You can see where he'd have trouble!

Status
Not open for further replies.

it-is-niaz

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Persian
Home Country
Iran
Current Location
United States
In the link below, in 2:51, what does the following mean and why Ross used "Would"?

Ross: You can see where he'd have trouble!

This is my conclusion:

I think he used would to make the statement less polite. Also can we rephrase as the following?
"If your father couldn't understand that metaphor, then you can see he would have trouble understanding you."





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh0I6xe7Svc&list=PL4VjYMnxdYuW6Eqst_ko7JxLJgqC4ODfK
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
You've heard it wrong. Ross says You can see where he had trouble.

He means: You can see where he had trouble understanding what you were trying to say.
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
In the link below, [STRIKE]in[/STRIKE] at 2:51, what does the following mean and why did Ross [STRIKE]used[/STRIKE] use/say "Would"?

Ross: You can see where he'd have trouble!

This is my conclusion:

I think he used would to make the statement less polite. Also can we rephrase [STRIKE]as the following[/STRIKE] it this way?
"If your father couldn't understand that metaphor, then you can see he would have trouble understanding you."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh0I6xe7Svc&list=PL4VjYMnxdYuW6Eqst_ko7JxLJgqC4ODfK

Note my corrections above. Rachel is having trouble explaining her own metaphor so Ross is saying that she should be able to understand why her father would have trouble understanding it. It could be rephrased as "You can see why he's having trouble [understanding you]." His use of "would" has nothing to do with politeness.
 

it-is-niaz

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Persian
Home Country
Iran
Current Location
United States
I heard You can see where he'd have trouble!

The underlines words mean that having trouble is a natural thing in the circumstances.
Thanks. So, "would" here has nothing to do with the second conditional, right?
 

it-is-niaz

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Persian
Home Country
Iran
Current Location
United States
It could be rephrased as "You can see why he's having trouble [understanding you]."
Thank you.
So the differences between "he would have trouble" and "he is having trouble" is that the first one is his typical behavior (Rachel's father) and the second one is his temporally behavior because of being present contentious, am I right?

Also, I found definition #5 in the link below, does it make sense in what Ross used?
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/would

 
Last edited:

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I heard You can see where he'd have trouble!

I just listened again several times. I do now think he probably does say he'd have.
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
I just listened again several times. I do now think he probably does say he'd have.

That's what I heard the one and only time I listened. :)
 

yi-ing

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Tamil
Home Country
Singapore
Current Location
Singapore
Mandy Rice-Davies famously used would in a similar way.
What a point! Is the following extracted from the point you made in the link above?


Ross could have said : You can see where he would have trouble, wouldn't he?
 
Last edited:

PaulMatthews

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
In the link below, in 2:51, what does the following mean and why Ross used "Would"?

Ross: You can see where he'd have trouble!

This is my conclusion:

I think he used would to make the statement less polite. Also can we rephrase as the following?
"If your father couldn't understand that metaphor, then you can see he would have trouble understanding you."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh0I6xe7Svc&list=PL4VjYMnxdYuW6Eqst_ko7JxLJgqC4ODfK

You can see where he'd have trouble!

Syntactically, the underlined element is a subordinate interrogative clause (embedded question),.

The meaning is:

"You can see the answer to the question 'Where would he have trouble?"'

Semantically, it may well be expressing tentativeness in a remote conditional.
 
Last edited:

yi-ing

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Tamil
Home Country
Singapore
Current Location
Singapore
Semantically, it may well be expressing tentativeness in a remote conditional.
Thank you teacher. You meant the sentence "where he'd have trouble!" is conditional, right?
 

PaulMatthews

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
That is a distinct possibility, yes.
 

GoesStation

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Thank you teacher. You meant the sentence "where he'd have trouble!" is conditional, right?
"Where he'd have trouble!" is not a sentence.
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I don't see the point in making this a subordinate interrogative clause with the whole sentence meaning "You can see the answer to the question 'Where would he have trouble?"

I agree. I'm not a fan of this way of looking at it. It seems to me that the approach taken by describing this as an 'embedded question' is to express the meaning (that a question is being elicited) in terms of the grammar (the analysis that there is a subordinate interrogative clause). It seems to me a too grammar-centric approach to be of much value to non-grammarians. I can't see how or why Ross would be attempting to raise a question here.
 
Last edited:

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I wonder if that school of linguistics would see 'embedded questions' in both the following:

Sally asked me where John lived.
Sally told me where John lived.

Right. I don't want to speak for others but yes, probably.

Like I said, I think the term 'embedded question' is a term a grammarian might use when analysing structure, rather than one a semanticist might use to analyse meaning, or one a teacher might use to describe use.
 

PaulMatthews

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
:up:

I wonder if that school of linguistics would see 'embedded questions' in both the following:

Sally asked me where John lived.
Sally told me where John lived.


[1] Sally asked me where John lived.
[2] Sally told me where John lived

Yes, the underlined elements are embedded questions; what else could they be?

[1] reports an act of asking a question,while [2] reports an act of stating, giving the answer to a question that may or may not have been asked.
 

PaulMatthews

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
:up:

I wonder if that school of linguistics would see 'embedded questions' in both the following:

Sally asked me where John lived.
Sally told me where John lived.


[1] Sally asked me where John lived.
[2] Sally told me where John lived.

Of course they are embedded questions; what else could they be?

[1] reports an act of asking a question,while [2] reports an act of stating, giving the answer to a question that may or may not have been asked.
 

PaulMatthews

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
By that line of reasoning,every statement would seem to be the answer to a question that may or may not have been asked!


[1] Sally asked me where John lived.
[2] Sally told me where John lived.

[1] is a reported version if "Where does John live?", clearly a question.
[2] is a reported version of "John lives in (for example) New York", clearly not a question.


[2] reports the act of giving an answer to the question "Where does John live?

[2] is the answer-orientated version of question-orientated [1].
 

PaulMatthews

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
If that question had been asked, the answer would probably be reported as "She told me", not "She told me where he lived".

I cannot see any justification for claiming that a statement is an answer to a question when there is not the slightest evidence of any question having been asked or even implied.

I said it reports the act of giving an answer. How much clearer can it be? I said that the question may or may not have been asked.

"The answer to" bit is simply a gloss.
 

Phaedrus

Banned
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Interesting discussion! Differentiating between free relative clauses (or fused relatives) and embedded questions is notoriously tricky at times.

What about an argument from "sluicing," Piscean? (The term comes from Haj Ross.)

Sluicing is a type of ellipsis that only works with questions (embedded and root). The ellipsis always follows the wh-word.

One could say: I asked where Piscean worked, and he told me where. ["he told me where" = "he told me where [Piscean worked]"]

But one couldn't say: *[strike]I have been to where Piscean works, and I like where[/strike].
 
Last edited:

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
[2] reports the act of giving an answer to the question "Where does John live?

It may or it may not. It obviously reports some kind of speech act but without more context we cannot know what kind of act it was.

(Did you mean to write [1] instead of [2]? If you did, then of course I agree—the verb asked clearly identifies an illocutionary act of asking a question. The verb told does not.)

[2] is the answer-orientated version of question-orientated [1].

Maybe but maybe not. For [2] to have been uttered, it is not necessary for a question to have been asked at all, whether that question was spoken, written, or remained only as a thought in the mind. If none of these, I don't see what use there could be to say that it is 'answer-orientated'. The answer to what? To only a 'potential' question?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top