# were able to/ could



## nren

Hello!
I need your help, what would you use in this sentence, "were able to" or "could"?

"All the groups offered also workshops where people were able to/ could learn to dance African dances"

I would say "could", but I'm not sure because that happened in a festival, what is not a long period of time.

Could anybody help me??

Thank you


----------



## Masood

Hola

Si no te molesta, ¿puedes escribir en español lo que quieres decir en inglés? Te lo pido ya que el inglés que has escrito no tiene sentido del todo.

Cheers


----------



## nren

Lo siento. La duda que tengo es si usar "were able to" o "could" en esta oración, porque normalmente se usa "could" cuando se refiere a algo que se ha realizado repetidas veces o durante un largo periodo de tiempo y en este caso, lo que se describe en la oración ocurrió durante un festival, es decir, no duró mucho más que unos días. 
Espero haberme explicado mejor.


----------



## Masood

nren said:


> Lo siento. La duda que tengo es si usar "*were able to*" o "*could*" en esta oración, porque normalmente se usa "could" cuando se refiere a algo que se ha realizado repetidas veces o durante un largo periodo de tiempo y en este caso, lo que se describe en la oración ocurrió durante un festival, es decir, no duró mucho más que unos días.
> Espero haberme explicado mejor.


Ambas expresiones estarían bien entendidas.


----------



## nren

Entonces, ¿no es preferible usar uno de los dos verbos antes que el otro? ¿Se podría decir en inglés de las dos maneras y no se cometería un error gramatical?


----------



## Masood

nren said:


> ¿Se podría decir en inglés de las dos maneras y *no se cometería un error gramatical*?


Que yo sepa, en tu ejemplo, no.

A ver qué opinan los demás.


----------



## duncandhu

De acuerdo con Masood, este ejemplo no es de los más definidos 

Pero vamos, yo que tú pondría "could", que me suena mejor, pero igual podrías poner "were able to" y tampoco sonaría mal, un poquito raro a lo mejor, pero mal no.

Saludos
Duncan


----------



## Samdie

I'd also prefer "could" but it's only a preference. On the other hand, I suggest that you change "groups offered also" to "groups also offered".


----------



## Bandama

I would say "could" sounds much better because it's a question of possibility, not ability.

"Workshops where people had the possibility (could)"


----------



## Tazzler

Diría también _could_: aquí se trata de posibilidad, no de logro o resultado. Además, la frase original sonaría aún mejor si pusieras _also_ delante del verbo.


----------



## Peterrobertini7

nren said:


> Hello!
> I need your help, what would you use in this sentence, "were able to" or "could"?
> 
> "All the groups offered also workshops where people were able to/ could learn to dance African dances"
> 
> I would say "could", but I'm not sure because that happened in a festival, what is not a long period of time.
> 
> Could anybody help me??
> 
> Thank you



*CAN *es una *habilidad aprendida* como tal el pasado es was/were able to.
I was able to play piano when I was young
I will be able to play piano in two years  (according to my teacher).
I can play the piano ( around present moment).
*COULD *es una *posibilidad *pues aprender es tratar de adquiir una habilidad.


----------



## NewdestinyX

nren said:


> Hello!
> I need your help, what would you use in this sentence, "were able to" or "could"?
> 
> "All the groups offered also workshops where people were able to/ could learn to dance African dances"
> 
> I would say "could", but I'm not sure because that happened in a festival, what which is not a long period of time.
> 
> Could anybody help me??
> 
> Thank you


"Could" se refiere a la 'habilidad física', 'los recursos suficientes' o 'la oportunidad' para hacer algo en el pasado. "Were able to" significa algo un poco diferente. "Was/Were able to" se refieren a las mismas cosas como 'could' pero tiene el matiz adicional de indicar que uno 'hizo' la cosa que tenía la oportunidad/habilidad física/recursos para hacer.

Así que las dos se podían emplear - pero significarían algo diferente.

