Auxiliary Verbs

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

"Could" cannot be used in positive sentences in which you describe a momentary or one-time ability.

Yesterday, I could lift the couch by myself. Not Correct

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Yesterday, I could lift he couch by myself, but after my bike accident, it is a struggle.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I see it everywhere, writers using COULD in place of ACTION. COULD is an abstraction, and abstractions exist in our heads NOT out in the world. I mean, there's no difference between COULD KILL and COULD SEE yet everyone writes COULD SEE in place of SAW. COULD refers to potential or conditional action that hasn't happened. Its an idea, and that makes it abstract.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Yesterday, I could lift he couch by myself, but after my bike accident, it is a struggle.

There are plenty of LIT gals available to move furniture/pianos for you.

 

[FantasyXY]

Language is literally not so literal.

In your example of seeing "could see" in a story is a prefect example of this. Sure if you take each word as a stand alone word it means that the person has the ability to see, and nothing more. But in the context of a story it can take on a slightly different meaning. In context, it implies that a person is seeing something that was previously hidden.

For example: From this vantage point I could see the soft wispy hair peeking out from the edges of her panties.

Used together, the two words together take on a subtle difference in their meaning.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Language is literally not so literal.

In your example of seeing "could see" in a story is a prefect example of this. Sure if you take each word as a stand alone word it means that the person has the ability to see, and nothing more. But in the context of a story it can take on a slightly different meaning. In context, it implies that a person is seeing something that was previously hidden.

For example: From this vantage point I could see the soft wispy hair peeking out from the edges of her panties.

Used together, the two words together take on a subtle difference in their meaning.

Nonsense. All COULD SEE means is: I have the right stuff to see.

 

[sr71plt]

You can just ignore JBJ on this; he's full of beans.

 

[TxRad]

You can just ignore JBJ on this; he's full of beans.

As usual.

 

[sr71plt]

He reads something in a book somewhere, only half understands what it's saying, and then comes running here to tell us all about the wheel he thinks he has invented to exhibit writing knowledge he doesn't have.

 

[karaline]

"Could" cannot be used in positive sentences in which you describe a momentary or one-time ability.

Yesterday, I could lift the couch by myself. Not Correct

can you suggest some alternative ways this sentences could be constructed then?

nb: apologies if I have misused the word 'could' here, I don't think I quite understand this rule just yet.

 

[karaline]

"Could" cannot be used in positive sentences in which you describe a momentary or one-time ability.

Yesterday, I could lift the couch by myself. Not Correct

well can you suggest some alternative and correct ways this sentences could be constructed then?

nb: apologies if I have misused the word 'could' here, I don't think I quite understand this rule.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

can you suggest some alternative ways this sentences could be constructed then?

nb: apologies if I have misused the word 'could' here, I don't think I quite understand this rule just yet.

Its use is absurd as used. Correctly say, YESTERDAY I LIFTED THE COUCH BY MYSELF. Could is a static abstract opinion like THE US COULD BLOW THE WORLD TO HELL WITH OUR NUCLEAR ARSENAL. Its static, nothing happens, its abstract opinion.

 

[sr71plt]

You've just gone on a different tangent of the meaning of the sentence. The context just hasn't been revealed yet.

"Yesterday, I could lift the couch myself." is quite correct if a broken arm interceded last night and changed capability today. "Is able" is a legitimate connotation for "could." It all depends on the context, which hasn't been expanded, and thus you have your head up your you know what, JBJ, to say the sentence isn't correct. Again you've just been reading stuff in a book and regurgitating without understanding fully what it says--and then pretending you're some sort of writing expert that you're not.

 

[FantasyXY]

I once listed to a long debate over some old law, that when reading each word as written, prohibited the government from collecting income taxes. Early in the debate, it was agreed by all parties that the law did indeed have specific language that when taken literally said that the government was not allowed to collect these types of taxes.

That isn't whole story though. Over time the was ruled on by court after court, each lending its own interpretation of the law. In some cases courts were simply re-interpreting a previous court's ruling. The end result was aside from the law's language that seemed to say that the taxes were illegal, the voice of the people determined that the words in that law actually implied something different.

Language is a lot like that. Words and phrases get used, fall in and out of favor, and in general have their meanings change as they get used. While some 300 years ago the use of the word "could" in this way may have seemed absurd; Everyone today, including Mr Johnson, reading the words "could see" knows what that phrase means.

But like the side of the debate that claimed they didn't have to pay their taxes by citing the individual meanings of words instead of the whole meaning of the phrase or sentence, Mr Johnson is sparking a debate that he knows is futile. However, I am sure he is finding this entertaining.

