Is the expression “we could might be able to […]” grammatically correct?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I came across the expression “we could might be able to [...]” a few times (although it seems that this expression occurs very rarely).
Example #1 (source):
That adds about 7KB minified, and we could might be able to include it as an optional dependency
Example #2 (source):
If this is the actual problem, we could might be able to use 'cluster_host_map' to map the resource to the host-name.
Example #3 (source):
If we automatically had one context for each pipeline stage and an additional status for each failed job we could might be able to do that in a completely generic way.
Is this construction grammatically correct in English? If no, then why? If yes, then why would one choose to use it, and how is it different from “we could be able to [...]” or “we might be able to [...]”?
There exists a similar question, but it does not mention this particular expression, so I am asking this question to clarify the situation.
meaning grammaticality
asked 2 days ago
lyrically wicked
1115
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I came across the expression “we could might be able to [...]” a few times (although it seems that this expression occurs very rarely).
Example #1 (source):
That adds about 7KB minified, and we could might be able to include it as an optional dependency
Example #2 (source):
If this is the actual problem, we could might be able to use 'cluster_host_map' to map the resource to the host-name.
Example #3 (source):
If we automatically had one context for each pipeline stage and an additional status for each failed job we could might be able to do that in a completely generic way.
Is this construction grammatically correct in English? If no, then why? If yes, then why would one choose to use it, and how is it different from “we could be able to [...]” or “we might be able to [...]”?
There exists a similar question, but it does not mention this particular expression, so I am asking this question to clarify the situation.
meaning grammaticality
asked 2 days ago
lyrically wicked
1115
There is no such expression. Maybe you have seen 'We could/might be able to' where they have been suggested as alternatives?
– Kate Bunting
2 days ago
"That said, in this instance it looks like you could might be able to do it all via optional chaining in 1.1, depending on what your objects are:" stackoverflow.com/a/29365473/1002605 Not that I approve of it. Just for fun.
– Kris
2 days ago
"Also, you could might be able to use some of pandas indexing tricks to speed things up." stackoverflow.com/a/28949962/1002605 And tons more.
– Kris
2 days ago
1
I edited the question to include a few examples. But I don't understand what's wrong with this question. Is it off-topic on this site?
– lyrically wicked
2 days ago
@lyricallywicked I don’t think the question itself off-topic, but you should edit it to include your own research – that is, detail what makes you think it may (or may not) be grammatical, and what makes you unsure. Otherwise the question may be out on hold as lacking research.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I came across the expression “we could might be able to [...]” a few times (although it seems that this expression occurs very rarely).
Example #1 (source):
That adds about 7KB minified, and we could might be able to include it as an optional dependency
Example #2 (source):
If this is the actual problem, we could might be able to use 'cluster_host_map' to map the resource to the host-name.
Example #3 (source):
If we automatically had one context for each pipeline stage and an additional status for each failed job we could might be able to do that in a completely generic way.
Is this construction grammatically correct in English? If no, then why? If yes, then why would one choose to use it, and how is it different from “we could be able to [...]” or “we might be able to [...]”?
There exists a similar question, but it does not mention this particular expression, so I am asking this question to clarify the situation.
meaning grammaticality
asked 2 days ago
lyrically wicked
1115
I came across the expression “we could might be able to [...]” a few times (although it seems that this expression occurs very rarely).
Example #1 (source):
That adds about 7KB minified, and we could might be able to include it as an optional dependency
Example #2 (source):
If this is the actual problem, we could might be able to use 'cluster_host_map' to map the resource to the host-name.
Example #3 (source):
If we automatically had one context for each pipeline stage and an additional status for each failed job we could might be able to do that in a completely generic way.
Is this construction grammatically correct in English? If no, then why? If yes, then why would one choose to use it, and how is it different from “we could be able to [...]” or “we might be able to [...]”?
There exists a similar question, but it does not mention this particular expression, so I am asking this question to clarify the situation.
meaning grammaticality
meaning grammaticality
asked 2 days ago
lyrically wicked
1115
asked 2 days ago
lyrically wicked
1115
edited 2 days ago
asked 2 days ago
lyrically wicked
1115
asked 2 days ago
lyrically wicked
1115
asked 2 days ago
lyrically wicked
1115
1115
There is no such expression. Maybe you have seen 'We could/might be able to' where they have been suggested as alternatives?
– Kate Bunting
2 days ago
"That said, in this instance it looks like you could might be able to do it all via optional chaining in 1.1, depending on what your objects are:" stackoverflow.com/a/29365473/1002605 Not that I approve of it. Just for fun.
– Kris
2 days ago
"Also, you could might be able to use some of pandas indexing tricks to speed things up." stackoverflow.com/a/28949962/1002605 And tons more.