..where people were able to learn (y sí aprendieron a bailar)
..where people could learn... (tenían la oportunidad para aprender a bailar)

I disagree that past possibility is expressed with 'could'. The modal verbs 'can' and 'could' are defective in English. "Could" when used for 'possibility' in the past has to use 'have'. Past possibility = 'could have' + past participle.

'Opportunity' to do something and 'possibility' to do something are different things. 

Chao,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Peterrobertini7 said:


> *CAN *es una *habilidad aprendida* como tal el pasado es was/were able to.
> I was able to play piano when I was young
> I will be able to play piano in two years  (according to my teacher).
> I can play the piano ( around present moment).
> *COULD *es una *posibilidad *pues aprender es tratar de adquiir una habilidad.


It's not that simple, Peterro. According to my English grammars - Can -- can also express opportunity to do something or permission to do something. And 'could' also expresses 'past physical ability' as in the piano playing examples you gave.





Tazzler said:


> Diría también _could_: aquí se trata de posibilidad, ...


..de "Oportunidad", Tazzler, no de 'posibilidad'. Son cosas distintas en ambos idiomas. Una 'posibilidad' en el pasado solo se puede expresar con 'could have + participio pasado'.


----------



## Peterrobertini7

NewdestinyX said:


> "Could" se refiere a la 'habilidad física', 'los recursos suficientes' o 'la oportunidad' para hacer algo en el pasado. "Were able to" significa algo un poco diferente. "Was/Were able to" se refieren a las mismas cosas como 'could' pero tiene el matiz adicional de indicar que uno 'hizo' la cosa que tenía la oportunidad/habilidad física/recursos para hacer.
> 
> Así que las dos se podían emplear - pero significarían algo diferente.
> 
> ..where people were able to learn (y sí aprendieron a bailar)
> ..where people could learn... (tenían la oportunidad para aprender a bailar)
> 
> I disagree that past possibility is expressed with 'could'. The modal verbs 'can' and 'could' are defective in English. "Could" when used for 'possibility' in the past has to use 'have'. Past possibility = 'could have' + past participle.
> 
> 'Opportunity' to do something and 'possibility' to do something are different things.
> 
> Chao,
> Grant




*I am not a native but Betty Azar (Book A, Numeral 2-12) states this and I would like to know if you agree with her.
" could offer suggestions or possibilities In (d) the speaker is saying  ." I have some possible suggestions for you .It is possible to do this.Or  it is possible to do that".

(d) you could talk to your teacher. Or you could ask Annn to help you with your Math class. Or I coukd try to help you"*

You *could *learn Spanish is a possibility to learn the hability of speaking Spanish.
I was able to speak English since 9 years old, I learned the ability and have the ability to do so up to know.


Hindsight possibilities= Could have+ pp.
Interesting subject!!!.

In Spanish we can use PODÍA, PUDIERA, PODRÍA as possibilities.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Peterrobertini7 said:


> *I am not a native but Betty Azar (Book A, Numeral 2-12) states this and I would like to know if you agree with her.
> " could offer suggestions or possibilities In (d) the speaker is saying  ." I have some possible suggestions for you .It is possible to do this.Or  it is possible to do that".
> 
> (d) you could talk to your teacher. Or you could ask Annn to help you with your Math class. Or I coukd try to help you"*
> 
> You *could *learn Spanish is a possibility to learn the hability ability of speaking to speak Spanish.
> I was able to speak English since 9 years old. (I have been able to speak Spansh since I was 9 years old),
> 
> I learned the ability and have the ability to do so up to know.
> 
> Hindsight possibilities= Could have+ pp.
> Interesting subject!!!.


The section you've quoted is about 'present or future possibility'. That is a very different matter. "Could" can project present or future possibility and opportunity. Things are different in the past. And that's what we were discussing. You've changed the subject with the examples you've quoted. They are referring to present or future. So Betty Azar is quite right about that matter.

Though your sentence with '9 years old' doesn't make sense in English.

