A: Throw it. B: OK. But I can't catch.

[Elly]

Hi there,

I'm new to this forum and this is the first thread I'm posting.

I have a question about a sentence in an English language textbook my son is using at his secondary school here in Japan.

The sentence in question is the underlined in the below example given in the textbook.

A: Throw it.
B: OK. But I can't catch.

I note that this is a stand-alone example given in this particular section of the textbook and so it's not part of a passage (Please refer to the attached image. Only one word is meant to go into the blank box).

My question is, is the underlined sentence grammatically correct? I understand that the verb 'catch' can take either a transitive or intransitive form, but I somehow feel that an object would need to be inserted after it (such that it reads something like "But I can't catch it." Strictly speaking, "I am not going to be able to catch it" might be a more natural phrase but that might be slightly beside the point.)

Thank you in advance for your helpful guidance.

Best,

Elly

 

[5jj]

Welcome to the forum, Elly.

Please give us the title and author of any book you quote from.

You are right that "I am not going to be able to catch it" would be natural for a single (future) act of catching something, but 'I can't catch' is possible for a general inability to perform the act of catching.

 

[Elly]

Thank you very much for responding.

As for the title and author of the textbook they are as follows:

Title: Eigolabo
Publisher: Seishinsha
It's part 1 of a 3 book series: https://www.seishinsha.co.jp/book_c/detail.php?b=211

Apologies that it's in Japanese - it appears that the publisher does not have an English page.

Coming back to your response, is it right that the use of the word 'catch' in that sentence ("I can't catch") is grammatically correct without being followed by an object?

From my understanding of the language, the following underlined sentences would be grammatically incorrect without an object:

- Where is the book? I can't find.

- Do you have a ticket? No, I don't have.

And I thought the word 'catch' would fall under the same category of verbs that require an object when used in the manner as shown in the very first example I provided in my initial post.

Thank you in advance for your thoughts.

 

[5jj]

is it right that the use of the word 'catch' in that sentence ("I can't catch") is grammatically correct without being followed by an object?

Yes, it's possible. the ability to catch like the ability to throw can be seen as something that one can be said to have.

- Where is the book? I can't find.

- Do you have a ticket? No, I don't have.

The are slightly different constructions in that the short answers would use only the auxiliary/modal verbs. Closer to your original example would e:

A: Look for it!
B: *OK, but I can't find.

This is not possible. For some reason the abilty to find or to have is not something we can be said to have.

 

[Kontol]

You are right that "I am not going to be able to catch it" would be natural for a single (future) act of catching something,

I'm wondering why you use "would?"

Please give us the title and author of any book you quote from.

The word "from", I think, needs an object here such as "I'm from Indonesia". Your sentence, however, has no object. Is it dropped? I'm a little perplexed.

 

[tedmc]

I'm wondering why you use "would?

Would implies likelihood; will implies cetainty. Would is used in a statement to allow a bit of leeway for subjectivity.

The word "from", I think, needs an object here such as "I'm from Indonesia". Your sentence, however, has no object. Is it dropped? I'm a little perplexed.

It is a simple inversion:
You quoted the text from a book.
Give us the title and author of the book you quoted the text from.

 

[5jj]

I'm wondering why you use "would?"

You can interpret it as an implied conditionsal - It would be natural (if we used it).