Where's the mistake?

[Bo]

Hello everyone,

could someone please help me with this sentence? What's wrong with it?

Although she was very tired, she could finish the race.

Thanks a bunch!

[LarryLatham]

Not a thing, Bo. Your sentence is grammatically correct in all respects as far as I can see. If someone is claiming an error here, perhaps there is an error of usage if this sentence occurs in some larger context.

Larry Latham

[Andrew Patterson]

I disagree, because "could" can refer to the past or present and to both ability and possibility, it is grammatically correct but semantically ambiguous.

Are we saying:

"Although she was tired she might still finish the race."
She is still running and there is a possibily that she will finish the race; or

"Although she was tired, she was able to finish the race."
She has finished the race and her tiredness did not stop her from doing so.

The sentences could probably be interpreted from context, and I think the second interpretation is more likely unless we are narrating events in a story, but using "might" or "was able" makes it clearer.

Notice as well that the first example would normally have the word "still".

[LarryLatham]

Exactly my point, Andy. In fact, could may even refer to future time, as one interpretation of your first example suggests.

The question was: Where's the error? And it appears you and I both agree that it's not in the syntactical structure. So if there's an error to be found, it must be a semantic error obtaining from the use in a particular context.

The larger issue for teachers, here, is that one must be careful when passing judgment on the "correctness" of a sentence. There is more than one type of error students need to think about. Students so very often ask: Is ... correct? The best answer often is, "yes and no".

Larry Latham

[Stephen Jones]

"could' cannot refer to the future here. She was tired places the action firmly in the past.

For some reason I nearly posted earlier to say that "was able" would be preferable here, but ambiguity is certainly not the reason.

[LarryLatham]

Was is in a different clause than could is, Stephen. I'll have to repeat, could could refer to future time. Another similar sentence that may illustrate the point further is: I didn't go yesterday, but I could tomorrow.

Larry Latham

[Bo]

Thank you guys!

I figured the better choice here would be was able to, but I just couldn't explain to my students why could was not (supposedly, mind you!) a good choice. So both could and was able to would be correct in this context, right? Could also denotes an ability in the past, as well as was able to.

Thank you again!

B.

PS: There was no further context there.

[LarryLatham]

Hi again Bo,

Before you go away here, let's be sure we all understand could clearly. The word is part of a small closed group which allows a speaker or writer to express his present moment personal judgment about certain non-factual and even essentially non-temporal elements of his sentences. That means could does not necessarily refer to something in past time. It is a remote expression of an ability or a possibility, meaning that the user is distancing himself in some reasonable way--usually determinable from context. Time is one possible kind of distance, but there are others, such as likelihood or relationship. Since you've said there is no context in this particular use, several interpretations are possible, including that the ability or possibility occurred in past time. But let's be clear that that is not the only available interpretation.

In your sentence, the use of was able to can substitute for could in one interpretation of the sentence, but not for all of them.

Larry Latham

[Bo]

Hi Larry,

thanks very much for all your help.

B.

[Stephen Jones]

I'll have to repeat, could could refer to future time.

Not in the example given.

As usual Larry you are letting your hobbyhorse trample over the particular meaning.

Change the sentence a little and your interpretation becomes possible.

Although she finished last yesterday, she could still win the race.
Although she was very tired at the end of the race yesterday, she could still come in strong today.

the point is that there is an adverbial of time that makes it clear that the past tense finishes at the end of the subordinate clause. In the original posting there isn't so the past tense carries on to the main clause.

[lolwhites]

Larry never said that could could refer to Future Time in the example given. I suspect he was trying to ensure that Bo didn't end up labouring under the common misapprehension that could can only refer to past time.

[CS]

Hello everyone,

could someone please help me with this sentence? What's wrong with it?

Although she was very tired, she could finish the race.

Thanks a bunch!

The subordinate clause 'Although she was very tired' expresses a general fact, whereas the independent clause 'she could finish the race' expresses both a probablilty or an intention. It's the connection between fact and probability and intention that's semantically odd.

Try,

Although she was very tired, she finished the race.
Although she was very tired, she was able to finish the race. (i.e. She had the ability to finish.)

[Stephen Jones]

expresses both a probablilty or an intention

Neither. It expresses the fact she was able to finish the race, and there is nothing odd.

your second example

Although she was very tired, she was able to finish the race.

would be clearly uinambiguous, and as I said earlier, I almost posted to suggest it was superior.

Larry never said that could could refer to Future Time in the example given

Look at this

Since you've said there is no context in this particular use, several interpretations are possible, including that the ability or possibility occurred in past time. But let's be clear that that is not the only available interpretation. Wink

it is clear that larry is stating that could in this sentence may refer to the future. This is what I am taking cudgels up with him over. Put in contrastive stress

Although she was tired, she could finish the race.

and then the future becomes the correct interpretation. However when analysing a sentence it is an unwritten convention that you dealing with the normal stress patterns unless there is any indication to the contrary.

To be frank, I doubt very much that it is a common misconception that could can only refer to the past.

[CS]

What is it exactly that you're trying to express with all those imperatives?

Well, this is certainly a friendly place, isn't it, now? From what I can tell so far--based on your us(ag)e of the language--it seems to me like you've set youself up as some kind of an authority on what you deem English should be, by prescribing, in a rather rude and impolite fashion, I might add, what is obviously the rantings of a language despot. Take some advice--because I'm going to offer it even if you don't want it: if you'd like to climb down from that self-made mount that holds you so high, and discuss the issue like a real scholar, let me know. I find your current response neither productive nor helpful, not to mention rather close-minded and disgraceful for a learned person.

Allow me the privilege to remind you that this is a discussion board. Discuss is the main event. (Note, <ss> is pronounced as [s], not [st].)

[Stephen Jones]

What is it exactly that you're trying to express with all those imperatives?

I count two of them actually. I wasn't trying to express anything. your post was half as long as mine and you used one.

Allow me the privilege to remind you that this is a discussion board. Discuss is the main event.

Be as pompous as you wish.

and discuss the issue like a real scholar

When you have something to say I might bother.

You made two comments in your first post. I disagreed with one of them and agred with the other. You then proceed to go into some kind of cheap psycho-analysis. If you want to discuss the original matter I am prepared to do so.