Grant


----------



## Peterrobertini7

NewdestinyX said:


> The section you've quoted is about 'present or future possibility'. That is a very different matter. "Could" can project present or future possibility and opportunity. Things are different in the past. And that's what we were discussing. You've changed the subject with the examples you've quoted. They are referring to present or future. So Betty Azar is quite right about that matter.
> 
> Though your sentence with '9 years old' doesn't make sense in English.
> 
> Thanks for the  correction, and I agree with you (English part).
> 
> Grant



This is what I said :
                     Originally Posted by *Peterrobertini7* 

 
*CAN *es una *habilidad aprendida* como tal el pasado es was/were able to.
I was able to play piano when I was young
I will be able to play piano in two years  (according to my teacher).
I can play the piano ( around present moment).
*COULD *es una *posibilidad *pues aprender es tratar de adquiir una habilidad.
[end/quote]

I didn't say HINDSIGHT possibility (could +have+pp) Just could in that sentence posted by the forumite above. So I didn't change anything.

In Spanish we can use the IMPERFECT past= 'podía', podrías/pudiste how would you translate that into English????

thanks


----------



## NewdestinyX

Peterrobertini7 said:


> This is what I said :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *CAN *es una *habilidad aprendida* como tal el pasado es was/were able to.
> I was able to play piano when I was young
> I will be able to play piano in two years  (according to my teacher).
> I can play the piano ( around present moment).
> *COULD *es una *posibilidad *pues aprender es tratar de adquirir una habilidad.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say HINDSIGHT possibility (could +have+pp). Just could in that sentence posted by the forumite above. So I didn't change anything.
> 
> In Spanish we can use the IMPERFECT past= 'podía', podrías/pudiste how would you translate that into English????
Click to expand...

Please read my post again, Peterro.. It was your post #14 that I was responding to, about Betty Azar, which you used as proof for 'could's use to project  possibilities. That post was changing the subject from 'could' *in the past* to 'could' in the present/future. Ms Azar's section you quoted was about present and future possibilites which is 'not' what the sentence of this thread is about. Additionally the sentence in this thread is about '*past* opportunity to do' and not 'past possibility to do'. "Could", for 'possibilities' is used differently in the past, because it is a defective modal verb.

Chao,
Grant


----------



## Peterrobertini7

NewdestinyX said:


> The section you've quoted is about 'present or future possibility'. That is a very different matter. "Could" can project present or future possibility and opportunity. Things are different in the past. And that's what we were discussing. You've changed the subject with the examples you've quoted. They are referring to present or future. So Betty Azar is quite right about that matter.
> 
> Though your sentence with '9 years old' doesn't make sense in English.
> 
> Grant



*I would appreciate then *to comment this from OXFORD GUIDE TO ENGLISH GRAMMAR: ABILITY : can, could, and be able to.
Numeral 98, page 124. Quoting : Can and Could 
we use these verbs to say that something  is *possible  *because someone has the ability to do it. WE use can for the present and could for the past.
Nicola *could play* chess when she was six.My grandfather could walk on his hands.
3. *Could and was/were able to*
a. in the past, we make a difference between a general ability and an ability which resulted  in an action. For general ability we use *could *or *was/were able to"*""""
this is what you wrote : NEWDESTINY : That post was changing the subject from 'could' *in the past* to 'could' in the present/future. Ms Azar's section you quoted was about present and future possibilites which is 'not' what the sentence of this thread is about"""

Thanks


----------



## NewdestinyX

Peterrobertini7 said:


> *I would appreciate then *to comment this from OXFORD GUIDE TO ENGLISH GRAMMAR: ABILITY : can, could, and be able to.
> Numeral 98, page 124. Quoting : Can and Could
> we use these verbs to say that something  is *possible  *because someone has the ability to do it. WE use can for the present and could for the past.
> Nicola *could play* chess when she was six.My grandfather could walk on his hands.
> 3. *Could and was/were able to*
> a. in the past, we make a difference between a general ability and an ability which resulted  in an action. For general ability we use *could *or *was/were able to"*""""
> this is what you wrote : NEWDESTINY : That post was changing the subject from 'could' *in the past* to 'could' in the present/future. Ms Azar's section you quoted was about present and future possibilites which is 'not' what the sentence of this thread is about"""
> 
> Thanks


I'm sorry that we're not communicating well, Peterro. Maybe it's my fault -- but the only misunderstanding we have here seems to be that you weren't recognizing that Ms Azar's examples were for 'present and future' possibilities - not past. Those rules for use 'are different' than for 'past' could. So when you cited her as proof of your point -- that's the aspect that seemed to be changing the subject since our sentence here was a 'past opportunity'. 

It's important to understand that 'could' works differently when projecting present and future than when it projects past. I've already stated early on that both "can/could" can refer to "the ability to do something".. In the past - 'could', alone, can refer to a past physical ability and the resources or opportunity to do something; where only 'could have' can refer to a past possibility. If you read my posts again you'll see I've been consistent in my presentation. You need to understand that Ms Azar's examples, in the quote you gave, refer to present or future ability/possibility/opportunity - *not* the past. It's a difficult topic for non-natives. 

Chao,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Peterrobertini7 said:


> Oxford Quote: Numeral 98, page 124.
> *Can and Could *
> We use these verbs to say that something  is *possible  *because someone has the ability to do it. WE use _can_ for the present and _could_ for the past.
> _Nicola *could play* chess when she was six_
> _My grandfather could walk on his hands._
> 
> 
> 
> *I would appreciate then *to comment this from OXFORD GUIDE TO ENGLISH GRAMMAR: ABILITY : can, could, and be able to.
Click to expand...

Yes. Exactly correct. Though Oxford's definition in my opinion isn't quite complete. They should say: "We use _could_ for past 'physical ability'/resources'/opportunity/permission. And _can_ for the present."


> Oxford quote:
> 3. *Could and was/were able to*
> a. in the past, we make a difference between a general ability and an ability which resulted  in an action.


Yes exactly -- but then I don't think you quoted the whole line because they seem to contradict themselves with this next line or 'part' of a line you quoted. 





> Oxford quote:For general ability we use *could *or *was/were able to"*""""


They should say that for 'general physical ability/resources/opportunity/permission' we use '_could_'. And for an 'ability/resources/opportunity/permision which resulted in an action we use '_was/were able to_'. It's possible in casual English we also can use '_was/were able to_' both for 'general ability'. But you didn't quote the whole line.

Without seeing the rest of the Oxford quote from numeral 3 I can't tell if Oxford disagrees agrees with my assertion that using 'could' and 'was/were able to' in the original sentence would mean different things. I stand by that assertion still. We should keep in mind too that both Betty Azar and Oxford are British grammarians. The American English grammar books don't agree on everything.

Grant


----------



## Peterrobertini7

NewdestinyX said:


> Yes. Exactly correct. Though Oxford's definition in my opinion isn't quite complete. They should say: "We use _could_ for past 'physical ability'/resources'/opportunity/permission. And _can_ for the present."
> Yes exactly -- but then I don't think you quoted the whole line because they seem to contradict themselves with this next line or 'part' of a line you quoted. They should say that for 'general physical ability/resources/opportunity/permission' we use '_could_'. And for an 'ability/resources/opportunity/permision which resulted in an action we use '_was/were able to_'. It's possible in casual English we also can use '_was/were able to_' both for 'general ability'. But you didn't quote the whole line.
> 
> Without seeing the rest of the Oxford quote from numeral 3 I can't tell if Oxford disagrees agrees with my assertion that using 'could' and 'was/were able to' in the original sentence would mean different things. I stand by that assertion still. We should keep in mind too that both Betty Azar and Oxford are British grammarians. The American English grammar books don't agree on everything.
> 
> Grant



I'm afraid I cannot see the contradiction. For general ability:
*""Kevin could walk/was able to walk when he was eleven months old.*
 for an ability that resulted in an action ( and did it)
t*he injured man was able to walk to a phone box*.""

OXFORD accurately deal and explain separately :
ABILITY : CAN,COULD, WAS/were able to
POSSIBILITY : may, might, can and could.
Probability: should and ought to
Certainty : will, must and can't
unreal situations: would.
Habits : will, would and used to

John EASTWOOD (new edition) unit 44, letter (C) OXFORD PRACTICE GRAMMAR, quoting
 For an ability or opportunity in the past, we use *could *or *was/were able* to
*Natasha could play  (or was able to play) the piano when she was four.*
To say that the ability or opportunity resulted in a particular action, something that really happened, *we use was/were able to *but *not could*
The plane was able to take off at eleven  o'clock, after the fog had lifted
Luckily Mark was able to get the work done in time.
the driver were able to stop before they crashed into each other.
Compare these two sentences :
1- the children could swim  when they were quite young ( past ability)
2- the children were able to swim across the river ( past action).
In negative sentences and questions, we can use either form
It was foggy, so the plane couldn't/wasn't able to take off.
The pool was closed , so they couldn't/were'nt able to have a swim.
we normally use COULD (not was/were able to) with verbs of *seeing *etc, and with verbs of *thinking*
*I could see the village in the distance
I couldn't understand what was happening.*
By the way, Oxford use *could/can* for mental ability too.
Maybe a British forumite can give us a hand on this interesting subject. 
Thanks for your time again


----------



## NewdestinyX

Peterrobertini7 said:


> To say that the ability or opportunity resulted in a particular action, something that really happened, *we use was/were able to *but *not could*


With regard to the differences between 'could & was/were able to, who has said otherwise than your grammars? All these grammars point out perfectly why I gave Nren the advice I did, Peterro.

In this sentence that is the subject of this thread -- the choice of 'could or was/were able to' depends on context. They are not interchangeable to mean the same thing. Why? Because the sentence of this thread has two possible contexts: either "general opportunity" or "specific opportunity". With 'opportunities', Peterro, if you are trying to express a 'general opportunity' you could use 'either (according to the British grammars you cited - though in America we use only 'could' for general ability) or you would use 'only' was/were able to for a specific opportuninty where you 'did' do something. This sentence requires a distinction in choosing between the too because it could be a case of 'specific' opportunity not general. 

So to be clear the only thing we have differed on in this conversation is:
#1 - American English only uses 'could' for general ability.
#2 - 'could' can only project 'possibilities' in the present and future, not the past. For past you need 'could have'.

Chao,
Grant


----------



## Peterrobertini7

NewdestinyX said:


> With regard to the differences between 'could & was/were able to, who has said otherwise than your grammars? All these grammars point out perfectly why I gave Nren the advice I did, Peterro.
> 
> In this sentence that is the subject of this thread -- the choice of 'could or was/were able to' depends on context. They are not interchangeable to mean the same thing. Why? Because the sentence of this thread has two possible contexts: either "general opportunity" or "specific opportunity". With 'opportunities', Peterro, if you are trying to express a 'general opportunity' you could use 'either (according to the British grammars you cited - though in America we use only 'could' for general ability) or you would use 'only' was/were able to for a specific opportuninty where you 'did' do something. This sentence requires a distinction in choosing between the too because it could be a case of 'specific' opportunity not general.
> 
> So to be clear the only thing we have differed on in this conversation is:
> #1 - American English only uses 'could' for general ability.
> #2 - 'could' can only project 'possibilities' in the present and future, not the past. For past you need 'could have'.
> 
> Chao,
> Grant



Grant, 'could' in *ability *has *past ability* or the *chance  (synonim= possibility)*to do sth but didn't do it. 'could have done'
*He could have walked there,* but he decided to wait where he was.
*I could have got tickets,* but there were only very expensive ones left.
But in the possibilities :
could have +pp is a hindsight possibility (aposteriori) as well.
I do believe the problem is on the definition of 'POSSIBLE' in CAN and COULd for *ability*. 'Oxford : *to say that something is 'possible' because someone has the ability to do it'*
we could ask a British forumite to pinpoint this meaning for ability according to its definition in OXFORD.

thanks again for your time.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Peterrobertini7 said:


> Grant, 'could' in *ability *has *past ability* or the *chance  (synonym= possibility) *to do sth but didn't do it. 'could have done'


No, Peterro.. past 'physical' ability = could (alone) -- past 'chance' = could have. It is extremely important to recognize the difference in English. That's where I believe you are confused.


> *He could have walked there,* but he decided to wait where he was.


This has nothing to do with a past 'ability' -- only a past possibility = chance. (De nuevo "chance" y "ability" no son iguales mientras estudiamos la gramática y sintaxis.)


> *I could have got tickets,* but there were only very expensive ones left.


De nuevo ésta es sobre 'chance/posibilidad' y no de habilidad (física) por tanto tenemos que usar 'could have'.


> But in the possibilities :
> could have +pp is a hindsight possibility (posterior) as well.


No solo 'hindsight' -- sino 'cada posibilidad/oportunidad/' en el pasado requiere 'could have'.


> I do believe the problem is on the definition of 'POSSIBLE' in CAN and COULd for *ability*.


Estamos de acuerdo.





> 'Oxford : *to say that something is 'possible' because someone has the ability to do it'*


No. I disagree. If Oxford means 'ability - chance' then they could conclude that. But 'chance' = possibility.  "Possibility" and 'ability (physical)' are very different. And we have to make the distinction to understand the difference.


> we could ask a British forumite to pinpoint this meaning for ability according to its definition in OXFORD.


Claro pero la inmensa mayoría de inglés hablado en el mundo es de EEUU. 

I think we're arriving at some common ground, Peterro. If you're using the word 'possible' to mean 'have the ability/chance' (at a given time)- then we are more in agreement. The word 'possibility', in English, is more closely related to 'may/might' than it is related to 'ability'. So I think we cloud the issue, when talking about 'can/could', to try and make 'possibility' refer to 'ability'. Especially when in the past -- 'could'(alone) = physical ability/resources/opportunity and 'could have' = possibility/chance.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Peterrobertini7 said:


> Grant, 'could' in *ability *has *past ability* or the *chance  (synonim= possibility)*to do sth but didn't do it.


This is the definition of ability:



> *a⋅bil⋅i⋅ty*
> –noun, plural -ties.
> 1. power or capacity to do or act physically, mentally, legally, morally, financially, etc.
> 2. competence in an activity or occupation because of one's skill, training, or other qualification: the ability to sing well.
> 3. abilities, talents; special skills or aptitudes: Composing music is beyond his abilities.


As you can see -- there is *no* quality of 'possibility or chance' in the definition of 'ability', Peterro. So they are not synonymous. That's what's confusing the matter here.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

nren said:


> Hello!
> I need your help, what would you use in this sentence, "were able to" or "could"?
> 
> "All the groups offered also workshops where people were able to/ could learn to dance African dances"
> 
> I would say "could", but I'm not sure because that happened in a festival, what is not a long period of time.
> 
> Could anybody help me??
> 
> Thank you


Nren:
En conclusión. Lo que importa más es el contexto al eligir 'could' o 'was/were able to'. Si los recursos para aprender a bailar fueron específicos y la gente los usó -- entonces 'was/were able to' se debe usar. Si el contexto fue general - entonces usa 'could'.

Espero que esto te haya ayudado un poco,
Grant


----------



## Peterrobertini7

Quote:
                                                                      Originally Posted by *Peterrobertini7* 

 
                 Grant, 'could' in *ability *has *past ability* or the *chance  (synonym= possibility) *to do sth but didn't do it. 'could have done'

No, Peterro.. past 'physical' ability = could (alone) -- past 'chance' = could have. It is extremely important to recognize the difference in English. That's where I believe you are confused.
     Quote:
*He could have walked there,* but he decided to wait where he was.                                 
This has nothing to do with a past 'ability' -- only a past possibility = chance. (De nuevo "chance" y "ability" no son iguales mientras estudiamos la gramática y sintaxis.)
     Quote:
*I could have got tickets,* but there were only very expensive ones left.                                 
De nuevo ésta es sobre 'chance/posibilidad' y no de habilidad (física) por tanto tenemos que usar 'could have'.

*Sorry *Grant but all these examples are under the *heading *in OXFORD, numeral 98 ( *ability: can. could and be able to)* number 3= *Could and was/were able to.* If I happen to find this book of Oxford in the WEB I would post here, this part for you to see it.
        Babylon English-English      *
chance.*
 adj.  accidental, random, unexpected 
 n. *possibility*, prospect; * opportunity*; fortune; risk, danger""

Let's see if someone else  that has the book give an oppinion. ABILITY is one heading with three numbers in OXFORD.


----------



## Peterrobertini7

NewdestinyX said:


> This is the definition of ability:
> 
> As you can see -- there is *no* quality of 'possibility or chance' in the definition of 'ability', Peterro. So they are not synonymous. That's what's confusing the matter here.
> 
> Grant



But in OXFORD they do mention 'possible' in its definition.

Thanks for your time.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Peterrobertini7 said:


> *He could have walked there,* but he decided to wait where he was.
> *I could have got tickets,* but there were only very expensive ones left.





			
				NewdestinyX said:
			
		

> De nuevo ésta es sobre 'chance/posibilidad' y no de habilidad (física) por tanto tenemos que usar 'could have'.





Peterrobertini7 said:


> *Sorry *Grant but all these examples are under the *heading *in OXFORD, numeral 98 ( *ability: can. could and be able to)* number 3= *Could and was/were able to.* If I happen to find this book of Oxford in the WEB I would post here, this part for you to see it.
> Babylon English-English      *
> chance.*
> adj.  accidental, random, unexpected
> n. *possibility*, prospect; * opportunity*; fortune; risk, danger""
> 
> Let's see if someone else  that has the book give an oppinion. ABILITY is one heading with three numbers in OXFORD.


I the American Heritage English Grammar, chapter six they distinguish between 'ability' which is always about 'physical ability/capacity' and chance/possibility.. As you can read from my definition of 'ability' on the Merriam Webster Dictionary. 'ability' cannot be a 'possibility'. That's not the correct definition. I've always agreed that 'chance and possibility' are synonyms I'm not sure why you posted that.

But I've said all I can say about this. As a native I know how these things work and the American Heritage Grammar I use makes clear that 'ability' and 'possibility' are different things. British definitions may be different. But I doubt it. I don't use Oxford because they're often not clear on their modal explanations. If you can find a dictionary that shows that 'chance = ability' please list it. None of my dictionaries allow for that.

But I've given my input to Nren. And shown you my challenges to your understanding of this.

Grant


Peterrobertini7 said:


> But in OXFORD they do mention 'possible' in its definition.
> 
> Thanks for your time.


No they don't. A grammar book is not a dictionary. 'A possibility/chance' is not an 'ability'. Peterro. It's just not. Will you argue with the 'dictionary' definition I gave you?


----------



## Peterrobertini7

NewdestinyX said:


> I the American Heritage English Grammar, chapter six they distinguish between 'ability' which is always about 'physical ability/capacity' and chance/possibility.. As you can read from my definition of 'ability' on the Merriam Webster Dictionary. 'ability' cannot be a 'possibility'. That's not the correct definition. I've always agreed that 'chance and possibility' are synonyms I'm not sure why you posted that.
> 
> But I've said all I can say about this. As a native I know how these things work and the American Heritage Grammar I use makes clear that 'ability' and 'possibility' are different things. British definitions may be different. But I doubt it. I don't use Oxford because they're often not clear on their modal explanations. If you can find a dictionary that shows that 'chance = ability' please list it. None of my dictionaries allow for that.
> 
> But I've given my input to Nren. And shown you my challenges to your understanding of this.
> 
> Grant
> No they don't. A grammar book is not a dictionary. 'A possibility/chance' is not an 'ability'. Peterro. It's just not. Will you argue with the 'dictionary' definition I gave you?



*Sorry I don't argue perhaps OXFORD using a very distinct jargon.*







   An English-Spanish Dictionary (Granada  University, Spain), 9.3 
     ability
_(n.)__ = *habilidad, capacidad,  posibilidad*_
Ex: _The *ability* to search on word stems is  particularly valuable where the text to be searched is in free-language  format_."""""
this is from Granada University.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Peterrobertini7 said:


> *Sorry I don't argue perhaps OXFORD using a very distinct jargon.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An English-Spanish Dictionary (Granada  University, Spain), 9.3
> ability
> _(n.)__ = *habilidad, capacidad,  *__*posibilidad*_
> Ex: _The *ability* *(habilidad/capacidad pero no posibilidad)* to search on word stems is  particularly valuable where the text to be searched is in free-language  format_."""""
> this is from Granada University.


Their translation to Spanish isn't completely accurate. Please reread this definition of 'ability' below -- and it will clear your doubts.


> *a⋅bil⋅i⋅ty*
> –noun, plural -ties.
> 1. *power or capacity* to do or act* physically, mentally, legally, morally, financially,* etc.
> 2. *c**ompetence in an activity or occupation because of one's skill*, training, or other qualification: the ability to sing well.
> 3. *abilities, talents; special skills or aptitudes:* Composing music is beyond his abilities.


 We obviously can't accept as authoritative - for English - a Spanish-English dictionary written by non native English speakers. Look up the definition of 'ability' in the Oxford English dictionary, Peterro. You will see that it is 'never' about possibility/chance.

Pero bueno -- Basta.. 
Gracias por la conversación,
Grant


----------



## Forero

There is a lot of interplay between the idea of "ability" and that of "possibility", but they are not the same thing.

Yes, a person's ability to do something can make doing it a possibility for that person, and if we say something is possible for a person, that person likely does have the ability to do it.

However, a person has an ability, but a person does not have a possibility. There are possible occurrences but not able occurrences.

_The ability of an internet user to search on word stems makes it possible for them to search on word stems. 
__The possibility of an internet user to search on word stems makes it able for them to search on word stems. 
The possibility of a word stem search by an internet user exists because software gives the user the ability to do it. 
__ The ability of a word stem search by an internet user exists because software gives the user the possibility to do it. 
_
Does this help?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Forero said:


> There is a lot of interplay between the idea of "ability" and that of "possibility", but they are not the same thing.
> 
> Yes, a person's ability to do something can make doing it a possibility for that person, and if we say something is possible for a person, that person likely does have the ability to do it.
> 
> However, a person has an ability, but a person does not have a possibility. There are possible occurrences but not able occurrences.
> 
> _The ability of an internet user to search on word stems makes it possible for them to search on word stems.
> __The possibility of an internet user to search on word stems makes it able for them to search on word stems.
> The possibility of a word stem search by an internet user exists because software gives the user the ability to do it.
> __ The ability of a word stem search by an internet user exists because software gives the user the possibility to do it.
> _
> Does this help?


Excellent points, Forero. Exactly correct. The dictionary definitions of both words make it pretty clear that they are in no way sinonymous.

It's tricky for non-natives to pick up the subtleties especially when the grammar books they read take certain things for granted about the reader. Like Oxford would expect a native speaker to be reading that section that Peterrobertini quoted and 'know' intuitively the difference between 'ability' and 'possibility' and the native would never confuse the two.

I wonder if this is how a Spanish speaking native must feel when we non natives ask them how 'acercarse' and 'lavarse' differ... and just can't seem to grasp it..  Thanks for your input.

Grant


----------