– Kris
2 days ago
1
I edited the question to include a few examples. But I don't understand what's wrong with this question. Is it off-topic on this site?
– lyrically wicked
2 days ago
@lyricallywicked I don’t think the question itself off-topic, but you should edit it to include your own research – that is, detail what makes you think it may (or may not) be grammatical, and what makes you unsure. Otherwise the question may be out on hold as lacking research.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
2 days ago
add a comment |
There is no such expression. Maybe you have seen 'We could/might be able to' where they have been suggested as alternatives?
– Kate Bunting
2 days ago
"That said, in this instance it looks like you could might be able to do it all via optional chaining in 1.1, depending on what your objects are:" stackoverflow.com/a/29365473/1002605 Not that I approve of it. Just for fun.
– Kris
2 days ago
"Also, you could might be able to use some of pandas indexing tricks to speed things up." stackoverflow.com/a/28949962/1002605 And tons more.
– Kris
2 days ago
1
I edited the question to include a few examples. But I don't understand what's wrong with this question. Is it off-topic on this site?
– lyrically wicked
2 days ago
@lyricallywicked I don’t think the question itself off-topic, but you should edit it to include your own research – that is, detail what makes you think it may (or may not) be grammatical, and what makes you unsure. Otherwise the question may be out on hold as lacking research.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
2 days ago
There is no such expression. Maybe you have seen 'We could/might be able to' where they have been suggested as alternatives?
– Kate Bunting
2 days ago
There is no such expression. Maybe you have seen 'We could/might be able to' where they have been suggested as alternatives?
– Kate Bunting
2 days ago
"That said, in this instance it looks like you could might be able to do it all via optional chaining in 1.1, depending on what your objects are:" stackoverflow.com/a/29365473/1002605 Not that I approve of it. Just for fun.
– Kris
2 days ago
"That said, in this instance it looks like you could might be able to do it all via optional chaining in 1.1, depending on what your objects are:" stackoverflow.com/a/29365473/1002605 Not that I approve of it. Just for fun.
– Kris
2 days ago
"Also, you could might be able to use some of pandas indexing tricks to speed things up." stackoverflow.com/a/28949962/1002605 And tons more.
– Kris
2 days ago
"Also, you could might be able to use some of pandas indexing tricks to speed things up." stackoverflow.com/a/28949962/1002605 And tons more.
– Kris
2 days ago
1
1
I edited the question to include a few examples. But I don't understand what's wrong with this question. Is it off-topic on this site?
– lyrically wicked
2 days ago
I edited the question to include a few examples. But I don't understand what's wrong with this question. Is it off-topic on this site?
– lyrically wicked
2 days ago
@lyricallywicked I don’t think the question itself off-topic, but you should edit it to include your own research – that is, detail what makes you think it may (or may not) be grammatical, and what makes you unsure. Otherwise the question may be out on hold as lacking research.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
2 days ago
@lyricallywicked I don’t think the question itself off-topic, but you should edit it to include your own research – that is, detail what makes you think it may (or may not) be grammatical, and what makes you unsure. Otherwise the question may be out on hold as lacking research.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
2 days ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
All y'all, it's a southern thing, folks.
If Trump applies enough
pressure ($$$ and muscle), he
could might be able to get
Netanyahu and Abbas to sign a
deal
("Israel/Palestine: Is there still any hope for a two state solution?" Carleton University, May 30, 2018, pdf 6.09 MB)
It's not acceptable in standard general English writing.
answered 2 days ago
Kris
32.3k541116
1
It is also very rare in southern speech, from what I've read about double modals and heard personally. It's an odd use of the double modal, since most instances of 'might' and 'could' together typically have 'might' coming first.
– eenbeetje
2 days ago
1
Might could is much more common than could might.
– John Lawler
2 days ago
@JohnLawler I had actually thought the might be could be a parenthetical: "... he could, might be, able to get ..." (... he could probably be able to get...) though still a multiple modal.
– Kris
19 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
All y'all, it's a southern thing, folks.
If Trump applies enough
pressure ($$$ and muscle), he
could might be able to get
Netanyahu and Abbas to sign a
deal
("Israel/Palestine: Is there still any hope for a two state solution?" Carleton University, May 30, 2018, pdf 6.09 MB)
It's not acceptable in standard general English writing.
answered 2 days ago
Kris
32.3k541116
1
It is also very rare in southern speech, from what I've read about double modals and heard personally. It's an odd use of the double modal, since most instances of 'might' and 'could' together typically have 'might' coming first.
– eenbeetje
2 days ago
1
Might could is much more common than could might.
– John Lawler
2 days ago
@JohnLawler I had actually thought the might be could be a parenthetical: "... he could, might be, able to get ..." (... he could probably be able to get...) though still a multiple modal.
