2

They stood chatting together as naturally as could be.

I understand it means: They stood chatting together naturally to X extent.

but does

  1. x = the most natural degree they can achieve（implying they were trying to act naturally）, or
  2. x= the highest "naturally" degree among the degrees that exist in this world.
    ( I hope I made myself clear)
Improve this question
3
  • 2
    Related (duplicate?) Help parse "false as could be". Where it's pointed out that "as _ as can be" is an idiom, which basically means "as _ as possible". So as could be means as anyone could, not as they could.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Sep 5 at 11:55
  • @FumbleFingers I would go further and say that the idiom is often extended to uses in which no actual limitation is reasonably meant, or is used with casual hyperbole. "The sky was as blue as can be" doesn't really intend any kind of color theory, and "Yesterday was as cold as can be" doesn't mean it was absolute zero.
    – Andy Bonner
    Commented Sep 5 at 15:34
  • 1
    ForOU, if the first meaning were intended, a more common way would be "as naturally as they could." We can also use the "can be" to talk about personal limitations by adding more qualifiers, like "I'm as happy as I can be, under the circumstances." If I hadn't that, it would just mean "as happy as anyone could ever be," but by adding it I mean "as happy as it's possible for me to be today, with all my troubles."
    – Andy Bonner
    Commented Sep 5 at 15:37

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

The meaning is closer to 2., to the highest degree. There might also be an implication of being blithely unaware of any reason not to be relaxed, chatting with each other. This might be used to foreshadow an event, waiting for the other shoe to drop.

  • "He stood on the trail, happy as could be, unable to see the avalanche headed towards him."
  • "She rested on the sofa, relaxed as could be, when her playful husky leaped upon her."
Improve this answer
6
  • Thanks, I remember there is a similar structure" He is as happy as happy could be". Do you think the structure mentioned in the original post is simply a reduced version of this one?
    – ForOU
    Commented Sep 5 at 8:36
  • You may be right. This Ngram shows that 'happy as happy could be' was more common in the first decades of the 19th century, but began to be overtaken by 'happy as could be' from around 1860.
    – Kate Bunting
    Commented Sep 5 at 9:06
  • @KateBunting But with "good", Ngram shows "(as) good as good could be" is unnatural. Hence "(as) + adj/adv + as + modal + be" is not a reduced version of "(as) + adj/adv + as + adj/adv + modal + be".
    – Loviii
    Commented Sep 7 at 16:39
  • Not 'unnatural', just much less commonly used. I only suggested that that might be the case.
    – Kate Bunting
    Commented Sep 7 at 16:54
  • @KateBunting Okay, then in such a case, is it correct to say: when we repeat an adjective or adverb, we put more focus on it, making the speech more emotional ? Thanks.
    – Loviii
    Commented Sep 7 at 17:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .