1

Tu Pee was hungry enough to eat a horse.
Tu Pee was so hungry that he could eat a horse.

I'd like to know whether the two sentences are exactly the same. Thanks a lot.

  • 2
    The second sentence talks about Tu Pee's extended capacity to eat something as big as a horse. The reason is Tu Pee's isn't hungry, he is famished. – Maulik V Nov 26 '15 at 6:00
1

Because this is a common idiom, I don't think anybody would have trouble recognizing them as the same thing. They both mean "Tu Pee was very hungry".

I may be wrong, but I can't see any difference in the literal interpretations either. In either case, we're saying Tu Pee's great hunger enables him to "eat a horse".

However, I could imagine scenarios where they are different.

Tu Pee was hungry enough that he ate a horse.
Tu Pee was so hungry that he ate a horse.

"Hungry enough" says he could eat a horse, as in your first example. But I don't think my first example sounds very natural. My second example sounds much better to me.

I can't think of an example where this would make sense, but there is a way to interpret your second example differently.

Tu Pee was happy enough to eat a horse.
Tu Pee was so happy that he could eat a horse.

The new metaphor makes little sense, but the literal meaning of the first example means his great happiness enables him to eat a horse. The second example could easily mean the same thing. But it could also mean Tu Pee is capable of eating a horse, and that capacity makes him happy.

Tu Pee was so happy because he knew he could eat a horse.

So applying the same grammar to your second example, we could interpret it as being hungry because of his capacity to eat a horse.

Thinking about his ability to eat a horse caused Tu Pee's stomach to rumble with hunger.

| improve this answer | |
0

I don't think there's any significant difference in meaning between these sentences. Both the sentences are indicative that Tu Pee, because of its hunger, was able to eat a horse.

The only subtle diffetence in meaning is that the phrase 'enough hungry' indicates that Tu Pee was as hungry as is necessary to eat a horse. On the other hand, the phrase 'so hungry' means that Tu Pee was very hungry or hungry to such a great extent that it could eat a horse.

In other words, Tu Pee's hunger shown in the latter sentence is more intense than that in the former.

| improve this answer | |
0

I see no appreciable difference in their ultimate meaning. With could {verb} capacity-to-do is explicit. With to {verb}, capacity-to-do is implicit in the pattern.

hungry enough to eat...

so hungry (that) he could eat...

The word "that" is in parentheses to show it's optional.

The complement to the "{modifier} enough" pattern is usually a to-infinitive phrase (to eat) but some speakers will supply a that-clause there (that he could eat).

The complement to the "so {modifier}" pattern is a that-clause or a reduced clause (but not a to-infinitive phrase).

Whether it is a to-infinitive phrase or a that-clause, the pattern indicates a sufficient degree of the property expressed by {modifier} to do the thing expressed by the verb-phrase in the complement.

He was so tall that he could dunk the basketball without leaping.
He was tall enough to dunk the basketball without leaping.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.