# Couldn't you?



## mimi2

Hi,
"Couldn’t you have got a bus to the station?"
Does this sentence mean why you didn’t take a bus to the station?
Thanks


----------



## Trina

Yes. 
Person A: Sorry I'm late. My car broke down and I had to walk to the station.
Person B: Couldn't you have taken/caught a bus to the station?

"Couldn't you have...?" is often used by someone feeling frustrated by the other person's actions (or inactions)


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

It is close to that, and in context might mean that.  It does indicate that you did not take a bus, and what is being asked is whether or not a bus was an alternative.


----------



## mimi2

Thank you, Trina, GreenWhiteBlue, so much.


----------



## Forero

It means that you did not get a bus to the station and is asking whether you had a reason.  It might be that you went/came to the station but did not get a bus, or it might be that you got a bus but not to the station, or perhaps you did not get a bus and did not go/come to the station.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

mimi2 said:


> Hi,
> "Couldn’t you have got a bus to the station?"
> Does this sentence mean why you didn’t take a bus to the station?
> Thanks


It's also quite a sharp, reproachful, question.  It suggests that your failure to get a bus to the station has led you to cause considerable inconvenience to people - perhaps you missed the train and caused a lot of people to be anxious or late, or both.


----------



## mimi2

Thank you, Thomas Tompion.
Your further explanation helped me understand the "couldn't you" more deeply and I can use it perfectly.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Would you be so kind as to tell me if "Couldn't you..." can be used here instead?

Person A: Sorry I'm late. My car broke down and I had to walk to the station.
Person B:* Couldn't *you* take*/*catch *a bus to the station?


----------



## Florentia52

Are you asking whether "Couldn't you take..." can be used instead of "Couldn't you have taken..." Phoebe1200?


----------



## Phoebe1200

Florentia52 said:


> Are you asking whether "Couldn't you take..." can be used instead of "Couldn't you have taken..." Phoebe1200?


Yes.


----------



## london calling

Phoebe1200 said:


> Yes.


And the answer is no. The conversation is in the past tense (my car broke down...).Compare to this:

Person A: Damn! My car has broken down so I'll have to walk to the station.
Person B:* Couldn't *you* take*/*catch *a bus to the station?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

The answer would seem to me to be that you could, but that would be probably used _ex ante_, when the journey is in prospect.

In the original, the journey was _ex post_, viewed after the event, and the bus was not taken.


----------



## Phoebe1200

london calling said:


> And the answer is no. The conversation is in the past tense (my car broke down...).


I meant "couldn't you take" as referring to the past and meaning "*Were* you* unable*". Doesn't it work then?


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> Would you be so kind as to tell me if "Couldn't you..." can be used here instead?
> 
> Person A: Sorry I'm late. My car broke down and I had to walk to the station.
> Person B:* Couldn't *you* take*/*catch *a bus to the station?


Yes, that is the way I would ask it (_Couldn't you_ = "Were you not able").


----------



## Thomas Tompion

*Couldn't you have taken *would be much more usual _ex post_.


----------



## snargleplax

I'd say "couldn't you have gotten" rather than "got."

I think it's important to note here that while "get" and "take" are often synonymous, they overlap less than that when it comes to "getting" vs. "taking" a bus somewhere. If you get a bus, that means you were able to catch it -- one was available, you had the wherewithal to present yourself for boarding at the right time, you had your fare, etc. If you _take_ a bus, that's more talking about the fact that you took the journey itself via bus. Of course, you're going to have to get a bus to take if you want to take the bus, and you could always get a bus but then decide not to take it. Try swapping in "taxi" or "ride" for "bus," if that helps illustrate -- it works pretty much the same.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thanks, everyone.



Forero said:


> Yes, that is the way I would ask it (_Couldn't you_ = "Were you not able").


But then what is the difference between "*Couldn't *you* take*? (Were you not able)" and "*Couldn't *you* have taken*"?


----------



## sound shift

"Were you not able to get / take a bus?" would mean "Did you try, and fail, to get / take a bus?": not the same as "Couldn't you have got / taken a bus to the station", which implies "Weren't there any buses available that would have got you to the station on time?"

But in any case, I could not replace "Were you not able to get / take a bus?" by "Couldn't you get / take a bus?"


----------



## snargleplax

Phoebe1200 said:


> But then what is the difference between "*Couldn't *you* take*? (Were you not able)" and "*Couldn't *you* have taken*"?



