keannu
VIP Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2010
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Korean
- Home Country
- South Korea
- Current Location
- South Korea
Please see the below.
Man(not a mechanic) : Oh, no! My car broke down. What do I do?
Woman(not a mechanic) : If I were a mechanic, I would(could, might) fix it. But I'm not a mechanic. Can you fix it?
Man: If I could fix it, I wouldn't be worried!
Can you tell the difference between the first could and second could in terms of nuance? Whenever I teach my students, I always tell them that in the conditional clause, the meaning of past tense or past perfect tense is assuming falsity. For example,.
1. If I were the president of Korea, I would unify the two Koreas.
2. If I had been born as Obama, I would be the president of USA.
For 1, the statement "I was a boy" for myself in the past was true, but it's not true anymore as of now, so the reason why they use past tense to assume a falsity of the present is because what happened in the past is no more true now at all, so past tense has false nuance.
For2, the statement "Before I was a college student, I had been a highschooler" for myself, the fact "I had been a high schooler" had been true before my university days, but it became false when I came into university. That's why past perfect is used to assume a falsity in the past.
I think fivejedjon can understand what I'm saying. So in the top example, do both "could" have the same nuance of falsity? or does the first one just have a weak "capability" for an imaginary result? The second one definitely means falsity meaning "I can't do it, but if I can do it..".
If you understand what I'm saying, you can also comment on "If I had been a mechanic, I could have fixed it" for if this "could" also means falsity or weak capability.
Man(not a mechanic) : Oh, no! My car broke down. What do I do?
Woman(not a mechanic) : If I were a mechanic, I would(could, might) fix it. But I'm not a mechanic. Can you fix it?
Man: If I could fix it, I wouldn't be worried!
Can you tell the difference between the first could and second could in terms of nuance? Whenever I teach my students, I always tell them that in the conditional clause, the meaning of past tense or past perfect tense is assuming falsity. For example,.
1. If I were the president of Korea, I would unify the two Koreas.
2. If I had been born as Obama, I would be the president of USA.
For 1, the statement "I was a boy" for myself in the past was true, but it's not true anymore as of now, so the reason why they use past tense to assume a falsity of the present is because what happened in the past is no more true now at all, so past tense has false nuance.
For2, the statement "Before I was a college student, I had been a highschooler" for myself, the fact "I had been a high schooler" had been true before my university days, but it became false when I came into university. That's why past perfect is used to assume a falsity in the past.
I think fivejedjon can understand what I'm saying. So in the top example, do both "could" have the same nuance of falsity? or does the first one just have a weak "capability" for an imaginary result? The second one definitely means falsity meaning "I can't do it, but if I can do it..".
If you understand what I'm saying, you can also comment on "If I had been a mechanic, I could have fixed it" for if this "could" also means falsity or weak capability.