Teacher Discussion Forums

I wonder what the speaker meant by "could."

(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.

Do you agree that she is trying to convey to us that I had something necessary to come out of that alive and in one piece;otherwise I would have got seriously injured, or worse, lost my life?

Thank you in advance
Seiichi MYOGA

For your reference:

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.)

Anyone, help me.

Let me rephrase my question:

I think we could have said the same by using simple past "came" instead of "could come."

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

What do you think would have made you choose (1)?

Seiichi MYOGA

As Larry Latham is fond of telling me, the woman could've used 'came', but didn't - this is surely significant. (Cue metal56 chipping in with some "interesting" observations and statistics LOL).

Personally, I prefer the original to your suggested rephrase, Seiichi, but I don't have time to suss it out right now beyond offering an example that popped into my head whilst reading your posts here: If (=when) I did A, he would do B (plus, the 'could' obviously conveys an ability of sorts that is lacking with just the 'came' - I didn't really need to point that out, eh! ).

Dear fluffyhamster,

I appreciate your help and comments.

After reading your comments here and somewhere else, I've been reminded of something.

Do you agree that the woman is suggesting by the use of "could" that she couldn't have come out of that alive and in one piece?

(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.

When you prefer (2a) to (2b), I think you want to convey the message that the listner could not have come if there had existed a slight change in something.

(2) a. I'm glad you could come.
b. I'm glad you came.

I wonder if the same logic works here.

Seiichi MYOGA

Seiichi MYOGA wrote:Do you agree that the woman is suggesting by the use of "could" that she couldn't have come out of that alive and in one piece?

(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.

No, I wouldn't agree that she is saying she 'couldn't've come out of that alive and in one piece without the help of Him', because that isn't what she said/is saying. And to say 'I couldn't've...' is a bit presumptious to say the least, as if God takes a special interest in this person (sounds like the acknowledgements of winning actors in Oscar acceptance speeches!)...the 'If I could...must be' (or 'Somebody up there must like me' kind of phrase) is much more self-deprecating.

When you prefer (2a) to (2b), I think you want to convey the message that the listner could not have come if there had existed a slight change in something.

(2) a. I'm glad you could come.
b. I'm glad you came.

That would indeed be one possible reason for choosing (2a) over (2b).

Dear fluffyhamster,

I appreciate your help and comments.

I wonder if you could admit the possibility that there will some people who interpret her "could" as implying "couldn't have p.p." Sometimes we need to pay as much attention to how we might be heard as to what someone is saying.

If you don't mind, could we move on to change our viewpoint from what she is possibly saying to how she might be heard?

Here is what follows her statement (with my emphasis added):
I smile and keep quiet, running the risk of letting her think that I agree with her (what rabbi would be opposed to belief in God?), because it is not the time or place for a theology seminar. But my mind goes back to a funeral I conducted two weeks earlier for a young husband and father who died in a similar drunk-driver collision; and I remember another case, a child killed by a hit-and-run driver while roller-skating; and all the newspaper accounts of lives cut short in automobile accidents. The woman before me may believe that she is alive because God wanted her to survive, and I am not inclined to talk her out of it, but what would she or I say to those other families? That they were less worthy than she, less valuable in God's sight? That God wanted them to die at that particular time and manner, and did not choose to spare them?
(H. S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People.)

If we were to put ourselves in the shoes of a listener, I think, we could interpret the reason she chose "could" as being that she wanted to say she couldn't be alive now without His hand.

If we put away what her real intention was, do you agree that some people may think she chose the "could" so that she could refer to what might not have happened if He had not given his hand to her?

Seiichi MYOGA

P.S.
The part I'm asking about was taken out for the entrance examination of Tokyo University (best of the best in Japan). The examinees were asked to translate it into Japanese. Of course, the university didn't make it public what was their intended (correct) answer. In my opinion, there's no right answer put forward among the so-called answers that have been given so far. The problem lies in "if" and "could."

So, the original passage in English contained the sentence, 'If I could come out of that alive and in one piece, it must be because He is looking out for me up there', which the examinee had to translate into Japanese; and you are basically wondering if something in Japanese that would be equivalent to 'couldn't've p.p' (come) would be an acceptable translation.

This is quite a different question from asking if two differing English sentences are more or less 'saying the same thing', and I obviously cannot vouch for the faithfulness or otherwise of translations back and forth between English and a language I am not very familiar with, or tell you what the examiners (test writers) ever have in mind when there is potential ambiguity or freedom of choice in answering a test item. That being said (with those provisos in mind, however)...

Original text: If I could come out of that alive and in one piece, it must be because He is looking out for me up there

Translation fragment (in "Japanese"): I couldn't've come out of that alive...

Completed translation: ...without the help of God/if God hadn't helped me.

(Conditional wizards might object to the predictable "third conditional" way I've completed the above, but I doubt if many other substantially differing possibilities exist other than this one).

The obvious question that occurs at this point is, why would (how likely is it that) an examinee would change which clause is the if-clause, and at the same time introduce negative elements all over the place (presuming similar structures exist in both languages)?

Of course, if Japanese has a preference for the negative structures (that is, the original English text is hard for any Japanese person to make sense of without substantial changes to the grammar in the process of translation, to produce a clearer "alterrnative" phrasing for the benefit of the Japanese reader), well, you then have your answer, Seiichi (i.e. you'll only really know if you consult the choices that most examinees made, and/or how their choices in translation were viewed and accordingly marked by Todai).

All that I can really say in conclusion is that differences of meaning (interpretation) will exist when there are differences in form in "alternative" English sentences at least (see my comments about 'Oscar acceptance speeches' above!), and that the original text, whilst "unusual" in several respects, is unlikely to be interpreted by native speakers at least along the lines that your several rephrasings are trying to suggest.

I hadn't expected that you would be so preoccupied with Todai, fluffyhamster.
For me, the translation problem means nothing.
But thank you all the same.

Aux is a way by which native speakers of English can tell others how they feel or think about something. That is the thing that fascinates me.

Seiichi MYOGA

Do I detect a note of sarcasm in the above?!

I'm not the one preoccupied with Todai, Seiichi - just offering my thoughts here is all.

Dear fluffyhamster,

Are you OK?

Sarcasm, it is not in my line.

Seiichi MYOGA

Aww! I'm a little disappointed! I for one liked the idea of there being a 'Sarky Seiichi'!

Then you're flattering me!
Seiichi MYOGA

Now let's be back to "business" again, shall we?

Don't give up the day job for a career as a stand-up comic, OK?!