could nearly touch

Обсуждение вопросов, нюансов и тонкостей грамматики английского языка любого уровня.

Модератор: zymbronia

Аватара пользователя
Yety
Сообщения: 11163
Зарегистрирован: 28 фев 2018, 23:44
Благодарил (а): 3371 раз
Поблагодарили: 5387 раз

#26

Сообщение Yety »

Olya пишет: 05 авг 2019, 15:27 I don't understand what is wrong there.
Yety пишет: 05 авг 2019, 13:50 F.R. Palmer в Modality and the English Modals проводит четкое различие между теми «скрыто-отрицательными» наречиями, {которые задают понимание} когда succeeded, a когда didn't succeed:
https://books.google.ru/books?id=qEDKAg ... ty&f=false
Modality and the English Modals, 2nd ed. (1990), F.R. Palmer пишет:
СпойлерПоказать
[v] Could occurs where there is a meaning of 'nothing but', 'no-one else', 'only' even though there is formally no negative present:
One moment I seem to be everything to him, and then all he could think of was this child. (W.5.2.61)
The crowd of 50,000 could only leave the ground shaking their heads in silent disbelief. (W. 12.5^3)
She was the only one who could help.

The semantics is clearly more important here than formal negative marking.
[iv] Related to this is the fact that could is possible in such sentences as:
I could almost reach the branch.
I could nearly reach the branch.
I could just reach the branch.
I could reach the branch because it was loaded down.


With almost and nearly the implication is that the event did not take place, and could is to be expected. But could also occurs with just where the implication is that I succeeded in reaching the branch; but like hardly, just suggests that the event almost did not take place. With the last example there is again a clear implication of actuality, but with the reservation that the event took place only because of unusual circumstances.

What all of these have in common is that the possibility is in some way qualified, or that there is a suggestion that the event almost did not take place, or that it took place in a minimal way.
Последний раз редактировалось Yety 05 авг 2019, 20:41, всего редактировалось 1 раз.
За это сообщение автора Yety поблагодарили (всего 2):
Olya, Mary May
Аватара пользователя
acapnotic
Сообщения: 3912
Зарегистрирован: 02 мар 2018, 07:49
Благодарил (а): 279 раз
Поблагодарили: 922 раза

#27

Сообщение acapnotic »

I thought we should use 'was able' for a single event in the past, not 'could', which expresses only possibility (unlike 'couldn't').
Аватара пользователя
Yety
Сообщения: 11163
Зарегистрирован: 28 фев 2018, 23:44
Благодарил (а): 3371 раз
Поблагодарили: 5387 раз

#28

Сообщение Yety »

acapnotic пишет: 05 авг 2019, 20:26 I thought we should use 'was able' for a single event in the past, not 'could', which expresses only possibility
Yes, a good point. )
But you might've read about it in the part that follows:
M&tEM (p.96), F.R. Palmer пишет:There appears thus to be a focus of attention on the modality, whereas in the examples where could would not be used the focus of attention is more on the actuality itself. But it must be admitted that the following are rather unlikely to occur (except in a habitual sense):
? I ran fast and I could just/almost/nearly catch the bus.
? I could catch the bus because I ran fast.

The reason seems to be that catching a bus is a momentary activity and there is no continuing possibility of this action. By contrast, one can be in a position to reach a branch or enter a house for some time. It seems that the occurrence of could with just, nearly, hardly, because . . . etc. depends upon the nature of the event and on the duration of the possibility. It is where could is closest to did that it becomes most unacceptable.
and some more stillПоказать
[vii] Where CAN is used with verbs of sensation or other private verbs (5.1.4) the past tense form could is quite normal:
I could see the moon.
I could understand all he said.
As he leaned on the ropes I could hear the ropes and the ring creak.
(S. 10.3.23)

[viii] More difficult to explain is:
Jane darling, I'm so glad you could make it. (W.5.2.61)
Here there is a clear implication of actuality; the host, presumably, is saying that he is glad that the guest has arrived. But it is relevant that this does not have past time reference. The reference is rather that of the present perfect, that 'you have made it and are here now'. Subordinate contexts of this kind seem to be appropriate for other modals. Should, for instance, may occur in (9.1):
I'm glad he should think so.
The time marking here is not past but present and should is, in effect, redundant.

Yet BE ABLE TO may occur in exactly the same kind of context:
Oh, Mr Mayor, we are so glad you and the Mayoress were able to come. (W.i.5a.4)

[ix] It is also possible to say:
I said I could make it and I could.
It would be odd, in contrast, to say:
I said I could make it and I was able to.

The first could is accounted for by the sequence of tenses rule. The second seems to echo and so confirm the first, whereas was
able to
would not. This is, perhaps, 'verbal confirmation', the converse of 'verbal crossing out' (3.5.1, 4.5.1).
За это сообщение автора Yety поблагодарил:
acapnotic
Аватара пользователя
acapnotic
Сообщения: 3912
Зарегистрирован: 02 мар 2018, 07:49
Благодарил (а): 279 раз
Поблагодарили: 922 раза

#29

Сообщение acapnotic »

Yety пишет: 05 авг 2019, 20:53 But you might've read about it in the part that follows
I didn't notice the link. :)
Аватара пользователя
Yety
Сообщения: 11163
Зарегистрирован: 28 фев 2018, 23:44
Благодарил (а): 3371 раз
Поблагодарили: 5387 раз

#30

Сообщение Yety »

Kind_Punk пишет: 05 авг 2019, 14:00 Тут подумал, в ряде случаев это будет одно и то же. Например, стрелок попадает в самый край мишени (белый) - он "почти попал" или "почти не попал"? )
Под влиянием этого замечания пришло осознание того, что "almost didn't happen" - вполне себе двусмысленное выражение (как и русское "почти не случилось/не произошло"):
1) "фух, нам невероятно повезло, что всё получилось, но это почти не случилось" - описание ситуации со стороны "попадания в мишень" ("the event took place in a minimal way");
2) "эх, мы были так близки к тому, чтобы всё получилось, что это почти не случилось" - описание ситуации со стороны "попадания в молоко" ("the event did not take place").

А это, возможно, значит, что "almost didn't happen" в книжке должно было перекрывать оба случая: и когда "almost happened", и когда "almost didn't happen". А это, в свою очередь, может означать, что автор "знаменитого учебника" просто не имел намерения разделять эти четыре маркера на две группы {1) - hardly/just, 2) - almost/nearly), рассчитывая на общую языковую подготовку студента. Автор же был сосредоточен только на идее как будто выламывающегося из правила употребления could вместо was able to в ситуации конкретного события.
В результате получилось двусмысленно и невнятно, но, возможно, не столь предосудительно, как показалось на первый взгляд.
Ответить
  • Похожие темы
    Ответы
    Просмотры
    Последнее сообщение

Вернуться в «Грамматика»