"Couldn't you take" doesn't sound like it's talking about the past, it sounds like a subjunctive (hypothetical) lead-in to a question about something you could do right now.


----------



## sound shift




----------



## Phoebe1200

sound shift said:


> "Were you not able to get / take a bus?" would mean "Did you try, and fail, to get / take a bus?" - not the same as "Couldn't you have got / taken a bus to the station", which implies "Weren't there any buses available that would have got you to the station on time?"
> But in any case, I could not replace "Were you not able to get / take a bus?" by "Couldn't you get / take a bus?"


Thank you very much.




snargleplax said:


> "Couldn't you take" doesn't sound like it's talking about the past, it sounds like a subjunctive (hypothetical) lead-in to a question about something you could do right now.



But what about my thread *You couldn't come up with something better? *in which "Couldn't you come up with something better than that?" is used to talk about the past? Please take a look.


----------



## sound shift

The trouble with this is that "Couldn't you [infinitive]...?" in the past sense works with certain verbs but not with others, and those of us who are not professional linguists have never been taught the characteristics that determine whether "Couldn't you [infinitive]...?" works with a particular verb; native speakers just "feel" these things. For the learner, this is really a matter that requires consultation of a comprehensive volume on English grammar.


----------



## snargleplax

Phoebe1200 said:


> But what about my thread *You couldn't come up with something better? *in which "Couldn't you come up with something better than that?" is used to talk about the past? Please take a look.



It's not _wrong_ to say "Couldn't you take a bus?" meaning "Was it not the case that you could have taken a bus?" -- it's just less of a usual phrasing, and without context it's more likely to be taken the other way, as "Isn't it possible for you to go take a bus now?"

"Couldn't you come up with something better?" could very well refer to a present situation, e.g.:

A: "It's not pretty, but I think I've got a solution."
B: "How bad?"
A: "Half the crew will die, and it only buys us twenty more minutes of oxygen."
B: "Couldn't you come up with something better?"

Actually, in this example B's last statement is kind of doing double duty as both. In one sense, B might be asking "is that really the best plan you could come up with?" In another, B might mean "if I gave you some more time, do you think you might be able to improve on that?" This latter meaning is about the present.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thanks, everyone.
> 
> 
> But then what is the difference between "*Couldn't *you* take*? (Were you not able)" and "*Couldn't *you* have taken*"?


The point to remember is that *couldn't you* can also be the conditional of *can*, so *Couldn't you take* is usually construed as _*Wouldn't you be able to take*_.

It's this which makes the _ex ante_ meaning usual here.


----------



## Forero

If person A's sentence were "My car broke down and I have to walk to the train station", I think person B's question would be "Can't you take a bus to the train station?".

But since person A says "I had to", B's question needs to be about the past: "Couldn't you take ...?". This is the first interpretation I see for B's question, and makes B's question appropriate as written.

But person A's first sentence "Sorry I'm late" gives us a present tense context, which supports "couldn't" as conditional mood. In my estimation, this makes conditional mood and past tense about equally likely candidates for the speaker's intended meaning.

This still does not force a change from "take" to "have taken", since conditional mood does not really have tense. ("Would you not be able to take a bus at that time in the past?" and "Would you not have been able to take a bus at that time in the past?" both make sense.)


----------



## snargleplax

Forero said:


> "Would you not be able to take a bus at that time in the past?" and "Would you not have been able to take a bus at that time in the past?" both make sense.



Do they? The first one seems fishy to me -- wouldn't the answer to that, or any similarly-structured question, be tautologically false? You would never be able to do anything (now) at any time in the past, unless you've got a time machine.


----------



## Forero

snargleplax said:


> Do they? The first one seems fishy to me -- wouldn't the answer to that, or any similarly-structured question, be tautologically false?


No.





> You would never be able to do anything (now) at any time in the past, unless you've got a time machine.


I didn't say "now": I said "at that time in the past".


----------



## snargleplax

Forero said:


> No.I didn't say "now": I said "at that time in the past".


Right, but "be able" is present tense. You are not able, in the present, to do things in the past.


----------



## Forero

snargleplax said:


> Right, but "be able" is present tense. You are not able, in the present, to do things in the past.


"Be able" is an infinitive; it has no tense of its own.

"I used to be able" is past tense.
"I like to be able" is present tense.

