The door was left wide open, anyone could walk / have walked in.

Question

Hello,I continue to learn modals and I would like to ask you for help with these two sentences:1) The door was left wide open, anyone could walk in.2) The door was left wide open, anyone could have walked in.Possible interpretations that cross my mind:1a) could = would be able toThe door was opened in the past, it still is open, and we are wondering who might walk in in the future.I am not sure if this interpretation is correct, because I think it would be better to say 'is left open' or 'has been left open' to suggest a link with the future.1b) could = was able toThe door was opened in the past, we know that somebody did walk in and we are wondering who it was.2a) could = would have been able toThe door was opened in the past, we know that somebody did walk in and we are wondering who it was.I am not sure if 1b or 2a is better in this context, or perhaps both are equally good.2b) could = would have been able toThe door was opened in the past and we are saying that it was possible for somebody to walk in (but we don't know if that happened).I am rather certain that this is correct.Could you please say which of the above make sense?

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

Reegis1) The door was left wide open, anyone could walk in.2) The door was left wide open, anyone could have walked in.

Those are both comma-splice errors. You cannot separate independent clauses with a comma alone.

Reegis · Answer

Mister MicawberThose are both comma-splice errors. You cannot separate independent clauses with a comma alone.

It is interesting and I would have never thought it might be incorrect. What do you mean that they are independent? To my mind, they are obviously connected. The second one is a natural consequence of the first one and in my native language we often separate such connected sentences with a comma. To highlight this connection we could rephrase it for example this way:
The door was left wide open and anyone could walk in.
And we have one sentence consisiting of two subsentences. But this is just my intuition and how I understand communication among people in general - irrespective of language. To sum up, I can think of the following variations

a) The door was left wide open, anyone could walk in.:
b) The door was left wide open and anyone could walk in.
c) The door was left wide open - anyone could walk in.
d) The door was left wide open. Anyone could walk in.

Which of them are correct in English?

Mister Micawber · Answer

ReegisWhat do you mean that they are independent?

The clauses can stand alone as sentences. You need to read about these basic structures: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/598/01/

Reegis in my native language we often separate such connected sentences with a comma.

Ways in one's native language are not necessarily valid in other languages, so that is not a good rationale.

Reegissubsentences

That is not a valid term in English grammar.

Reegis how I understand communication among people in general

That has little or nothing to do with acceptable written sentence structure. Here are some valid communications among people in general:

Uh-uh.
A radio.
Sometimes.
In your what?

Reegisa) The door was left wide open, anyone could walk in.:b) The door was left wide open and anyone could walk in.c) The door was left wide open - anyone could walk in.d) The door was left wide open. Anyone could walk in.Which of them are correct in English?

B and D as they stand. Also C if you use an m-dash instead of a hyphen.

Reegis · Answer

Mister Micawberhttps://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/598/01 /

Thanks for the link. It is interesting; however, very counterintuitive for me. For example, they say that I like this class, it is very interesting is incorrect, but I like this class, and it is very interesting is correct.

Mister MicawberWays in one's native language are not necessarily valid in other languages, so that is not a good rationale.

Yes, of course it is not a good rationale. I meant it as an interesting side note, nothing more. Also this is why I further asked which sentences are correct in English.

Mister MicawberB and D as they stand. Also C if you use an m-dash instead of a hyphen.

I see. Thanks!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, so I think it closes this almost off-topic subject in this context (yet valuable!). Then I would like to get back to the first post and slightly change the sentences:

1) The door was left wide open. Anyone could walk in.
2) The door was left wide open. Anyone could have walked in.

Could somebody please refer to all four interpretations from the first post?

Vegan · Answer

The 1st sentence is just a general reflection on what consequences an open door could have, or what opportunities it opened up

In the 2nd sentence it matters if someone has walked in between the time when the door was left open, and the time we noticed that (and stated the fact).
In both cases context would make things clearer.

Reegis · Answer

veganThe 1st sentence is just a general reflection on what consequences an open door could have, or what opportunities it opened up

I guess you meant here that 1a interpretation is correct.

veganIn the 2nd sentence it matters if someone has walked in between the time when the door was left open, and the time we noticed that (and stated the fact).

Hmmm, this sounds like 2a...

Then could you please say why 1b and 2b are not correct interpretations (in any context)?

My interpretations are created by extrapolation from the reasoning in this topic by CalifJim. Of course this is another sentence so obviously I might be wrong and this is why I am asking.

Vegan · Answer

First of all I'd like to warn you that I'm neither a native English speaker, nor a teacher. Just learning English as a hobby.

Everything I say is based mainly on the effect a sentence had on me.

I'm not sure my versions exactly correspond to 1a and 2a:

In the 1st sentence we are not wondering who might walk in in the future or might have walked in. We are just stating that an open door opens up such and such opportunities (e.g. for thieves) or represents the danger of someone undesired walking in.

1b, I think, is incorrect for the same above-mentioned reason. We don't know for sure if someone has walked in.

In the 2nd sentence we also don't know for sure that someone has walked in. But it's clear that it would be undesirable if someone walked in. And the open door made the undesirable outcome possible.

2b seems much closer to my interpretation of the second sentence.

Same with the thief:
1) We are just speculating on what feasible ways there are to approach the safe.
2) The safe has been forced, and we wonder how on earth the thief did it. We believed it was next to impossible to force the safe.

Mister Micawber · Answer

veganIn the 1st sentence we are not wondering who might walk in in the future or might have walked in. We are just stating that an open door opens up such and such opportunities (e.g. for thieves) or represents the danger of someone undesired walking in.1b, I think, is incorrect for the same above-mentioned reason. We don't know for sure if someone has walked in.In the 2nd sentence we also don't know for sure that someone has walked in. But it's clear that it would be undesirable if someone walked in. And the open door made the undesirable outcome possible.2b seems much closer to my interpretation of the second sentence.Same with the thief:1) We are just speculating on what feasible ways there are to approach the safe.2) The safe has been forced, and we wonder how on earth the thief did it. We believed it was next to impossible to force the safe.

You are reading too much into the simple statements, vegan. They do not carry all of that weight. The meanings and suggestions are the same; #1 is simply a view to the future while # is a view to the past.

Vegan · Answer

Mister MicawberYou are reading too much into the simple statements, vegan. They do not carry all of that weight. The meanings and suggestions are the same; #1 is simply a view to the future while # is a view to the past.

I said virtually the same

#1 The door was left open at some point, and this made it possible for someone to walk in (in the future relatively to the "leaving open").
#2 The door was left open at some point; at another point we discovered it, and we are wondering if someone might have walked in (in the past relatively to the discovery).

And the undesirability of a stranger walking in is just a generally accepted idea, which may be deducted even without being explicitly stated.

Reegis · Answer

I am afraid I am not following this conversation

If anyone could directly refer to my reflections on the four cases above I would be very grateful...

The door was left wide open, anyone could walk / have walked in.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions