[Grammar] I ran as fast as I could have run

[NAL123]

Consider this sentence of mine, please:

1) I will run as fast as I can.

The past tense version of 1) would be:

2) I ran as fast as I could.

Can we use "could have run" in place of "could" in 2)?

 

[tedmc]

No, you use could have run only if you didn't run.

 

[teechar]

No, you use could have run only if you didn't run.

No, that's incorrect. See below.

Can we use "could have run" in place of "could" in 2)?

Yes, you can. In fact, you could also just say "I ran as fast as I could have".

Coach: That's not good enough. You'll have to run faster to stand a chance in the upcoming competition.
Runner: I did my best. I ran as fast as I could have (run).

 

[tedmc]

No, that's incorrect. See below.


Yes, you can. In fact, you could also just say "I ran as fast as I could have".

Coach: That's not good enough. You'll have to run faster to stand a chance in the upcoming competition.
Runner: I did my best. I ran as fast as I could have (run).

Then why do you use could have run when you can use could run?

 

[teechar]

Because it's possible in English.
Take a look at the following link. It explains the use of "could have".
https://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/could-have-should-have-would-have.html

 

[GoesStation]

Coach: That's not good enough. You'll have to run faster to stand a chance in the upcoming competition.
Runner: I did my best. I ran as fast as I could have (run).

That really doesn't work for me. Is this a British/American difference?

 

[teechar]

It could be, and it wouldn't surprise me if it is. AmE is diverging all the time away from BrE.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Whew! I'd just leave it at "I ran as fast as I could."

The other suggestions might be grammatical, but none is natural.

 

[PeterCW]

That really doesn't work for me. Is this a British/American difference?

I agree. Speaking colloquial BrE I would say "I ran as fast as I could". Saying "I ran as fast as I could have run" is fine but doesn't sound quite as natural. On the other hand "I ran as fast as I could have" is a construction that my parents would have corrected me for as sounding "working class".

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I agree. Speaking colloquial BrE I would say "I ran as fast as I could". Saying "I ran as fast as I could have run" is fine but doesn't sound quite as natural. On the other hand "I ran as fast as I could have" is a construction that my parents would have corrected me for as sounding "working class".

As you can see from post #8, it's the same in the US. So I don't see a big difference between British and American. We both prefer "I ran as fast as I could."

 

[GoesStation]

As you can see from post #8, it's the same in the US. So I don't see a big difference between British and American. We both prefer "I ran as fast as I could."

I don't think any Americans would say either "I ran as fast as I could have run" or "I ran as fast as I could have."

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I don't think any Americans would say either "I ran as fast as I could have run" or "I ran as fast as I could have."

And if we're to believe Peter in post #9, most Brits wouldn't, either.

I think this one is settled.

 

[teechar]

No, sorry Charlie. It's not settled for me. As far as I'm concerned, there's absolutely nothing wrong with "I could have" or "I could've". And of course, there should be no issue with "I ran as fast as I ...". So combining the two is okay as far as I'm concerned. You and others may disagree, but I'm sticking to my guns on this one. We can agree to disagree.

 

[NAL123]

I think "grammaticality" and "idiomaticity" are two different things.

 

[Phaedrus]

I don't think any Americans would say either "I ran as fast as I could have run" or "I ran as fast as I could have."

If we used "could have," the "as"-clause would either have a different subject or a different main verb (or both):

(i) I ran as fast as she could have.
(ii) I ran as fast as I could have walked.
(iii) I ran as fast as she could have walked.

In each case, there is counterfactual meaning in the "as"-clause. In (i), she didn't run, but if she had, she could have gone as fast as the speaker.

 

[NAL123]

I think the "could" in "I ran as fast as I could" might be paraphrased in this way:

"I ran as fast as I was able to", where we use the person's "real" ability to run instead of their hypothetical ability, "could've run"="would've been able to". But I'm not very sure.

 

[GoesStation]

I think the "could" in "I ran as fast as I could" might be paraphrased in this way:

"I ran as fast as I was able to" ….

That's correct. I didn't understand the rest of your post.

 

[Phaedrus]

That's correct. I didn't understand the rest of your post.

Having thought about this some more, I now hear a difference in meaning, the one formulation having a subjective orientation and the other an objective one.

A: I ran as fast as I could run. Really, I tried my hardest.
B: Well, I think that you could have run faster.
A: Sorry, but I think you're wrong. I ran as fast as I could have run. I could not have run any faster. I had no more strength left in me.

Compare:

He drove as fast as he could drive (when he reached 150 mph, he nearly fainted from fear),
and as fast as he could have driven (the car that he was driving cannot go over 150 mph).

 

[NAL123]

I didn't understand the rest of your post.

I meant "was able to run" means the person's ability to run at the time, at that particular situation, as opposed to his ability to run at any time, at any real/imaginable situation, which is indicated by "could've run" or "would've been able to run".

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

The trouble with all your alternatives is they aren't natural.

If "I ran as fast as I could" doesn't say exactly what you mean, you might use:

- I couldn't have run any faster.

- I ran my fastest.

- That was as fast as I could run.