"I could be able" is past tense, or conditional (tenseless).


----------



## snargleplax

Sorry, I spoke too loosely. I meant that "be able" refers to the present. It is part of "would be able" here; present subjunctive. This doesn't affect the conclusion I was drawing, so let's not split irrelevant hairs.


----------



## Forero

snargleplax said:


> Sorry, I spoke too loosely. I meant that "be able" refers to the present. It is part of "would be able" here; present subjunctive. This doesn't affect the conclusion I was drawing, so let's not split irrelevant hairs.


"Would be able" is not present subjunctive.

"Be able" is tenseless, and if it must refer to a time (present or past), it refers to the same time as the finite verb in the clause that contains it. For example, "be able" in "you may be able" may be thought of as referring to the same present as "you may", but "be able" in "you used to be able" refers to the same past as "used to".

Present subjunctive is a form such as "be able" in "It was important that the driver be able to obey all traffic laws", but present subjunctive rarely refers to present time unless accompanied by another present tense (e.g. "It is important that the drive be able ...").

The only exception I can think of is something like "[My mother says] we must hurry, whether the sky be (present subjunctive) blue or gray", which in past tense might, in an old fashioned context, become "[My mother said] we must hurry, whether the sky were (past subjunctive) blue or gray."

"Would be able" is more like "used to be able" than like "may be able". "Would" refers either to a past time (as past tense of "will") or to a hypothetical time, not to the present. When referring to a hypothetical time, "would" is tenseless "conditional", which might be thought of as a kind of subjunctive (like German Konjunktiv II), but it is never present tense.


----------



## snargleplax

I agree, you're right. I was getting the past subjunctive use of "would," the use of "would" as a modal auxilliary verb, and the present subjunctive all jumbled up a little. Thanks.

All that being said, I still read the sentence "Would you not be able to take a bus at that time in the past?" as a nonsense question about whether someone can choose _now_ (in the present, which was my point in the above derail) to take a bus sometime in the _past_. What do you take it to mean, if not this?


----------



## Forero

snargleplax said:


> I agree, you're right. I was getting the past subjunctive use of "would," the use of "would" as a modal auxilliary verb, and the present subjunctive all jumbled up a little. Thanks.
> 
> All that being said, I still read the sentence "Would you not be able to take a bus at that time in the past?" as a nonsense question about whether someone can choose _now_ (in the present, which was my point in the above derail) to take a bus sometime in the _past_. What do you take it to mean, if not this?


As a conditional referring to the past. Another example:

_I missed my bus yesterday, and my mother said that if she were me, she would hurry before she missed that bus._

This is conditional "would" accompanied by past indicative "said" and "missed" and past subjunctive "if she were me". The latter might conceivably be referring to a hypothetical present, but "would hurry" does not have tense of its own, and we know from this context that it refers to a time before yesterday's bus. (Otherwise the hurry would obviously be of no avail.)

If you were my mother, would you not be able to take a bus at that time yesterday? Couldn't you hurry and not miss it?


----------



## snargleplax

I see your "if she were me" example as a different case -- it's the qualifier "in the past," and the meaning it seems to carry, that's the problem for me.

_A: Would you be able to do a thing in the past?
B: No, that's impossible no matter what thing it is._


----------



## Forero

snargleplax said:


> I see your "if she were me" example as a different case -- it's the qualifier "in the past," and the meaning it seems to carry, that's the problem for me.
> 
> _A: Would you be able to do a thing in the past?
> B: No, that's impossible no matter what thing it is._


"That bus" gives a time frame as much as "in the past" does, so I think the problem is with how you interpret "would". I know it can be hard to "shift gears" once you read something a particular way.

On the other hand, something that sounds really strange one day can sound perfectly normal the next, and vice versa:

B: _Couldn't you have taken a bus to the station?_
A: _No. I can take a bus, but I can't have taken one without a time machine._


----------



## snargleplax

I am interpreting "would" as introducing a subjunctive clause. How would you like me to interpret it?

I'm not sure I agree with you about "that bus," but it's hard to describe why. Let me try several more examples that your rules seem to endorse, but which seem nonsensical to me; perhaps you will tell me what you make of them.

_Could you please email me yesterday?
Would you be able to fight in the American Civil War?
Should I come and meet you last week?
_
To all of these, I would give the same reply: of course not, that's impossible without a time machine.


----------



## Forero

snargleplax said:


> _Could you please email me yesterday?
> Would you be able to fight in the American Civil War?
> Should I come and meet you last week?_


I don't see how the first or last of these might make sense (they seem to be indirect requests), but for the one about the Civil War, it doesn't take much imagination to supply "if you were alive at the time" or "were you a poor farm worker in the South in those days".


----------



## snargleplax

I'm not talking about whether they make sense if you modify them. I'm talking about them _as they are_.


----------



## Forero

snargleplax said:


> I'm not talking about whether they make sense if you modify them. I'm talking about them _as they are_.


"Would you be able to fight in the American Civil War?" makes sense to me as it is, the same sense it makes with an explicit subjunctive condition, and the same sense as "Could you fight in the American Civil War?".

For me, it makes perfect sense for "I had to" (= "I was forced to") and "Couldn't you" (= "Were you not able to"/"Was it not possible for you to") both to refer to the real time in the past when the car had broken down and Person A had a choice whether to walk or take a bus.

Even if we had reason to assume that "Couldn't you" referred to an unreal time, that unreal time could as easily be at that same juncture in the past (e.g. "had you the option to leave your car where it was at that time") as in the present ("were you not so late and so sorry"). I have no problem seeing it as an unreal time in the past, in which case "Couldn't you take" makes sense, or as an unreal time in the present, in which case "Couldn't you have taken" becomes the logical choice.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you very much everyone for your replies.

I have another example I'd like to ask about.

Every Witch Way, TV series
Context: Emma and Mia get sucked into a zombie game. Mia appears in the game first and a second later Emma appears too but she almost lands on top of Mia and accidentally pushes her.

*Mia* (indignant): Hey?
*Emma*: Sorry.
*Mia*: You *couldn't land *somewhere else?
*Emma*: I didn't have much of a choice.

What about this usage? Can it be "You *couldn't have landed *somewhere else?"?


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thank you very much everyone for your replies.
> 
> I have another example I'd like to ask about.
> 
> Every Witch Way, TV series
> Context: Emma and Mia get sucked into a zombie game. Mia appears in the game first and a second later Emma appears too but she almost lands on top of Mia and accidentally pushes her.
> 
> *Mia* (indignant): Hey?
> *Emma*: Sorry.
> *Mia*: You *couldn't land *somewhere else?
> *Emma*: I didn't have much of a choice.
> 
> What about this usage? Can it be "You *couldn't have landed *somewhere else?"?


It is just as ambiguous as your other _couldn't_ sentence, but the most likely meaning is with simple past tense (indicative) _you couldn't_ = "you weren't able to"/"you didn't have the option to"/"it wasn't possible for you to".

Mia might ask "You couldn't have landed someplace else?", but that is really a different question (with "you couldn't" = "it woudn't be possible for you to"), less appropriate to this context.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you, Forero.



Forero said:


> Mia might ask "You couldn't have landed someplace else?", but that is really a different question (with "you couldn't" = "it woudn't be possible for you to"), less appropriate to this context.


Sorry, but why is it less appropriate? I don't understand.
Doesn't "You *couldn't have landed* somewhere else?" mean "Would it have been impossible for you to land somewhere else"?


----------



## SevenDays

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thank you very much everyone for your replies.
> 
> I have another example I'd like to ask about.
> 
> Every Witch Way, TV series
> Context: Emma and Mia get sucked into a zombie game. Mia appears in the game first and a second later Emma appears too but she almost lands on top of Mia and accidentally pushes her.
> 
> *Mia* (indignant): Hey?
> *Emma*: Sorry.
> *Mia*: You *couldn't land *somewhere else?
> *Emma*: I didn't have much of a choice.
> 
> What about this usage? Can it be "You *couldn't have landed *somewhere else?"?



Yes, in *pink *or in *blue*; they both work. "Have landed" is the perfect form of "land," but both _have landed_ and _land_ are perfect*ive* in _aspect_.  Basically, both present the action as completed, but "land" looks at it as a "whole unit" while "have landed" focuses on the _end result_ (Emma standing next to Mia). With aspect, it is a linguistic difference, not a communication difference, which means that you can use either one; the basic message/communication is the same (Mia is mad at Emma).


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thank you, Forero.
> 
> 
> Sorry, but why is it less appropriate? I don't understand.
> Doesn't "You *couldn't have landed* somewhere else?" mean "Would it have been impossible for you to land somewhere else"?


I was thinking of "Would it not be possible for you to have landed somewhere else?". I think your version has similar meaning.

But why talk about what might have been possible when the real issue seems to be what just happened?

Why ask "Wouldn't you have had more choices (under some set of circumstances)?" when you really mean "Didn't you have more choices?"?


----------



## Phoebe1200

SevenDays said:


> Yes, in *pink *or in *blue*; they both work. "Have landed" is the perfect form of "land," but both _have landed_ and _land_ are perfect*ive* in _aspect_.  Basically, both present the action as completed, but "land" looks at it as a "whole unit" while "have landed" focuses on the _end result_ (Emma standing next to Mia). With aspect, it is a linguistic difference, not a communication difference, which means that you can use either one; the basic message/communication is the same (Mia is mad at Emma).


Thank you.


Forero said:


> But why talk about what might have been possible when the real issue seems to be what just happened?
> 
> Why ask "Wouldn't you have had more choices (under some set of circumstances)?" when you really mean "Didn't you have more choices?"?


 Thank you for your help.

Just one thing though. Is the way I said it incorrect, unidiomatic? What is the difference between these two? 


Phoebe1200 said:


> "Would it have been impossible for you to land somewhere else"?





Forero said:


> "Would it not be possible for you to have landed somewhere else?"


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> Just one thing though. Is the way I said it incorrect, unidiomatic? What is the difference between these two?


They are both idiomatic, and the difference may not be much, practically speaking.

But to me, these two seem a little different:

A- "Would it not be possible?"
B- "Would it be impossible?"

With A, the speaker wants the other person to think hard whether there are conditions under which whatever-it-is might happen.
With B, the speaker wants the other person to confirm, or (if necessary) deny, that whatever-it-is just can't happen.

And on top of this little difference between not being (quite) possible and being (flat-out) impossible, there is also a difference between (1) whether the possibility existed then or has ever existed ["would it have been possible then" or "would it have been possible ever"] for you to land somewhere else and (2) whether the possibility exists (or will ever exist) ["would it be possible"] that you have (or will have) landed somewhere else.

This may not be a clear explanation, but I am hindered by my own language. Modal verbs in English are defective, so what works with most verbs just does not work with _will_, _would_, _shall_, _should_, etc.

And _would_ is always ambiguous. Sometimes it acts as past tense of _will_, whose possible meanings include "is willing to" and "is going to"; and sometimes it acts as an auxiliary to make the conditional mood form of an ordinary verb (e.g. _would_ happen as conditional mood of _happen_), with no recognizable "will" meaning; and sometimes it acts as the conditional mood form of _will_ (e.g. _would happen_ as conditional mood of _will happen_).

In Spanish, for example, conditional mood has unique forms and modal verbs are not defective; and German, like the English of centuries ago, expresses conditional mood with subjunctive forms that in many cases are distinct from indicative forms.


----------



## Phoebe1200

I appreciate your kind reply.

I also wanted to know what the difference was between saying these. Could you please tell me?

"Would it not* have been *possible for you to *land* somewhere else?"
"Would it not* have been* possible for you to *have landed* somewhere else?"

"Would it not *be* possible for you to *land* somewhere else?"
"Would it not* be *possible for you to* have landed *somewhere else?"


----------



## Forero

"Would it not* have been *possible for you to *land* somewhere else?" [prior possibility of landing]
"Would it not* have been* possible for you to *have landed* somewhere else?" [prior possibility of prior landing]

"Would it not *be* possible for you to *land* somewhere else?" [possibility of landing]
"Would it not* be *possible for you to* have landed *somewhere else?" [possibility of prior landing]

Prior to what? That depends.

"It *has been *possible for you to *land* somewhere else. [past possibility of landing then or afterwards]
"It *has been* possible for you to *have landed* somewhere else?" [past possibility of landing before that]

"It *is* possible for you to *land* somewhere else?" [present possibility of (present or future) landing]
"It *is *possible for you to* have landed *somewhere else?" [present possibility of past landing]

The relationships between the times in such sentences remain the same when you say "would have" and "would be" instead of "has" and "is", but just when you are talking about is not clear with "would" unless context indicates whether you mean "would in the future", "would now", "would then", or "would under just the right circumstances, whenever".


----------



## Phoebe1200

My warmest thanks for your help and kindness, Forero.


----------

