couldn't vs. couldn't have

   Share on Facebook  
Anonymous  #489798  Mon, 17 Mar 08 09:47 AM

Hi,

I think you can basically say the same thing by using 'couldn't' and 'couldn't have'. They both refer to the past and indicate the capability at that time.

There was no way that I couldn't enjoy the game, not from the way we played offensively.

In regard to the above statement made by Nuggets coach George Karl after his team's spectacular performance on the field,  would you say you could easily replace 'couldn't' with 'couldn't have' and have virtually no different in meaning? Only place I have seen 'could + verb' or 'couldn't + verb' being used is where the simplicity of context is involved like here:

Three years ago, I could do twenty push-ups.

How about these?

I could have done it but I diidn't.

I could have done it but I didn't

For the above two, I  see virtually no difference.       

  
Marius Hancu  #489874  Mon, 17 Mar 08 12:39 PM

>There was no way that I couldn't enjoy the game, not from the way we played offensively.

To me, this is wrong, as this is talk about unrealised past ability, or guess or speculation about what has happened , only could have should be used:

There was no way that I couldn't enjoy the game, not from the way we played offensively.

See can/could in Swan, Practical English Usage.  

  
  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Wed, Apr 26 2006
Montreal, Canada
Veteran Member (11,673)
Proficient Speaker
AddThis Feed Button RSS Feed: ESL General English Grammar Questions
© 2008 MediaCET Ltd.
Terms and Conditions & Terms of Service