[color=red]You could ask me before you borrow my car!
Did “you” borrow “my” car or not?
Is it the same as “You could’ve asked me before you borrowed my car?”
Thanks
Hi S&S,
I would make that simpler. I’ll expain in a dialogue:
S&S: So you borrowed my car this morning? (being irritated)
Annie: Yes I did.
S&S: Well, I don’t mind you borrowing my car, but you could’ve asked me first! Did it ever occur to you that I might have needed it myself?
I’ll rewrite the last question with ‘could’: 'Well, I don’t mind you borrowing my car, but could you ask me first from now on!? I might have needed it myself.
‘You could ask me before you borrow my car’ is the same as ‘You could’ve asked me to borrow my car.’ I would add an exclamation mark to show that you were irritated.
In my opinion there’s little difference between ‘could’ and ‘could have’, moreover they are interchangeable.
I hope I’ve been of some help. But since I’m not a moderator who may a totally different view, don’t blame me, I just wanted to help.
Alexandro.
It’s not the same.
The first sentence (in black) is a complaint about the person’s lack of consideration and courtesy. It is assumed that the car had been borrowed.
The second questions whether or not the car was borrowed.
Thanks Beeesneees, but what does the third one actually say?
It wasn’t simpler. You’ve complicated it to the point that it is difficult to understand what you are getting at.
‘Could’ and ‘could have’ is no more interchangeable than might/might have, will/will have, etc. If you don’t use it, you are not using the same tense, so you could be changing the meaning of the sentence.
Your statements could mean this:
You could have asked me… (You didn’t ask me and you borrowed it, but I really think you should have asked first and I’m a little annoyed about it.)
You could ask me… (If ever you want to borrow my car, just ask and we’ll see if it’s possible.)
So, “You could ask me before you borrow my car” means “my car” has not been borrowed or was not borrowed?
Thanks Beeesneees.
This topic is from
The original text is:
[color=red]Criticisms:
Could can be used to criticise people for not doing things:
You could ask before you borrow my car.
Could have + past participle is used for criticisms about the past.
You could have told me you were getting married.
I don’t understand “to criticise people for not doing things”. Does the NOT DOING THINGS part mean the DOING is finished or not? In other words, if you say “you could ask before you borrow my car” to me, does it mean I have borrowed your car (or borrowed your car) or not?
Thanks
It may mean that your car has been borrowed and you expect someone to borrow it again in future. In this case you are expressing your displeasure and indicating your future expectations.
‘not doing things’ = not asking first.
It’s not clear whether or not the car has already been borrowed.
‘could have asked’ - it is clear that the car was borrowed without permission.
Then when do we use “You could ask before you borrow my car” to criticise people?
Hi Ruifeng,
The meanings of the two sentences are not the same. The time reference is different:
1. could have asked
Saying ‘You could have asked me before you borrowed my car’ is a reference to a single past act. The fact is that ‘you’ borrowed ‘my’ car without asking at a particular time in the past. In this case, clearly the car has already been borrowed. The speaker is referring specifically to a single past act of car-borrowing.
2. could ask
Saying ‘You could ask me before you borrow my car’ can be used to refer to what ‘me’ always wants ‘you’ to do first any time ‘you’ borrows the car – OR – it might just be a reference to a future act of car-borrowing.
If the speaker is irritated when he utters sentence 2, then the context is likely to be that the car has been borrowed without asking first on at least one previous occasion. The speaker in this case would be sarcastically telling ‘you’ that such behavior is never acceptable, and that he does not want it to happen (again) in the future.
It’s also possible that the speaker has discovered that ‘you’ was just about to borrow the car (without asking first). Perhaps the speaker has just seen ‘you’ getting into the car and preparing to drive away, for example.
In a nutshell, 1 refers to a single past act, and 2 basically refers to any such acts.
Hope that puts your question to rest.
[color=darkblue]___________________________________________________
[size=75]“Borrow trouble for yourself, if that’s your nature, but don’t lend it to your neighbours.” ~ Rudyard Kipling[/size]
Hi Ruifeng,
Here is one last thought:
In that sort of context, I would NOT expect ‘could tell’ to be used since ‘get married’ is far more likely to be a one-time event. Thus, it would not be appropriate to in essence say ‘I want you to tell me any time you get married’. In this case, the speaker was not told about the plans for a specific wedding. As I see it, that’s basically why ‘could have told’ was used.
[color=darkblue]______________________________________________
[size=75]“I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury.” ~ Groucho Marx[/size]
Hi Ruifeng,
Of course, regardless of what people usually do, I expect you to tell me in advance every single time you get married! 
Thanks for untangling the tangle, Amy.