# Could have/could



## G.Determinism

Greetings,

Could you please tell me if I need 'could have' or 'could' in the following sentence:

"I was under the impression that we could have discussed the matter rationally, but the way you approached (it) was sheer emblematic of what is reckoned as (an) ad hominem."

Thank you very much.


----------



## Barque

_I was under the impression that we could have discussed the matter rationally.  
I was under the impression that we could have discussed the matter rationally.
_
In this sentence, "could have discussed" seems to fit better.

(I know this isn't part of your question but "sheer emblematic" sounds a bit off. Perhaps "clearly emblematic" or "sheer emblematicism", if you want to use emblematic or one of its forms.)


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks a lot, Barque.

I was not aware of the word 'emblematicism'.


----------



## Barque

I am not really aware of it either but I'm guessing that's the noun form.  You might need it if you want to use "sheer".


----------



## sound shift

Barque said:


> _I was under the impression that we could have discussed the matter rationally.
> I was under the impression that we could have discussed the matter rationally._
> In this sentence, "could have discussed" seems to fit better.


"We could discuss the matter rationally" is a conditional; it's talking about now and the future.
The sentence at post 1 says "the way you approach*ed* it", and this tells us that we are talking about the past - so only "could have discussed" fits.


----------



## se16teddy

I don't think "impression" is really the _mot juste_. You could say _I felt we could discuss the matter rationally_. This explains how you felt *before* the adversary made _ad hominem_ remarks: is this what you wanted to say?


----------



## G.Determinism

Thanks a lot, Barque, sound shift and se16teddy.

I cannot understand why my use of "impression" is not appropriate there. When I first looked it up in a dictionary, I said, Bingo! that's exactly what I was looking for! 
This sentence is supposed to happen in the middle of an argument where I'm getting annoyed at the way my friend, counterpart, adversary, whatever he's called, tries to incorporate personal matters into the debate, and then by using "I was under the impression ...", I'm actually trying to convey how I would have thought our conversation would go before starting the conversation. So I had a false impression of the quality of our conversation. Why shouldn't I use that?

Thanks a lot.


----------



## se16teddy

We form impressions of the outside world. But whether you can "discuss the matter rationally" is not just about the outside world: it is also about your internal feelings.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Hello.
What if the sentence was like this one:
    I thought we could discuss the matter at the meeting.
    I thought we could have discussed the matter at the meeting.
It would be said either during the meeting (but for some reason they got off the subject so the person reminds them that they still have this pressing matter at hand) or the day after (I suppose here it would mean that they didn't discuss it yesterday).
Which one is correct for both situations?


----------



## Glasguensis

Phoebe1200 said:


> Hello.
> What if the sentence was like this one:
> I thought we could discuss the matter at the meeting.
> I thought we could have discussed the matter at the meeting.
> It would be said either during the meeting (but for some reason they got off the subject so the person reminds them that they still have this pressing matter at hand) or the day after (I suppose here it would mean that they didn't discuss it yesterday).
> Which one is correct for both situations?


You are going about this the wrong way - you are giving sentences and asking whether they fit in a context. The problem is that these sentences can fit in multiple contexts, sometimes with different meanings. To take your two contexts, the sentences I would probably use are:

I thought we were going to discuss the matter at this meeting.
I thought we were going to discuss the matter at the meeting.


----------



## Phoebe1200

I've been thinking and this sentence actually throws me off a bit: 
* I thought we could have discussed the matter at the meeting.*
I'm concerned about the _"could have discussed"_ part after the _"I thought". _
I'm not sure it's possible to use it that way.


----------



## Oddmania

Why would you want to use both _I thought_ and _We could have discussed_ in the same sentence?

_"I thought"_ takes you back *in the past*. _At that time / Back when the meeting was being held, I thought that...
"We could have discussed" _is an opinion you're having *right now*. You've given it some thought, you've been analyzing the situation, and you've figured that you could have discussed it.

I would expect either "_I think we could _/_ should have discussed it_", or "_I thought we would be able to discuss it_" (or possibly "_I would have thought we could have discussed it_", i.e. it's very surprising that we weren't able to discuss it).


----------



## Glasguensis

Phoebe1200 said:


> I've been thinking and this sentence actually throws me off a bit:
> * I thought we could have discussed the matter at the meeting.*
> I'm concerned about the _"could have discussed"_ part after the _"I thought". _
> I'm not sure it's possible to use it that way.


Once again you are giving a sentence without context. I can certainly think of a context where this sentence is possible, but I don't think that really helps you, and as Oddmania and I have indicated, it's not the sentence we are likely to use in the context you previously indicated.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> I can certainly think of a context where this sentence is possible


Hello.
If you would be so kind to give me a context where it could be used.


----------



## Glasguensis

A meeting took place and the matter was not discussed. Later you discuss with a colleague and you say that in your opinion the matter could have been discussed in the meeting, but your colleague disagrees. Later again you are discussing with a different colleague and you describe your conversation with the first colleague : I thought we could have discussed the matter at the meeting.

There are other contexts where the sentence could be used but as I've said this is doing this backwards - you should identify a context and then select your sentence.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> A meeting took place and the matter was not discussed. Later you discuss with a colleague and you say that in your opinion the matter could have been discussed in the meeting, but your colleague disagrees. Later again you are discussing with a different colleague and you describe your conversation with the first colleague : I thought we could have discussed the matter at the meeting.
> 
> There are other contexts where the sentence could be used but as I've said this is doing this backwards - you should identify a context and then select your sentence.


Hi, Glasguensis.
Thank you for replying. And I'm sorry, but it's just the reply that it should be _*"could have" *_in_* I was under the impression that we could have discussed the matter rationally* _to the OP's question confused me and I just replaced the "under the impression" part with "I thought". 
And I still don't understand why it can't be _*I was under the impression that we could discuss the matter rationally. *_


----------



## Glasguensis

In my opinion it would be perfectly possible to use "could" in the OP. This changes the sentence to refer to the general case, and not the specific instance which "could have" refers to.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> In my opinion it would be perfectly possible to use "could" in the OP. This changes the sentence to refer to the general case, and not the specific instance which "could have" refers to.


Would _*I was under the impression that we could discuss the matter rationally* _mean that the meeting hasn't started yet or we're in the middle of it but there's still time left to discuss it?


----------



## Glasguensis

It is a general statement, which has no relation to time, like "I was under the impression you were taller". The person's height has not changed, only my impression. But with "could", it expresses a possibility, so my impression hasn't necessarily changed. I was under the impression we could discuss the matter rationally could be used before during or after the meeting.


----------



## VicNicSor

I think it's just a back-shifting. At that moment:
"I *am *under the impression that we *could discuss* the matter rationally, but the way you're *approaching *it ...."
Later:
"I *was *under the impression that we *could have discussed* the matter rationally, but the way you *approached *it ..."
Does that work?


----------



## Englishmypassion

VicNicSor said:


> I think it's just a back-shifting. At that moment:
> "I *am *under the impression that we *could discuss* the matter rationally, but the way you're *approaching *it ...."



How can you still be under that impression, VicNic, when you have a "but" following? That doesn't work, I think.


----------



## VicNicSor

Englishmypassion said:


> How can you still be under that impression, VicNic, when you have a "but" following? That doesn't work, I think.


Yes, you're right, I should have removed the "but" part:
"I *am *under the impression that we *could discuss* the matter rationally"


----------



## Englishmypassion

As soon as I came across this thread, I thought "could" would be fine in the OP, but my "could" was not the timeless "could" that Glasguensis is referring to but the past tense of "can". What's the problem with that (past tense of "can")? I now guess the past tense form "could" doesn't probably work because with "I *was* under the impression" is already in the past tense and as we are backshifting, the possibility of discussing rationally must be shifted to/expressed in the double past/past perfect where only "could" as the simple past tense doesn't work. Am I right now?

Many thanks.


----------



## Glasguensis

This is really about idiomatic speech rather than about grammar. We almost never say "I am under the impression" - we would say "I was under the impression", even if this reflects our current impression. In the simple present we would use a different expression such as "I believe". But in the simple present we would use "can" here:
I believe we can discuss...
I believed we could discuss...


----------



## Englishmypassion

Glasguensis said:


> This is really about idiomatic speech rather than about grammar. We almost never say "I am under the impression" - we would say "I was under the impression", even if this reflects our current impression.



Yes, I think something like "I was wondering" used for our present state of thinking (though we also say "I wonder", etc).


----------



## Phoebe1200

Englishmypassion said:


> the time-less "could"


Hello.
Would you mind explaining what you mean by* the time-less "could"*?
Thanks.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Phoebe1200 said:


> Hello.
> Would you mind explaining what you mean by* the time-less "could"*?



My question (in post #23) hasn't been answered yet, but I will answer yours anyway and hope for mine to be answered sooner or later. 

Did you read Glasguensis's post #19, where he says the statement, using "could", has no relation to time and could be used before, during or after the meeting? I was talking about that usage of "could", which is universal in time.


----------



## Glasguensis

The "timeless could" refers to a general statement which does not refer to a specific moment in time.  "I was under the impression that we could discuss the matter rationally" is an example : it refers to *any* time we discuss the matter: past, present or future.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> The "timeless could" refers to a general statement which does not refer to a specific moment in time.  "I was under the impression that we could discuss the matter rationally" is an example : it refers to *any* time we discuss the matter: past, present or future.


If you say it can refer to past then why was the OP's sentence said to be used with _"could have discussed"_?
So confused.


----------



## Glasguensis

Let's say that you ask me if I want a cookie. A specific answer to this could be "Yes, I would love a cookie!" This says that on this particular occasion I want a cookie. But I could also reply "Yes, I love cookies!" Although I am still saying I want a cookie I have now extended my enthusiasm about cookies to the general case, and not just this specific occasion. Both answers are possible and make sense.

The early replies to the original post felt that the only way to construct the sentence was by making it refer to the specific meeting in the past. I have said that it is also possible to construct it to refer to all meetings. If this still isn't clear I think it's time you stop trying to work out "when can I use could?" and start asking "in this situation what should/could I say?"


----------



## Phoebe1200

Here's the situation that I could come up with: Two friends-Henry and David have had a falling-out.
One day Henry goes over to David's house in an attempt to patch things up with him. 
(The door opens.)
Henry: _Hey._
David: _What are you doing here?_
Henry:_ I thought we could talk, you know, try to sort things out._
David: _Nothing to talk about, just leave._ (The door slams shut.)
(The next day at work Henry's coworker Joshua who's aware of his problems with his friend asks.)
Joshua: _So how did it go last night?_
Henry: _ Well, I dropped by his house after work, *thought we could talk*, you know, sort things out, but he wouldn't even listen to me._
Now my question is whether the red part should be-_*thought we could have talked*_?


----------



## Glasguensis

Both are possible, for exactly the same reasons as I have already explained.


----------



## Englishmypassion

What about post #23, Glasguensis?
Many thanks.


----------



## Glasguensis

My post 24 was intended as a reply to your question - is there something I didn't address, or not clearly enough?


----------



## Phoebe1200

May I ask you to give another example of this _"timeless could"_ with the use of the modal verb _could _that may refer to present, future or past all at once, because the example with the cookie didn't have _*could*_ in it?
Thanks.


----------



## Glasguensis

I thought you could do that for yourself (that's the example).


----------



## Phoebe1200

Oddmania said:


> "_I would have thought we could have discussed it_"


Is this example correct? I'm concerned about the second part, shouldn't it be *"I would have thought we could discuss it"*


----------



## Glasguensis

Both are possible.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Glasguensis said:


> Both are possible.


Does *"I would have thought we could discuss it" *imply that there still might be a chance for us to discuss it? 
And *"I would have thought we could have discussed it" *that we won't have the opportunity of discussing it anymore since the only chance was at the meeting and we passed it up ?


----------



## Glasguensis

I'll go along with "imply", but it's not clear-cut. You could use "could" whether or not there is still a possibility of discussing it, and you could use "could have" when you still intend to discuss it.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Would this be considered a "*timeless could*"?
     1) I was a teacher once, remember?--How could I forget? (in reference to past).
     2) I'm running for class president, remember?--How could I forget? (in reference to present).
     3) I'm having a press conference next week, remember?--How could I forget? (in reference to future).


----------



## Glasguensis

Yes. The "remember" sentence has a time reference but the "could" sentence is timeless/general.


----------

