3

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston and Pullum) says under the section "Past time could" at page 197 that it is possible to say

(1) I could hear something rattling. [actualised ability (says CGEL)]

but not possible to say

(2) * I could hear something rattle.

because rattle would be "perfective", says CGEL.

CGEL specifically says that "could does not normally appear in affirmative contexts when it is a matter of actualisation of a single situation viewed perfectively."

CGEL has another set of examples on this issue:

(3) Last night I heard the clock strike two. (marked grammatical in CGEL)

(4) * Last night I could hear the clock strike two. (marked ungrammatical in CGEL)

Now, here's a conversation from an American movie "Real Steel" (2011):

Max Kenton: Charlie, I need you to teach him to box.

Charlie Kenton: Are you kiddin' me? He's no where near advanced enough to handle Noisey's voice command.

Max Kenton: Yeah, so we need you moves, your commands. Start over.

Charlie Kenton: Forget it, kid.

Max Kenton: From the ground up.

Charlie Kenton: Forget it.

Max Kenton: You were a boxer Charlie.

Charlie Kenton: Yep.

Max Kenton: Yesterday at The Zoo, you could see things happen before they even happened.

Charlie Kenton: I haven't boxed in a long time, I'm not starting now.

Max Kenton: You can teach him to fight.

Charlie Kenton: You're doin' fine, Max. You don't need me, sorry.

How come it's not "you could see things happening" in the movie?

Is it some sort of BrE/AmE thing? Or is the movie script just being sloppy in its grammar?

Improve this question
11
  • 4
    Sense verbs, unsurprisingly, have rather special grammar. One way it's special is that sense verbs can take either a gerund or an infinitive complement clause. Ergo, both variants are correct, and there is no real difference; you pays your attention and you takes your choice. I have no idea why Huddleston or Pullum would say that; it's clearly incorrect.
    – John Lawler
    Commented Dec 25, 2014 at 4:28
  • 3
    You can just as easily hear things rattle as see them fly or smell them rot or feel them shake. Either CGEL is wrong or you have misunderstood them, or both.
    – tchrist ♦
    Commented Dec 25, 2014 at 4:34
  • 1
    @JK2. You have correctly represented what the CGEL says. I am a native speaker and regard sentences such as I left early and could get a good seat (CGEL) and I ran after the bus and could catch it (A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Quirk, p232) as ungrammatical. But I have no problem with past tense could when the verb following could is a sense verb: I could hear something rattle, or You could see things happen before they even happened. In fact, perfective (rattle) implies a short burst of sound as against a more prolonged sound in the imperfect (rattling).
    – Shoe
    Commented Dec 25, 2014 at 12:17
  • 1
    I agree with Shoe's judgements. Conjunction Reduction of the subject doesn't work right in *I left early and could get a good seat. It should be I left early and I could get a good seat, so the constraint there is on Conjunction Reduction; probly something about matching up auxiliaries, or else just more modal speciality. (2) and (4) I find grammatical; as I said, either a gerund or an infinitive.
    – John Lawler
    Commented Dec 25, 2014 at 17:39
  • 1
    I heard something rattle. one time. I heard something rattling. ongoing. No, 2) and 4) are grammatical.
    – Lambie
    Commented May 9, 2019 at 20:30

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
6

Certainly (4) is grammatical, and can be proved by a counterexample:

Last night I could hear the clock [on the town hall] strike two, but by three the wind was in the wrong direction.

That is, the clock did strike two, and it was possible for me to hear that. It is an affirmative context of a matter of actualisation of a single situation viewed perfectively. CGEL is wrong to proscribe it, although its alternative was able to (also mentioned on p197) can be applied successfully.

That is sufficient to cast doubt on sentence (2), and while "I could hear something rattling" is probably more likely to be said, "I could hear something rattle" is not unidiomatic. Shoe's comment "In fact, perfective (rattle) implies a short burst of sound as against a more prolonged sound in the imperfect (rattling)" is apposite.

The problem with prescriptive grammar is that it cannot cover all possibilities, and dogmatic assertions such as the one you ask about may well not be right all the time.

Improve this answer
5
  • Thanks for the confirmation. Thing is, CGEL claims to represent descriptive grammar as opposed to prescriptive grammar. I just can't believe they dropped the ball with not just one but two sentences on this issue. (Not that I don't believe you and others here!)
    – JK2
    Commented Dec 25, 2014 at 13:03
  • Say, you're riding a friend's car and you hear something rattling on that car. Would you ever say, "I can hear something rattle" instead of "I can hear something rattling"?
    – JK2
    Commented Dec 29, 2014 at 8:19
  • 1
    If I could hear something rattling (continuous) then I'd use rattling. If I heard something rattle (instantaneous) then I'd use rattle.
    – Andrew Leach ♦
    Commented Dec 29, 2014 at 8:52
  • In a context where the rattle is continuous, would it be incorrect to say "I can hear something rattle"? If so, by the same token, if I was talking about a past event where the rattle was continuous, would it be incorrect to say "I could hear something rattle"? Maybe this is why CGEL was saying about the latter being ungrammatical?
    – JK2
    Commented Dec 29, 2014 at 13:52
  • 1
    I don't think I can make myself any clearer about my usage. I'm afraid I can't comment on how CGEL came to their conclusions.
    – Andrew Leach ♦
    Commented Dec 29, 2014 at 13:57
1

1 Someone laughed (a fact). I could hear it. 2 Someone was laughing. I could hear it.

You can connect hear and all verbs of perception with accusative + infinitive when you merely want to state the fact and you can use accusative and participle when you want to stress the progress of the action. Don't let you confuse by CGEL. Sometimes you find very subjective views such as English has no dative because in English the dative has no ending. That is one view. The other view is it is irrelevant how you express the function of dative - by an ending, by a preposition or merely by the position before an accusative. The function of dative is always clear.

CGEL tolerate only their view. The other view is not even mentioned or considered as wrong.

Improve this answer
3
  • It's bare infinitive, not "to-infinitive". You probably want to correct your misstatement. Also, please elaborate more on the issue, rather than merely allege that CGEL is "subjective" based on an issue (dative) totally unrelated to the current one.
    – JK2
    Commented Dec 25, 2014 at 10:22
  • Also, it's one thing to make a "subjective" claim about a grammar category (dative), and it's another to make a false claim that a sentence is ungrammatical when most native speakers would find it grammatical. So if the latter is indeed the case, I may have found a serious flaw in CGEL, which I'm afraid is very unlikely, given that the book's been out there more than a decade and is still fairly respected by many.
    – JK2
    Commented Dec 25, 2014 at 10:27
  • @JK2 - Thanks. I corrected to-infinitive to infinitive.
    – rogermue
    Commented Dec 25, 2014 at 11:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .