Timeline for In those days, you could have been (could be?) killed for any trifle
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 14, 2014 at 18:39 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @KinzleB Right. MODAL-Past + have + PaPpl will usually be a past counterfactual. | |
| Dec 14, 2014 at 16:54 | comment | added | Kinzle B | Got it; Backshifting all these 4 examples we had to stick with 'could' rather than 'could've', right? @StoneyB | |
| Dec 14, 2014 at 16:44 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @KinzleB W e l l . . . It's a difference of 'flavour', because it's a different context: as FF says, it amounts to a 'hedge': we 'could' do this; [if we did that,] however, [we would also have to observe that]... | |
| Dec 14, 2014 at 16:07 | comment | added | Kinzle B | So do you agree with FumbleFingers' suggestion that the first could is different from the rest three in my previous question. I tend to think these 4 examples share the same usage of 'could'. I got confused. @StoneyB | |
| Dec 14, 2014 at 15:57 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @KinzleB Imagine this conversation: KB:"Do you happen to know when Kafka was born?" SB:"No, but I could look it up for you." KB:"That's OK, just wondering..." Here the hypotheticality of my could is very thin: I certainly can look it up, and could signifies only that I'm making the offer. If you backshifted that it would still be could: "I told Kinzle B I could look it up, but he said not to bother." | |
| Dec 14, 2014 at 15:45 | comment | added | Kinzle B | Come to think of it. I've never read about anything like your concept of 'attenuated hypotheticality', esp related to 'could'. Why don't my advanced grammar books even drop a hint of it? Any books you could recommend? Can you plz give me a few more examples on this particular usage of 'could'? @StoneyB | |
| Nov 5, 2014 at 17:12 | vote | accept | CowperKettle | ||
| Nov 5, 2014 at 15:32 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @Araucaria Yes, indeed. | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 23:39 | comment | added | Araucaria - Not here any more. | @TRomano The second sounds more like a warning. I'm not sure why, but I think because it's could it's got more of a specific future possibility reading as opposed to a generally happens feeling ... (shrugs) | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 22:40 | comment | added | TimR | Does either of the following express a more urgent warning? Be careful, the sidewalks are icy here. One can slip and fall. or Be careful, the sidewalks are icy here. One could slip and fall. | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 16:37 | comment | added | Araucaria - Not here any more. | @StoneyB Dudman's one of my heroes. I think he get's a mention in there somewhere. But whether P is actual doesn't figure too much in my theory. The diss that you've got there is just about backshift in conditionals. My current theory stems from some those ideas but is totally unrelated to any theories around at the moment - as far as I know. If you feel like giving me any feedback on the MA thingie -negative or positive or tangentially related, they'd be gratefully received :) | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 14:17 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @Araucaria Yes, D&R are much stronger on examples than on clear exposition. But: "a factual P-clause refers to a situation that has actualized or is actualizing in the real world, while a theoretical P-clause just makes a theoretical assumption about a situation, that is, a supposition about a situation in a theoretical (nonfactual) world. (Dudman [1991] speaks of a ‘fantasy’.) In factual-P conditionals the speaker commits herself to the truth of P in the real world, whereas in theoretical P-conditionals she does not". I presume one may generalize from P-clauses to complete constructions. | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 14:15 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @Araucaria I would like to read it - I've just signed up on academia.edu. I've been wrestling for six months with an approach to verbs in conditionals that might get ELLs beyond the Nth conditional nonsense, and 'non-standard' is attractive! ... | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 14:02 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @KinzleB Sometimes "I could swim" = "I can swim" with respect to 'modality'; both may express the same confidence in your present ability to swim. But in these cases, can will be used to express your general present competence and implicates your having swum before, while could will usually be used with respect to a specific situation which has not yet arisen or is still 'open' to your swimming. In other cases, of course, could may express past reference or social tentativeness or some uncertain condition. | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 13:41 | comment | added | Araucaria - Not here any more. | @StoneyB 1) Well, it's difficult to tell, because D&R never really define what they mean by theoretical - as I remember. - unless they're part of that group who define it in terms of negative epistemic stance/speaker's view of probability. (im)probability. 2) No, I don't think so. 3) see comment below in a sec 4) No! I haven't finished my PhD thesis yet! ;) (some people might argue Kratzer has the standard account in linguistics). EDIT there is a consensus on backshifting indicating improbability/negative epistemic stance/counter-factuality etc | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 13:29 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @Araucaria 1) I think you use 'hypothetical' in (much) the same sense as Declerck & Reed use 'theoretical'? 2) Does the presence of a hypothetical modal in a main clause entail an inferrable condition clause? 3) Is your thesis on line? 4) Is there a 'standard' account of conditionals? :) | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 12:34 | comment | added | Araucaria - Not here any more. | @StoneyB ... by which I mean my take on it may be somewhat non-standard ;) | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 12:33 | comment | added | Araucaria - Not here any more. | @StoneyB Well, I do agree there's often as not no tangible difference in matter of fact, or probability etc between the two, if that's what you mean by attenuated hypotheticality. But I don't agree that the could've version is any different in that respect. However, that isn't what I mean by hypotheticality. (Notice that in the Kinzle examples, could excludes a present simple always reading of the type lions can be found here, it's more of a futurish could if we wanted-type could imo) I wrote my Master's dissertation on 'conditional backshift' a couple of years ago ... | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 10:57 | comment | added | Araucaria - Not here any more. | @CopperKettle I don't think that 'one' excludes that reading (one is a very odd pronoun). But even if it is generic you that's used, the idea could still be presented as a theoretical situation. It is always true of could have been that the situation is considered theoretically as opposed to factually - even if we are considering something that did actually happen. | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 10:51 | comment | added | CowperKettle | @Araucaria: I'm trying to make it sink in, will do some quirking (reading Quirk et al.). What if we used not you but one: "Back then, one could be beaten up for behaving too perky". I guess we cannot use could have been in this instance? Since the sentence does not invite you to don the skin of one in the way it does when you is employed. | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 10:21 | comment | added | Kinzle B | Is it possible that "I could swim" is likely to mean "I can swim"? @StoneyB | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 10:07 | comment | added | Araucaria - Not here any more. | @CopperKettle ... so in the 'look at them the wrong way' example, it might just be that the situation is being presented in a hpothetical/theoretical way. On the other hand, if the author wants to use you to make the reader imagine themselves looking at someone the wrong way back then, then this of course is impossible... But that reading is not the only reading for the sentence. Is that any good as an explanation? | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 10:01 | comment | added | Araucaria - Not here any more. | @CopperKettle No, I don't think so. You might have noticed that I didn't use temrs like 'modal remoteness' or probability and counterfactuality in my post. I use the term hypotheticality. 'Hypothetical' here means considered as a theoretical situation. Notice that if a situation is impossible, you have to consider it theoretically. But just because you consider something theoretically, it does not mean that the situation doesn't, wont, or hasn't existed. For example, If we offered you the job, what changes would you make to X? doesn't mean that they won't give you the job! ... | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 5:06 | comment | added | CowperKettle | Thank you, Araucaria! So "in those days, you could have been" works even if the person spoken to wasn't present in those days. So Leo's answer is a bit off the mark. What is the difference between (3) and (4)? Is it that (4) implies that people were very aware of this danger and it was very unlikely for anyone to be careless enough to look at someone the wrong way? | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 4:46 | history | edited | CowperKettle | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed a typo: missing word "beaten"
|
| Nov 2, 2014 at 23:58 | history | edited | Araucaria - Not here any more. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Nov 2, 2014 at 23:28 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | Excellent! But I invite you to consider whether there isn't a third dimension here -- present-referent could employed with such attenuated 'hypotheticality' that it is virtually identical with some senses of can. (Our wondrously persistent user Kinzle B offers some examples here.) It is my impression that in such cases the past-tensed form remains could, while the 'perfect' could have VERBen is mostly reserved for 'strong' hypotheticals - mostly counterfactuals. | |
| Nov 2, 2014 at 19:48 | history | answered | Araucaria - Not here any more. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |