Could/ was able to

Question

(a) He could escape by climbing the prison wall.

(b) He was able to escape by climbing the prison wall.

-> Since (a) can have two meanings, one of its meanings can be different from (b); when it is interpreted as a little lower possibility than can assumed by a speaker, it is distinguished from (b).

Q) How do you see my explanation ?

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

You haven't really given us enough text to evaluate your explanation.  What does 'since' point to?  Your indication of two 'could's is OK, but what about conditional 'could'?

Cool Breeze · Answer

I have little idea how native speakers actually use and understand could in real life, but I'll mention something I read in a grammar book a long time ago. According to that book, He could escape by climbing the prison wall should only be understood to refer to a future possibility and not as a synonym for He was able to escape by climbing the prison wall. This is because the reference is to just one incident, not a skill acquired with time.

This grammarian claimed that sentences such as He could swim / was able to swim very well at the age of five are fine because the reference is not to just an isolated incident but an ability or a skill. I wonder what Mr M and other native speakers think about this? Has anyone noticed this distinction in actual usage? Thank you.

CB

Mister Micawber · Answer

Yes, I think that is the use among native speakers.  Of course, they/we do not 'make' the distinction in any conscious sense.  It just 'comes out'.

MalRey · Answer

Cool BreezeHe could escape by climbing the prison wall should only be understood to refer to a future possibility

Agreed.

Cool BreezeThis is because the reference is to just one incident, not a skill acquired with time.

I hadn't really given it any thought.

Cool BreezeHe could swim / was able to swim very well at the age of five are fine because the reference is not to just an isolated incident but an ability or a skill.

Allow me to expand your examples into what I think you mean to be sure I understand.
He could swim very well at the age of five.

He was able to swim very well at the age of five.

If these are what you intend the I agree with your interpretation but not necessarily your reason.

Cool BreezeHas anyone noticed this distinction in actual usage?

I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning you describe (i.e. the distinction between a skill versus a one time event). As I read these examples and try to "feel" why I understand them the way I do it doesn't seem like "skill vs. event" is the determining factor. For example, even if the prisoner in the example were a skilled climber and had escaped from prison before I would still understand the statement "He could..." to be a future possibility and not a synonym for "He was able..."

I take it you are not a native speaker but obviously have a solid command of the language. Do you use these distinctions to understand how "could" is used? If so does it work in most cases?

CalifJim · Answer

moon7296(a) He could escape by climbing the prison wall.
(b) He was able to escape by climbing the prison wall.
-> Since (a) can have two meanings, one of its meanings can be different from (b); when it is interpreted as a little lower possibility than can assumed by a speaker, it is distinguished from (b).

Q) How do you see my explanation ?

I see your explanation as faulty.

He could escape ...

1. He would be able to escape ...; It might be possible for him to escape ...

(as if offering a suggestion for how he might try to escape)

2. He had the option of escaping ...; The option of escaping ... was available to him.

(a review or assessment of the situation that actually existed at that time)

He was able to escape ...

1. He succeeded in escaping ...; He managed to escape ...

(a statement of his action; he was able to and he did)

2. (not as likely, but just possible) He had the option of escaping ... (same as 2 above)

CJ

Cool Breeze · Answer

MalReyI take it you are not a native speaker but obviously have a solid command of the language. Do you use these distinctions to understand how "could" is used? If so does it work in most cases?

I just explained what I had read in a grammar book. I don't think what I read is always true, though. For example, this sounds okay to my non-native ear: He couldn't get in because he had lost his key.

Could + a present infinitiveclearly refers to a one-time incident in the sentence, yet I consider it correct. This is what makes English difficult: there's so little logic. That's also what makes it interesting and fascinating.

CB

CalifJim · Answer

Just a 'by the way'.

could operates differently under negation.

I couldn't get in can mean I didn't succeed in getting in, but I could get in can't mean I succeeded in getting in.

For the latter, we need I was able to get in.

CJ

Cool Breeze · Answer

CalifJimcould operates differently under negation.

Yes, I knew that, Jim. Thanks anyway.

Everythingoperates differently in the right circumstances, I think.

CB

Moon7296 · Answer

Thank you all.

I just finished reading all.

I find my guess on top of my knowledge does not work very well

.

When I teach English, even including something I think I know quite well, previewing will help me make higher accuracy.

Could/ was able to

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