– Kris
19 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
All y'all, it's a southern thing, folks.
If Trump applies enough
pressure ($$$ and muscle), he
could might be able to get
Netanyahu and Abbas to sign a
deal
("Israel/Palestine: Is there still any hope for a two state solution?" Carleton University, May 30, 2018, pdf 6.09 MB)
It's not acceptable in standard general English writing.
answered 2 days ago
Kris
32.3k541116
1
It is also very rare in southern speech, from what I've read about double modals and heard personally. It's an odd use of the double modal, since most instances of 'might' and 'could' together typically have 'might' coming first.
– eenbeetje
2 days ago
1
Might could is much more common than could might.
– John Lawler
2 days ago
@JohnLawler I had actually thought the might be could be a parenthetical: "... he could, might be, able to get ..." (... he could probably be able to get...) though still a multiple modal.
– Kris
19 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
All y'all, it's a southern thing, folks.
If Trump applies enough
pressure ($$$ and muscle), he
could might be able to get
Netanyahu and Abbas to sign a
deal
("Israel/Palestine: Is there still any hope for a two state solution?" Carleton University, May 30, 2018, pdf 6.09 MB)
It's not acceptable in standard general English writing.
answered 2 days ago
Kris
32.3k541116
All y'all, it's a southern thing, folks.
If Trump applies enough
pressure ($$$ and muscle), he
could might be able to get
Netanyahu and Abbas to sign a
deal
("Israel/Palestine: Is there still any hope for a two state solution?" Carleton University, May 30, 2018, pdf 6.09 MB)
It's not acceptable in standard general English writing.
answered 2 days ago
Kris
32.3k541116
answered 2 days ago
Kris
32.3k541116
answered 2 days ago
Kris
32.3k541116
answered 2 days ago
Kris
32.3k541116
32.3k541116
1
It is also very rare in southern speech, from what I've read about double modals and heard personally. It's an odd use of the double modal, since most instances of 'might' and 'could' together typically have 'might' coming first.
– eenbeetje
2 days ago
1
Might could is much more common than could might.
– John Lawler
2 days ago
@JohnLawler I had actually thought the might be could be a parenthetical: "... he could, might be, able to get ..." (... he could probably be able to get...) though still a multiple modal.
– Kris
19 hours ago
add a comment |
1
It is also very rare in southern speech, from what I've read about double modals and heard personally. It's an odd use of the double modal, since most instances of 'might' and 'could' together typically have 'might' coming first.
– eenbeetje
2 days ago
1
Might could is much more common than could might.
– John Lawler
2 days ago
@JohnLawler I had actually thought the might be could be a parenthetical: "... he could, might be, able to get ..." (... he could probably be able to get...) though still a multiple modal.
– Kris
19 hours ago
1
1
It is also very rare in southern speech, from what I've read about double modals and heard personally. It's an odd use of the double modal, since most instances of 'might' and 'could' together typically have 'might' coming first.
– eenbeetje
2 days ago
It is also very rare in southern speech, from what I've read about double modals and heard personally. It's an odd use of the double modal, since most instances of 'might' and 'could' together typically have 'might' coming first.
– eenbeetje
2 days ago
1
1
Might could is much more common than could might.
– John Lawler
2 days ago
Might could is much more common than could might.
– John Lawler
2 days ago
@JohnLawler I had actually thought the might be could be a parenthetical: "... he could, might be, able to get ..." (... he could probably be able to get...) though still a multiple modal.
– Kris
19 hours ago
@JohnLawler I had actually thought the might be could be a parenthetical: "... he could, might be, able to get ..." (... he could probably be able to get...) though still a multiple modal.
– Kris
19 hours ago
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f473416%2fis-the-expression-we-could-might-be-able-to-grammatically-correct%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
There is no such expression. Maybe you have seen 'We could/might be able to' where they have been suggested as alternatives?
– Kate Bunting
2 days ago
"That said, in this instance it looks like you could might be able to do it all via optional chaining in 1.1, depending on what your objects are:" stackoverflow.com/a/29365473/1002605 Not that I approve of it. Just for fun.
– Kris
2 days ago
"Also, you could might be able to use some of pandas indexing tricks to speed things up." stackoverflow.com/a/28949962/1002605 And tons more.
– Kris
2 days ago
1
I edited the question to include a few examples. But I don't understand what's wrong with this question. Is it off-topic on this site?
– lyrically wicked
2 days ago
@lyricallywicked I don’t think the question itself off-topic, but you should edit it to include your own research – that is, detail what makes you think it may (or may not) be grammatical, and what makes you unsure. Otherwise the question may be out on hold as lacking research.
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
2 days ago