address, so the more routes there are to "the" answer, the better. – FumbleFingers Jun 28 '14 at 17:55
  • Yes, #1 is definitely an odd thing to say. –  Jul 20 '14 at 05:32
  • @FumbleFingers In this question: http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/78969 Following the same argument you introduced here, I think the correct form would be "Perhaps they might have been married by this time" rather than "Perhaps they might be married by this time". Why is the latter used in the context? – Kinzle B Sep 09 '16 at 11:45
  • Ordinarily, they might have been married by this time would be used when *this time = then = a time in the past, whereas in they might be married by this time, this time = now = time of utterance. But you'll be aware that in a narrative* context it's not uncommon to use Present Tense because it adds "immediacy" (it makes the story more gripping, because it's closer to here and now). Besides which, as I'm sure I've told you several times, native speakers don't like to use complex tenses if they don't have to, so it's "pragmatic" as well as "artistic" to keep it simple. – FumbleFingers Sep 09 '16 at 14:01
  • @FumbleFingers I can't decide when perfect infinitive is optional in contexts. For instance, in OP's example, could play is plain wrong. To make things even more complicated, native speakers sometimes even prefer the could have version: 1. Why couldn’t the British have carried out their commitment that the border was a temporary measure, as was said at the time? (Palmer 1990: 97) 2. Why couldn’t you have done what I asked? (Palmer 1990: 97) Palmer observes that have "is redundant and actually suggests the wrong meaning". – Kinzle B Sep 09 '16 at 14:19
  • I think you're still assuming English has a degree of precision that simply doesn't correspond to actual use. Apparently Palmer in your example Why couldn't you have done what I asked? really does think this is somehow "more correct", but the reality is many/most native speakers neither know nor care about any such distinction. You should think more in terms of descriptive linguistics, not (often idealistically fanciful) prescriptive grammar. – FumbleFingers Sep 09 '16 at 16:36

1 Answers1

2

Firstly, I'm not sure if the second clause in your first sentence is grammatical - you can't use unfortunately, but since but works as a conjunction between clauses, and unfortunately interrupts this.

Also: that first sentence makes more sense in the past tense:

I could have played with my friends, but ...

The only way I can imagine it making sense in the present tense is if it were being spoken aloud to oneself, as a train of thought.

  • could expresses ability, permissibility, or possibility.
  • may/might expresses possibility or permissibility.

In that regard, may can usually be replaced by could.

However, specific instances of could are defined by their co-text - in your case, what you've said is correct.

The first expresses (in)ability (though it's possibly also denoting permissibility or possibility, depending on whether you would consider it permissible or possible to go to the beach when your sister is ill, and whether or not you should be taking care of her).

It's not really criticism, since the the reason that "you/he could X" works is that it plays on a series of assumptions, for example:

"You could ask before borrowing my toothbrush!"

  1. I'm telling you that you could ask, which is an inane and fairly pointless observation on its own.
  2. Therefore, the assumption is that you don't ask, and
  3. I want you to ask.
  4. In this way, I'm criticising you for not asking.

The second expresses permissibility (but again, you could argue that it also expresses possibility, depending on whether you consider it a possibility that you would disobey your mother).

jimsug
  • 4,090
  • 1
  • 20
  • 32
  • OALD gives an example: I shouldn't be too late. But it depends if the traffic's bad. I followed this pattern. – Kinzle B Jun 14 '14 at 16:42
  • What I was saying is that could in #1 is an irrealis usage of possibility while could in #2 is an real usage of possibility, but I'm not sure about it. – Kinzle B Jun 14 '14 at 16:54
  • @ZhanlongZheng both uses are irrealis moods - "go to the beach" is something that hasn't happened as you say it. In the first sentence, happened and have are real, and in the second, depends is, too. – jimsug Jun 14 '14 at 16:58
  • @jimsug The terminology is tricky around these questions. For some, irrealis embraces both counterfactual and tentative situations, for others it designates only counterfactual situations, and for yet others it designates the use of past forms with non-tense -basically, modal- significance. – StoneyB on hiatus Jun 14 '14 at 17:55
  • Are both uses irrealis moods? I doubt that. Does that mean when could mean may, it is in fact that could is the irrealis form of "can"? @StoneyB – Kinzle B Jun 15 '14 at 08:15
  • @ZhanlongZheng It's not a matter of might v could; it's a matter of could representing an open possibility in 2 but a counterfactual in 1. – StoneyB on hiatus Jun 15 '14 at 10:45
  • As a matter of fact, what I felt uncertain was whether "could" could be used alone without adding "if clause" to express irrealis thoughts. I knew it is true of "would". Now I know it's also true of "could"(probably "might" as well). This is different from the usage of "could" which is used to express open possibility in the present or future. I got this right? @StoneyB – Kinzle B Jun 15 '14 at 11:00
  • @ZhanlongZheng This is a complicated question - I'm going to work up an Answer, but it will take a while. – StoneyB on hiatus Jun 15 '14 at 11:01
  • @ZhanlongZheng You should note that context is not the same thing as co-text, which is what I meant. In this case, I think both work, but that wasn't my intention. – jimsug Jul 21 '14 at 04:45