[General] After a decade of not seeing him, I can't make him out.

[Silverobama]

Hi.

My cousin and my uncle went to Canada and lived there since 2009; I haven't seen them for a long time. After 14 days of quarantine, we met again. My cousin has totally changed and I couldn't recognize him. I said "After a decade of not seeing him, I can't make him out".

I wonder if my sentence is natural.

 

[bubbha]

To me, "can't make him/her out" implies that someone is so far away or a picture of him/her is so blurry, obscured, or low resolution that the person is hard to identify. If you're meeting your cousin face to face, you can still "make him out" (i.e., clearly discern his features), even though you do not recognize him or his appearance has changed.

 

[Silverobama]

To me, "can't make him/her out" implies that someone is so far away or a picture of him/her is so blurry, obscured, or low resolution that the person is hard to identify. If you're meeting your cousin face to face, you can still "make him out" (i.e., clearly discern his features), even though you do not recognize him or his appearance has changed.

Got it. I wonder if I can have an alternative to express this thought.

 

[Rover_KE]

You already have one: '... I didn't recognise (BE spelling) him'.

 

[Silverobama]

You already have one: '... I didn't recognise (BE spelling) him'.

I notice that you used "..." to mean "After a decade of not seeing him", I wonder if this part is also okay.

 

[Rover_KE]

It's possible, but I'd be more likely to say 'I hadn't seen him for ten years, and I didn't recognise him'.

 

[emsr2d2]

Or "After not seeing him for ten years, ...".

 

[Silverobama]

It's possible, but I'd be more likely to say 'I hadn't seen him for ten years, and I didn't recognise him'.

Or "After not seeing him for ten years, ...".

If I want to put Ems and Rover's sentences together, I think this one is good "After not seeing him for ten years, I didn't recognise him". But this one isn't "After not seeing him for ten years, and I didn't recognise him".

Is the "and" right here?

 

[tedmc]

How about "couldn't (instead of didn't) recognise him"?

 

[Tarheel]

How about "couldn't (instead of didn't) recognise him"?

It seems to say the same thing here.

 

[jutfrank]

How about "couldn't (instead of didn't) recognise him"?

No. Use didn't. Using couldn't sounds as if you were trying to recognise him, but you failed.

 

[GoesStation]

No. Use didn't. Using couldn't sounds as if you were trying to recognise him, but you failed.

Couldn't and didn't are both natural and equally possible to my American ears.

 

[jutfrank]

Couldn't and didn't are both natural and equally possible to my American ears.

Yes, but they don't have exactly the same meaning. There would need to be a reason to use the modal couldn't, which carries added meaning, instead of the regular auxiliary didn't.

 

[GoesStation]

Yes, but they don't have exactly the same meaning. There would need to be a reason to use the modal couldn't, which carries added meaning, instead of the regular auxiliary didn't.

To my ear they both mean essentially it wasn't possible for me to recognize you. "Couldn't" may emphasize the lack of possibility slightly where "didn't" merely states a fact, but either verb might emerge in conversation without considering that.

 

[jutfrank]

either verb might emerge in conversation without considering that.

I do agree either verb might emerge but I believe there must be some kind of consideration governing word selection, on some basic level, however unconscious.

There's a similar difference between I don't remember and I can't remember.