Difference between would be able to and could in the subjunctive

Question

Hi all,I'm uncertain whether this feeling is cultural or grammatical, so I'm asking for help here.I feel that there's a difference between these two sentences:1) If I were born in an English-speaking country, I could speak English fluently.2) If I were born in an English-speaking country, I would be able to speak English fluently.Instinctively I feel the second sentence is more natural, but since the subjunctive mood simply dictates that the two phrases uses past tense of the verbs, that should mean that the first sentence is also correct.Is this really the case?Thanks in advance.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

Anonymoussubjunctive

It's unclear what you think is subjunctive, so let me start by saying that the only thing that's subjunctive in those sentences is 'were'. Neither 'could' nor 'would' are subjunctive in your sentences. (Ignore this part if you already knew that.)

AnonymousI feel the second sentence is more natural

I agree, but I have no explanation at the moment. It seems that this needs an explanation, but I can't think what it can be.

It seems to me that I could speak merely remarks on the ability, as if to say if I wanted to, whether one actually speaks English or not, but I would be able to speak suggests active success at speaking English. However, I can't say that I find this a really adequate explanation.

CJ

GPY · Answer

I know it's not the question, but "If I were born ..." doesn't seem right to me. I would say "If I had been born ...".

(As far as the second part is concerned, I also think that (2) is preferable. In fact, (1) hardly seems acceptable to me.)

AlpheccaStars · Answer

To me, could is used for some capability that could be acquired in the future.

You could speak English fluently if you were to live with an English-speaking family for a couple of months.

Anonymous · Answer

CalifJimIt's unclear what you think is subjunctive, so let me start by saying that the only thing that's subjunctive in those sentences is 'were'.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

CalifJimI agree, but I have no explanation at the moment. It seems that this needs an explanation, but I can't think what it can be.

Yes, no one seems to be able to come up with an explanation, only a feeling that "would be able to" fits much better. The usage of "could" in that sentence just seems rather weird. I was wondering if, grammatically speaking, sentence 1 would still be correct though.

I'm unable to say that it is grammatically correct, but perhaps it is.

Anonymous · Answer

GPY(As far as the second part is concerned, I also think that (2) is preferable. In fact, (1) hardly seems acceptable to me.)

The second part is what's important to me.

Can anyone explain why would be able to sounds more natural than could in this case?

GPY · Answer

AnonymousCan anyone explain why would be able to sounds more natural than could in this case?

I think "could" doesn't work well with conditions that were decided in the past and can't now ever happen. (I guess this is similar to what AS is saying above.)

AlpheccaStars · Answer

AnonymousCan anyone explain why would be able to sounds more natural than could in this case?

I did give my explanation in my earlier post.
Your sentence is a present ability (speaking English) contingent on a past hypothetical event. (being born)

AlpheccaStarsTo me, could is used for some capability that could be acquired in the future. You could speak English fluently if you were to live with an English-speaking family for a couple of months.

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousI was wondering if, grammatically speaking, sentence 1 would still be correct though.

I wouldn't worry about that right now. Its being grammatical isn't really the question, because even grammatical sentences can be murky or even meaningless. What I wonder is whether we get the same reaction to the negative form of your sentence. Correcting the if-clause as recommended earlier in the thread:

If I hadn't been born in an English-speaking country, I couldn't speak English fluently.

Does this sound all right? Or is it as objectionable as the affirmative form?

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

AlpheccaStarsYour sentence is a present ability (speaking English) contingent on a past hypothetical event. (being born)

Maybe I'm not following as well as I should.

You're saying that a sentence with an if-clause that expresses a past hypothetical event (e.g., If you had learned Russian when you were in college) cannot have "could" in its main clause (you could translate for us (now)) to express a present ability?

Thus, 1 sounds wrong to you, and 2 sounds right, in the same pattern as given in the OP's examples?

1. If you had learned Russian then, you could translate for us now.
2. If you had learned Russian then, you would be able to translate for us now.

For comparison:

1. If I had been born in an English-speaking country, I could speak English fluently.
2. If I had been born in an English-speaking country, I would be able to speak English fluently.

"... because could is used for some capability that could be acquired in the future ..."
_______________

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree. I'm just trying to verify your claim, because I may be misunderstanding what your claim is.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

GPY"If I were born ..." doesn't seem right to me. I would say "If I had been born ...".

I see nothing worng with the " If I were born.." . As far as I know, "If I were ( you, I would take the offer)" is a pair used in hypothetical context and it is completely grammatical. Although we hear difference utterance in everyday conversation, but that can't be validated as correct.

In fact, your suggesion, in my opinion. should have been " Had she been born (in the England, she would have been speaking English fluently).

As far as I know, "could " is not the normal pattern with " If I were..."

1) If I were born in an English-speaking country, I could speak English fluently.
2) If I were born in an English-speaking country, I would be able to speak English fluently.

For the sentence in question, based on straight-forward subjunctive and counter-factual theory, # 2 is acceptable between the 2. But my feeling is:
Had I been born in an English speaking country, I would have been speaking fluently.
If I were born in an English speaking country, I wouldn't have to struggle with learning the language.

Just my two cents.....rpycn

Difference between would be able to and could in the subjunctive

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions