could#2

Seiichi MYOGA · Post by **Seiichi MYOGA** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:53 am

I think we can rephrase (1) with (2).

(1) If I could come out of that alive and in one piece, it must be because He is looking out for me up there.

(2) I'm sure that I [could/was able to] come out of that alive and in one piece because He is looking out for me up there.

Do you think both "could" and "was able to" work in (2)?

Thank you in advance
Seiichi MYOGA

joshua2004 · Post by **joshua2004** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:26 am

yeah, I am sure both could work fine to mean the same thing.

Seiichi MYOGA · Post by **Seiichi MYOGA** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:07 pm

Dear joshua2004,
I appreciate your help and comments.

I have one more question to ask.

I think (4) might be just as fine as (3). But do you feel now that "could" is out of place?

(3) If I could come out of that alive and in one piece, it must be because He is looking out for me up there. [=(1)]

(4) a. I [*could/was able to] come out of that alive. It must be because He is looking out for me up there.
b. I [*could/was able to] come out of that alive. I'm sure that it was because He is looking out for me up there.

Seiichi MYOGA

Tara B · Post by **Tara B** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 5:22 pm

Maybe it should be subjunctive "were able to" since we are talking about hypothetical situation. . .

Seiichi MYOGA · Post by **Seiichi MYOGA** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:53 pm

Dear Tara B,

I appreciate your help and comments.

Tara B wrote:Maybe it should be subjunctive "were able to" since we are talking about hypothetical situation. . .

Yes, that's the point that confuses me.

Actually, you can find my original (1) in the following context:

Some people will find the hand of God behind everything that happens. I visit a woman in the hospital whose car was run into by a drunken driver running a red light. Her vehicle was totally demolished, but miraculously she escaped with only two cracked ribs and a few superficial cuts from flying glass. She looks up at me from her hospital bed and says, "Now I know there is a God. If I could come out of that alive and in one piece, it must be because He is looking out for me up there."
(H. S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People.)

This passage shows that "my coming out of that alive and in one piece" is a fact.

The sentence pattern of "If...it," where "it" refers to the content of the "if"-clause is used to give a reason, just the same way as in (5).

(5) If I'm a bit sleepy, it's because I was up all night.
(Swan. 1995:251)

So "could" in (1) is used to refer to a single-time event that did happen, don't you think?

Seiichi MYOGA

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:00 am

Seiichi MYOGA wrote:So "could" in (1) is used to refer to a single-time event that did happen, don't you think?

Yes.

It might help to appreciate the "religious viewpoint", the faith ("faithful mindset") of the person speaking:

If (a person as bad, lowly, underserving as) I could come out of that alive and in one piece, it must be because He is looking out for me up there.

Compare this to I came out of that alive and in one piece, no or little thanks to God (seems to be a bald statement of pure luck).

It's interesting that the 'could for ability' here has little to do with the person's abilities at all (that is, I think the stress - not necessarily spoken but semantic, as perceived by the listener - falls more on the parts I have highlighted above, than the modal).

Thinking more about the 'came' alternative on the related thread, I suppose the deletion of 'If' and the possible addition of 'only' would help make it sound more acceptable:

I came out of that alive and in one piece (only) because He is looking out for me up there.

Seiichi MYOGA · Post by **Seiichi MYOGA** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:13 am

Dear fluffyhamster,

I appreciate your help and comments.

It was very interesting when you gave comments about what you'd most naturally say if you used "came."

Seiichi MYOGA

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:32 am

I'm not sure what 'underserving' is (maybe the woman is a stingy dinner lady or so-so tennis player), but I just wanted to say, I meant to type 'undeserving' in my above post!

Tara B · Post by **Tara B** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:45 pm

So "could" in (1) is used to refer to a single-time event that did happen, don't you think?

Yes. I understand what you are saying now. I like the way fluffy used "came" to eliminate the ambiguity.

Seiichi MYOGA · Post by **Seiichi MYOGA** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:39 am

After reading Tera B's comments, I think there might be another way to avoid ambiguity. This time, however, the way is so that "could" is only be interpreted as meaning subjunctive. Compare (1) and (6).

(1) If I could come out of that alive and in one piece, it must be because He is looking out for me up there.
(6) It must be because He is looking out for me up there if I [could come/*came/*was able to come] out of that alive and in one piece.

I think you will agree if I say that neither "came" nor "was able to come" works in (6) (, because something presupposed, which refers to "a fact," cannot come after the main clause). Thus the only possible interpretation of "could" in (6) is that of subjuctive.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
Seiichi MYOGA