Talk:could do without
RFC discussion edit
I have archived the discussions here, and linked to this page from the talk pages of could do with, can do with, can do without, could have done with, and could have done without. — Beobach 18:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
could do with edit
This is a useful entry, especially when it stands not as the opposite of "could do without". Many learners use reverse deduction to think that if "could do without" means "to manage or to live without something", then, "could do with" should mean "to manage or to be able to live with something". As a result, they come up with sentences like "If I cannot see you and your car tomorrow, I can do with my feet.", "You don't have to send me your book now, I can do with my lecture notes.", etc. The explanation that the phrase means "to need, want" is important to learners. Examples:
I could do with two weeks away from the children and the washing-up. You can both stop leaning against the wall; I can do with a helping hand. This car could do with a good polish. I have a bottle of whisky in my car. We could do with it now.
--— This unsigned comment was added by Busibodie (talk • contribs) at 10:19, 27 September 2009.
could do without edit
could do with is a subjunctive of a defective verb. This entry does not show the relationship. The form including without trivially has the same problem since it is virtually SoP. I am not grammarian enough to be confident in the correct way to present this, but enshrining subjunctive forms because of the meaning associated with being subjunctive seems like a poor direction. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Italic text
- The problem arises with the idiomatic meaning encased in the phrase could do with. can do with does not have the same meaning, neither does do with. Furthermore, there is no infinitive lemma form possible. Add to that the problem of the past form, which is obliged to use the perfect modal. Finally, the negative couldn't do with does not imply the opposite of could do with. could do without and can do without are the only possibilities. -- ALGRIF talk 13:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- The whole thing seems quite complicated to me. (deprecated template usage) Could do with definitely seems to be alone, as you say; (deprecated template usage) can do with, (deprecated template usage) did with, etc. are all grammatical, but without the idiomatic sense of. However, I think (deprecated template usage) do without is indeed an idiom, with all its forms. In theory, therefore, (deprecated template usage) could do without has two idiomatic senses: the normal idiomatic sense of (deprecated template usage) do without, just wrapped in the normal uses of (deprecated template usage) could, *and* a special idiomatic sense that's the reverse of (deprecated template usage) could do with. However, the problem is that the two aren't totally distinct. I'd gloss one as “I could deal with not having” and the other as “I’d rather not have”, which sound distinct when phrased that way, except that the former could definitely be used as a form of understatement and in fact mean the latter. What's more, I have a feeling (which quite possibly is wrong) that a reversal of this understatement is actually the origin of (deprecated template usage) could do with. I'm pretty sure we should have [[do without]] and [[could do with]], but I'm not sure about [[could do without]]. —RuakhTALK 21:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please bear with me as I try to get my arms around this. I may well end by agreeing with what you had done and disagreeing with my disagreeing self. It will probably take me a couple of days to get comfortable with it. I respect the judgment and knowledge of both of you, but still would like to get comfortable with the presentation of this for the benefit of users. I'm not at all sure that this wouldn't best be done with a long usage note at "do with" to facilitate comparisons of the forms/terms. Each of the forms or terms would need essentially the same usage note. conDCDuring TALK 00:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for putting in fairly clear language the doubts that prompted my initial RFD entry. I am also bothered by my inability to get this entry into a user friendly, Wiki agreeable and generally all-round acceptable shape. I can take on-board your objections to could do without. Perhaps do without + usage notes would be the correct solution there. But I still cannot see any alternative to the entries could do with and could have done with, due to their special case idiomatic meanings. -- ALGRIF talk 13:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- The various entries revolving around these expressions seem to be taking on some kind of reasonable shape now. -- ALGRIF talk 16:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for putting in fairly clear language the doubts that prompted my initial RFD entry. I am also bothered by my inability to get this entry into a user friendly, Wiki agreeable and generally all-round acceptable shape. I can take on-board your objections to could do without. Perhaps do without + usage notes would be the correct solution there. But I still cannot see any alternative to the entries could do with and could have done with, due to their special case idiomatic meanings. -- ALGRIF talk 13:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please bear with me as I try to get my arms around this. I may well end by agreeing with what you had done and disagreeing with my disagreeing self. It will probably take me a couple of days to get comfortable with it. I respect the judgment and knowledge of both of you, but still would like to get comfortable with the presentation of this for the benefit of users. I'm not at all sure that this wouldn't best be done with a long usage note at "do with" to facilitate comparisons of the forms/terms. Each of the forms or terms would need essentially the same usage note. conDCDuring TALK 00:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- The whole thing seems quite complicated to me. (deprecated template usage) Could do with definitely seems to be alone, as you say; (deprecated template usage) can do with, (deprecated template usage) did with, etc. are all grammatical, but without the idiomatic sense of. However, I think (deprecated template usage) do without is indeed an idiom, with all its forms. In theory, therefore, (deprecated template usage) could do without has two idiomatic senses: the normal idiomatic sense of (deprecated template usage) do without, just wrapped in the normal uses of (deprecated template usage) could, *and* a special idiomatic sense that's the reverse of (deprecated template usage) could do with. However, the problem is that the two aren't totally distinct. I'd gloss one as “I could deal with not having” and the other as “I’d rather not have”, which sound distinct when phrased that way, except that the former could definitely be used as a form of understatement and in fact mean the latter. What's more, I have a feeling (which quite possibly is wrong) that a reversal of this understatement is actually the origin of (deprecated template usage) could do with. I'm pretty sure we should have [[do without]] and [[could do with]], but I'm not sure about [[could do without]]. —RuakhTALK 21:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- The problem arises with the idiomatic meaning encased in the phrase could do with. can do with does not have the same meaning, neither does do with. Furthermore, there is no infinitive lemma form possible. Add to that the problem of the past form, which is obliged to use the perfect modal. Finally, the negative couldn't do with does not imply the opposite of could do with. could do without and can do without are the only possibilities. -- ALGRIF talk 13:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Deletion debate edit
See Talk:can do with#Deletion debate. bd2412 T 12:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)