What's next? An attack on the word "cool"? Doesn't that one always mean chilly? How about the word "gross"... isn't that another way to write 144?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I once listed to a long debate over some old law, that when reading each word as written, prohibited the government from collecting income taxes. Early in the debate, it was agreed by all parties that the law did indeed have specific language that when taken literally said that the government was not allowed to collect these types of taxes.

That isn't whole story though. Over time the was ruled on by court after court, each lending its own interpretation of the law. In some cases courts were simply re-interpreting a previous court's ruling. The end result was aside from the law's language that seemed to say that the taxes were illegal, the voice of the people determined that the words in that law actually implied something different.

Language is a lot like that. Words and phrases get used, fall in and out of favor, and in general have their meanings change as they get used. While some 300 years ago the use of the word "could" in this way may have seemed absurd; Everyone today, including Mr Johnson, reading the words "could see" knows what that phrase means.

But like the side of the debate that claimed they didn't have to pay their taxes by citing the individual meanings of words instead of the whole meaning of the phrase or sentence, Mr Johnson is sparking a debate that he knows is futile. However, I am sure he is finding this entertaining.

What's next? An attack on the word "cool"? Doesn't that one always mean chilly? How about the word "gross"... isn't that another way to write 144?

I didn't pull the COULD RULE outta my ass. Its from a site about syntax.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

1:"Tell me what you have observed?"

2:"Tell me what you observed?"


Why is #1 a better sentence than #2?

I hadda go way the fuck back to find a meaning for HAVE that justifies its use in sentence #1. The Proto Indo European meaning of HAVE was GRASP. So back then the auxiliary verb HAVE distinguished significant observation from generic observation.

I'm starting to wonder if auxiliary verbs act as telegraphic codes act, to abbreviate long clauses: QSL, for example, is telegraphic code for "confirm this event with a paper record."

 

[Areala-chan]

I didn't pull the COULD RULE outta my ass. Its from a site about syntax.

Then, no offense, but your source is incorrect and I'd be leery of using that site as a resource in the future, since they clearly pulled it out of theirs.

'Could' exists not only as a past-tense of 'can', but by its very definition in any modern English dictionary you care to reference, 'could' can be used to express not just possibility, but conditional (what you refer to as a one-time or momentary) possibility. That function is built into the word and has been for a good thousand years.

 

[sr71plt]

Then, no offense, but your source is incorrect and I'd be leery of using that site as a resource in the future, since they clearly pulled it out of theirs.

'Could' exists not only as a past-tense of 'can', but by its very definition in any modern English dictionary you care to reference, 'could' can be used to express not just possibility, but conditional (what you refer to as a one-time or momentary) possibility. That function is built into the word and has been for a good thousand years.

It's more likely that the source wasn't wrong--rather, that JBJ made the guidance out to cover more than it was meant to.

You might have notice that he hasn't actually cited a source.

 

[FantasyXY]

It's more likely that the source wasn't wrong--rather, that JBJ made the guidance out to cover more than it was meant to.

You might have notice that he hasn't actually cited a source.

I'm thinking maybe his source is Sam Berkowtz's dog.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Then, no offense, but your source is incorrect and I'd be leery of using that site as a resource in the future, since they clearly pulled it out of theirs.

'Could' exists not only as a past-tense of 'can', but by its very definition in any modern English dictionary you care to reference, 'could' can be used to express not just possibility, but conditional (what you refer to as a one-time or momentary) possibility. That function is built into the word and has been for a good thousand years.

800 years, to be exact.

For this debate COULD expresses possibility NOT certainty. I LIFTED THE COUCH is different than I COULD LIFT THE COUCH. I found no authority who defined COULD as certainty.

I COULD KILL is different than I KILLED.

I COULD EAT A HORSE is not I ATE A HORSE.

 

[sr71plt]

I COULD KILL is different than I KILLED.

I COULD EAT A HORSE is not I ATE A HORSE.

That's right. Each has separate, legitimate meanings. You seem to be the only one here who can't comprehend that.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I'm thinking maybe his source is Sam Berkowtz's dog.

And I suspect your daddy is PILOT. Learn to write and stop drooling in my threads, moron.

 

[TxRad]

800 years, to be exact.

For this debate COULD expresses possibility NOT certainty. I LIFTED THE COUCH is different than I COULD LIFT THE COUCH. I found no authority who defined COULD as certainty.

I COULD KILL is different than I KILLED.

I COULD EAT A HORSE is not I ATE A HORSE.

"You could be an idiot." Possibility.

"You are an idiot." Fact.

You've stepped in it and can't get out.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

"You could be an idiot." Possibility.

"You are an idiot." Fact.

You've stepped in it and can't get out.

What you smell is on your shoe, Sparky.

 

[TxRad]

What you smell is on your shoe, Sparky.

That COULD be a witty reply but not really.