Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    ripley is offline Senior Member
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Italian
      • Home Country:
      • Italy
      • Current Location:
      • Italy
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    589
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default only men could act /play

    Hi,
    I would say
    1)Only men could act

    and not

    2)Only men could play


    But is number 2 OK?

    I would choose number 1 because there is no object. What would a native speaker do? and Why?

    Rip.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,971
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: only men could act /play

    Quote Originally Posted by ripley
    Hi,
    I would say 1) Only men could act, not 2) Only men could play. But is number 2) OK? I would choose 1) because there is no object. What would a native speaker do? and Why?
    Both 1) and 2) lacks a direct object, Ripley. "play" functions as a base verb, a non-finite verb. It's an infinitive, like 'to play'. With modals, like "can", the second verb doesn't carry tense.

    What about?

    Only men performed on stage.

    "could act" is ambiguous. It also means, had the ability, or woman also performed roles, but they couldn't act (i.e., they were bad actors). I think the meaning you're after is permission: only men were permitted on stage.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Hotchalk