Timeline for What does "couldn't possibly <do something>" mean?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 5, 2022 at 9:05 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 7, 2022 at 5:40 | |||||
| S Aug 3, 2022 at 12:52 | history | suggested | muru | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarified title to convey the main question, markdown list formatting
|
| Aug 3, 2022 at 10:15 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 3, 2022 at 12:52 | |||||
| Aug 3, 2022 at 2:49 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Aug 3, 2022 at 2:45 | answer | added | gotube♦ | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 2, 2022 at 19:47 | comment | added | Weather Vane | FF wrote Don't attempt to translate not possibly. | |
| Aug 2, 2022 at 19:41 | comment | added | Loviii | @WeatherVane As far as I could understand, FumbleFingers wrote we should perceive "possibly" in "he couldn't possibly catch up" not as its usual meaning "perhaps" but as another meaning "under any conceivable circumstances". It is a useful answer to me but it looks more like an attempt to avoid finding a logic. | |
| Aug 2, 2022 at 19:38 | answer | added | Michael Harvey | timeline score: 6 | |
| Aug 2, 2022 at 19:22 | comment | added | Weather Vane | No, I don't agree. Please read what @FumbleFingers wrote about "not possibly". | |
| Aug 2, 2022 at 19:18 | comment | added | Loviii | @WeatherVane You said: the negative applies to "catch up" not to "possibly". But as I understood, "he couldn't possibly catch up" = "it was not possible for him to catch up" or literally "it was not possible that he could catch up". That is, we took out "not possible" from the clause. Therefore you were wrong: the negative applies to "possibly". Do you agree? | |
| Aug 2, 2022 at 18:31 | comment | added | Weather Vane | @FumbleFingers I agree, #2 seems to be OP's (mis-)construction as to what #1 might mean. | |
| Aug 2, 2022 at 18:29 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @WeatherVane: Indeed. So if we had to "interpret" #2, we'd say it means perhaps he wouldn't be able to catch up. But that makes no sense in conjunction with the preceding clause, let alone that it's not really an idiomatic construction in the first place. | |
| Aug 2, 2022 at 18:03 | comment | added | Weather Vane | In #2 the 'possibly' has been repositioned and now modifies "could not" instead of "catch up". | |
| Aug 2, 2022 at 17:59 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | Don't attempt to "translate" not possibly. That's what's leading you to the totally non-idiomatic form in your example #2. The negation attaches to could not, as can easily be established simply by noting that #3 (which doesn't even include the word possibly) means essentially the same thing as #1. Note that possibly here is just an optional "intensifier" (effectively meaning under any conceivable circumstances). | |
| Aug 2, 2022 at 17:49 | comment | added | Loviii | @WeatherVane If <the negative applies to "catch up" not to "possibly"> then we can take out "possibly" from "could not possibly catch up", thereby getting "possibly could not catch up" as in (2), i.e. by this logic (1) = (2). But you said it isn't so. I'm confused. | |
| Aug 2, 2022 at 17:47 | comment | added | Kate Bunting | It was not possible for him to catch up. | |
| Aug 2, 2022 at 17:39 | comment | added | Weather Vane | It adds stress to the idea: He couldn't [possibly] catch up. The negative applies to "catch up" not to "possibly", which is an adverb. Compare "He could possibly catch up" with "He could not possibly catch up". | |
| Aug 2, 2022 at 17:36 | comment | added | Loviii | @WeatherVane Why is (1) equal to (3)? Why does "possibly" in (1) not convey any meaning? Thanks! | |
| Aug 2, 2022 at 17:27 | comment | added | Weather Vane | #1 means the same as #3, and #2 leaves some doubt. It was not possible to catch up. | |
| Aug 2, 2022 at 17:08 | history | asked | Loviii | CC BY-SA 4.0 |