3

I read a short story "Love Among the Haystacks" written by D.H Lawrence that is a simplified version of Macmillan Readers.

I came across a sentence

"He's my husband and he's not going to run away. I'll stop him."

However, I couldn't grasp the context because I thought why she would stop him even though he's not going to run away.

So I checked the original version of that. In which is written

“He’s my husband–an’ he’s not goin’ to run off if I can stop him.”

I could grasp the context. I wonder if these two sentences have the same meaning.

Improve this question
1
  • The implication is that he might try to run away, which is why she would stop him, which is why he would not [succeed in his effort to] run away
    – Mary
    Commented Oct 13 at 17:16

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
20

In the original, the phrase if I can stop him implies “I will do my best to prevent him [from running away].” It tells us fairly little about how able (to stop him) she believes herself to be, but it does speak directly to the intensity of her desire and intent to stop him.

This phrase is similar to Not if I can help it (where help means essentially prevent), which might be uttered in reply to a question like Doctor, will my puppy die from this?

But the sentence you quote from the simplified version, I can stop him, suggests an unstated because and conveys the speaker’s confidence, even certainty, in their ability to stop him. Thus it is not a particularly good paraphrase of the original because it doesn’t mean the same thing about her attitude and beliefs.

Improve this answer
2
  • 5
    So to answer the title question, no, the two sentences don't mean the same thing, although the difference is a bit subtle. The simplified version expresses a certainty that the speaker will prevent her husband from running away (if he tries), but the original expresses an intention to make a best effort to prevent him, possibly with an implication that the speaker considers herself likely to succeed.
    – John Bollinger
    Commented Oct 11 at 17:16
  • This might depend on the context though. If the certainly is conveyed otherwise, it may already be known that she can stop him.
    – DonQuiKong
    Commented Oct 11 at 21:36
8

The simplified version is simplified. It has two sentences that state facts, but it doesn't link the sentences. That means you have to use context to understand how "I'll stop him" is connected to "He's not going to run away." You can understand that just from the words because it tells you simply that she will stop him from running away.

The original uses dialect spelling and idiomatic use of "if". You need to understand from context whether she thinks she is able to stop him. You need to understand the character of the woman, not just the words. I understand her to be a very strong woman, so she is certain that she would be able stop him, and so I understand that she will stop him from running away.

So by using my understanding of the character, I end up with the same conclusion.

But the two quotes don't have the same meaning. One uses "if" and is a conditional sentence, the other doesn't.

Improve this answer
10
  • 2
    She's not saying he doesn't want to run away. In fact, her statement tells us she suspects he is planning to run away, or thinking about it. Instead, she's saying he won't be successful, because "I'll stop him."
    – Peter Kirkpatrick
    Commented Oct 11 at 6:58
  • 1
    @Peter Kirkpatrick. Why does her statement tell us she suspects he "is" planning to run away? She said that he's "not" going to run away.
    – Yuuichi Tam
    Commented Oct 11 at 7:25
  • 4
    He's not going to run away because if he tries she will stop him. This meaning can be inferred.
    – Kate Bunting
    Commented Oct 11 at 8:17
  • 1
    This kind of construction frequently takes the form "They're not going to put a casino in our neighborhood, not if we can stop them!". They want to put a casino there. The matrix clause makes an assertion as if it were fact, expressing determination or strong commitment on the part of the speaker, that the casino won't materialize, but then the subordinate clause introduces a caveat: stopping them will take considerable effort by us. The implication is that the speaker believes that "we" are up to the challenge, we can succeed, we can prevent that from happening.
    – TimR
    Commented Oct 11 at 8:38
  • 3
    @YuuichiTam, So you're learning that in English the meaning is not always explicit. We have a saying: To read between the lines, which means to recognise that only part of the meaning is clearly stated, and the rest has to be deduced by the reader. In fact you understand this already: it's why you asked the question in the first place. You knew there was more to her meaning than the words alone.
    – Peter Kirkpatrick
    Commented Oct 11 at 10:58
3

The sentences in the original version and the simplified version are:

  1. “He’s my husband–an’ he’s not goin’ to run off if I can stop him.”
  2. "He's my husband and he's not going to run away. I'll stop him."

If we write the original sentence in standard English:
He's my husband, and he's not going to run off if I can stop him.".
In this sentence, the author D.H.Lawrence has used the dialect (going is goin, and is an) of the character, Paula (Polish). The non-standard English represents Paula's regional, social and educational background.

The difference in the original and the simplified version.

Original - It is a Conditional sentence, in which Paula doesn't rule out the possibility of her husband running away. But she says that if her husband tries to run away, she can stop him (no surety).

Simplified version - The simplified version is ambiguous because there is no clarity -
The husband will not run away because she will definitely stop him (completely sure)

Edit -1.
Using can and will for possibility.
Let's see how the meaning changes if we use "will" in place of "can" for possibility/ ability:

Ref Adventures with Grammar and Composition, Beena Sugatham. Oxford Printing Press.

We can also use may or might to show probability or possibility.
May indicates a good possibility and might, a weak possibility though there is very little difference.
*can and could" suggests possibility. It expresses still weaker possibility than might.
Must and will can also be used to indicate certainty or likelihood.
Must expresses a logical certainty and is used in a context stronger than may.
Will is used when we are one hundred per cent sure.
enter image description here

We can conclude that while the author in the original version meant there is a possibility, the simplified version says that it is 100% sure.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1st says she will make an attempt to stop him, and may imply that she will do her best, but she could easily have an unspoken caveat of “if I can do so without breaking a sweat”. The second has her stating it as a fact that he won’t successfully run away, a fact as certain as the sun rising. We may doubt her, she herself has no doubt.
    – jmoreno
    Commented Oct 11 at 23:51
2

Consider a football game. The striker for one of the teams might brag to a sports journalist:

I'm going to score a hat-trick today.

The journalist might then go over to the goalie of the opposing team to ask him his opinion of the striker's bragging:

He's not going to score a hat-trick if I stop him.

The goalie states it only as a hypothetical: "if I stop him". But the implication is that the goalie intends to stop him.

Improve this answer
2

No.

The first sentence

He's my husband and he's not going to run away. I'll stop him.

implies that no matter the condition, she will prevent him from running away. With conditionals the equivalent will be

If he tries running away I'll stop him.

The later sencence

He’s my husband–an’ he’s not goin’ to run off if I can stop him.

puts the conditional other way around. One can conclude that the husband may run away when she is not able to stop him (anymore).

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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