[Grammar] Otherwise I would've been/would be playing with them now

[NAL123]

Person A: Why are you sitting here and not playing with them?

Person B:

1) My leg is injured. Otherwise I would be playing with them now.
2) My leg is injured. Otherwise I could be playing with them now.
3) My leg is injured. Otherwise I might be playing with them now.
4) My leg is injured. Otherwise I would've been playing with them now.
5) My leg is injured. Otherwise I could've been playing with them now.
6) My leg is injured. Otherwise I might've been playing with them now.

Which ones of them are correct/idiomatic?

 

[jutfrank]

I'll assume that what you mean is 1, which means that it is an imagined certainty, not just a possibility.

The logic is this:

injured = not playing with them now
not injured = playing with them now

 

[NAL123]

I'll assume that what you mean is 1, which means that it is a certainty, not just a possibility.

The logic is this:

injured = not playing with them now
not injured = playing with them now

But, what if the logic is:

Injured = not able to play with them now
not injured = able to play with them now

And therefore, my leg is injured. Otherwise I could be playing with them now.

Or

injured = not playing with them now
not injured = maybe playing with them now

And therefore, my leg is injured. Otherwise I might be playing with them now.

 

[GoesStation]

But, what if the logic is:

Injured = not able to play with them now
not injured = able to play with them now

And therefore, my leg is injured. Otherwise I could be playing with them now.

Or

injured = not playing with them now
not injured = maybe playing with them now

And therefore, my leg is injured. Otherwise I might be playing with them now.

Those are possible, too, to express those meanings.

 

[jutfrank]

Injured = not able to play with them now
not injured = able to play with them now

Then: Otherwise, I'd be able to play with them now.

And therefore, my leg is injured. Otherwise I could be playing with them now.

That's not wrong, but I wouldn't recommend it. The verb could is tricky because it can have a sense of ability and it can have a sense of possibility, which in my opinion is the more likely interpretation of could in this sentence. That's why I'd recommend you say what you mean as clearly as possible—by using the word able.

injured = not playing with them now
not injured = maybe playing with them now

Then, Otherwise, I might be playing with them now.

And therefore, my leg is injured. Otherwise I might be playing with them now.

Yes, right. Remember what I've said before in your other threads on this topic about the different kinds of possibility expressed by might and could. At least one of the other expert members objected to my terms of 'real' and 'unreal' possibility, but I hope I made it workably clear what I meant by those terms. In this case, the speaker is thinking of the possibility as real, which is why might is appropriate.

At the risk of adding to your confusion here, I'll point out that it would be possible to use could if you were to remove Otherwise. By so doing, you will be changing the kind of possibility you mean:

It's a pity my leg's injured. I could be playing with them now.

In this sentence, the word could expresses a purely theoretical possibility. It's like positing an alternative but theoretically possible universe in which you are playing with them now. That's what I mean when I use the word 'unreal'.

If it's still not clear what I mean by real/unreal, please let me know and I'll try to provide a deeper explanation.

 

[NAL123]

Thank you very much for this great, great, great explanation!!!

That's not wrong, but I wouldn't recommend it. The verb could is tricky because it can have a sense of ability and it can have a sense of possibility, which in my opinion is the more likely interpretation of could in this sentence. That's why I'd recommend you say what you mean as clearly as possible—by using the word able.

Does the possibility sense of "could" you mention above is the same as that of "might" in Otherwise I might be playing with them now, i.e., real possibility? In other words, does the modal "could" also have the real possibility sense?

Remember what I've said before in your other threads on this topic about the different kinds of possibility expressed by might and could. At least one of the other expert members objected to my terms of 'real' and 'unreal' possibility

You've got a nice memory!

At the risk of adding to your confusion here, I'll point out that it would be possible to use could if you were to remove Otherwise. By so doing, you will be changing the kind of possibility you mean:

It's a pity my leg's injured. I could be playing with them now.

In this sentence, the word could expresses a purely theoretical possibility. It's like positing an alternative but theoretically possible universe in which you are playing with them now. That's what I mean when I use the word 'unreal'.

Can I use "would" in the same way, without "otherwise"?

It's a pity my leg's injured. I would be playing with them now.

I think we would paraphrase the "theoretical" could as:

It's a pity my leg's injured. I could be playing with them now. = It would be possible for me to be playing with them now.

But can we paraphrase it with the ability meaning, like this: It's a pity my leg's injured. I would be able to play (be playing) with them now

If it's still not clear what I mean by real/unreal, please let me know and I'll try to provide a deeper explanation.

Can I say that both "could" and "might" have real as well as unreal (theoretical) possibility senses?

 

[jutfrank]

Does the possibility sense of "could" you mention above is the same as that of "might" in Otherwise I might be playing with them now, i.e., real possibility? In other words, does the modal "could" also have the real possibility sense?

I say no. I would urge you to think of could as unreal only, and might as real only. In my opinion, this is the key to understanding the so-called 'extrinsic' senses of these two verbs. Many teachers and textbooks will tell you that they have the same meaning, but they don't.

Can I use "would" in the same way, without "otherwise"?

No. If you remove Otherwise, you lose the sense of conditionality. The word Otherwise is equivalent to saying If my leg were not broken.

I think we would paraphrase the "theoretical" could as:

It's a pity my leg's injured. I could be playing with them now. = It would be possible for me to be playing with them now.

I wouldn't encourage such a paraphrase because I don't think it helps to use one modal verb to paraphrase another. I'd prefer to say something like: There is a possible world in which I am playing with them now.

But can we paraphrase it with the ability meaning, like this: It's a pity my leg's injured. I would be able to play (be playing) with them now

Let's not confuse the issue by introducing the concept of ability if we don't need to. I thought we'd determined that the intended meaning was possibility, not ability. There is a deep sense in which ability is just another kind of possibility, but I don't think we should go into that in this thread. Like I always say about modal verbs, if we want to understand things properly, we need to get the meaning (the speaker meaning) of our examples very clear first, and then go from there. In the example that you've provided, we're talking about possibility.

Can I say that both "could" and "might" have real as well as unreal (theoretical) possibility senses?

No. See above.

 

[NAL123]

No. If you remove Otherwise, you lose the sense of conditionality. The word Otherwise is equivalent to saying If my leg were not broken.

I wouldn't encourage such a paraphrase because I don't think it helps to use one modal verb to paraphrase another. I'd prefer to say something like: There is a possible world in which I am playing with them now.

Last question: Can I say that the theoretical/unreal meaning is only possessed by the modal "could", and no other modals (like, would, might etc), so much so that it doesn't even require any conditional markers, like "if", "otherwise" etc in the sentence?

 

[jutfrank]

Last question: Can I say that the theoretical/unreal meaning is only possessed by the modal "could", and no other modals (like, would, might etc), so much so that it doesn't even require any conditional markers, like "if", "otherwise" etc in the sentence?

No, I don't think you can—would, for instance, can have a similar such use.