+0
If I had not money, I would be in trouble.
=>Without money, I would be in trouble. (i.e. If ...ed not=Without)

Then, is this rewriting also possible?

If I had money, I wouldn't be in trouble like this.
=>With money, I wouldn't be in trouble like this. (i.e. If ...ed=With)

Theoretically, it may be possible. But I kind of feel uncomfortable using 'with' as subjunctive. I cannot detect in 'with' the feel of 'unreality' or 'impossibleness' that the subjunctive mood has...
1 2 3
Comments  (Page 2) 
Hi paco! thank you for your data, as always,

[F]
[L]

[8]
"With a rifle, I could have killed him easily"
"With a little bit of professional help, I think this could have been a great book."

Personally, I still don't feel the subjunctive air in those 'with's. It seems to me that they are 'by the means of something' and 'in support of something', if defined.

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Congratulations for your promotion paco.
Taka "With a rifle, I could have killed him easily"
"With a little bit of professional help, I think this could have been a great book."

Personally, I still don't feel the subjunctive air in those 'with's. It seems to me that they are 'by the means of something' and 'in support of something', if defined.

Yes; the first "with" clause seems interpretable as an instrumental phrase: "I could have killed him easily with a rifle." (We don't know whether Churchill had a rifle with him.)

The second "with" seems more counterfactual: "if the author had had..."

Cf.

1a. I can/could kill him easily with a rifle.
1b. I can/could kill him easily, with a rifle.

2. This can be a great book, with a little bit of professional help.
3. This could be a great book, with a little bit of professional help.

(We need commas, in 2 and 3; but in 1b, the comma gives a different meaning.)

"Could have" in the "rifle" example can mean "might have" or "would have been able to"; whereas "could have" in the "book" example seems restricted to "might have".

(But that might be because the main verb is stative: "to be".)

MrP
MrPedantic but in 1b, the comma gives a different meaning.

MrP, could you tell me what the difference is?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Sorry, Taka, I cut&pasted carelessly. It should have read:

1a. I can/could kill him easily with a rifle.
1b. I could kill him easily, with a rifle.

In 1a, you have a rifle. In 1b, you don't.

(But I suspect it's the kind of distinction that native speakers could argue over endlessly.)

MrP
MrPedantic1b. I could kill him easily, with a rifle.

In 1a, you have a rifle. In 1b, you don't.

And in 'With a rifle, I could kill him easily', 'with' clause seems interpretable as an instrumental phrase??
Yes, I think so:


"Churchill...you see that grammarian there, riding along the ridge?"

"Yes, sir."

"Think you could hit him?"

"Yes, sir."

"What'd you use? Your revolver?"

"Bit tricky with a revolver, sir. But with a rifle, I could hit him easily."

"Better see what you can do, then, Churchill."

"Yes, sir."

<peeeeyooowwwwwwwww>

<clunk>
MrP
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Hmm...very interesting, but mysterious at the same time.

This may be a tough question, but tell me, MrP, what is the decisive factor for the differentiation between the 'subjunctive' air and the 'non-subjunctive' air in those 'with X, S would/could do' constructions?

Another question is, if you see 'without X' itself, do you feel the same level of 'concreteness' as 'with X'?
Show more