When I was reading a novel about a young man who looks for diamonds, I ruan into a difficult phrase for me to read.

He meets an old man and gets some supports from this old man to find diamonds.

However, Jamie dis aware ofcovers that this old man is deceivesing him and steals ofing all of the diamonds he found.

So I think the novel might as well says; , "Jamie felt a slow rage boiling up within him."

If "could" is subjunctive, why does the subjective mood needs to be used here?

When I was reading a novel about a young man who looksing for diamonds, I run into a phrase that is difficult phrase for me to reaunderstand.

This sentence is mostly grammatical, but I think it sounds more natural the other way around:

> I ran into this passage which I found difficult while reading a novel about a young man looking for diamonds.

He meets an old man and gets some supportsbacking from this old manm to find diamonds.

However, Jamie ibecomes aware of that this old man has deceivesd him and stealsolen of all the diamonds he found.

Relative to Jamie's becoming aware of the old man's behavior, the man's behavior is in the past, thus should be in past tense.

It's no wonder that Jamie gets angry with the old man from the flow of the storyhow the story was playing out.

"flow of the story." strikes me as a little unnatural as opposed to "how the story was playing out," but I think it's fine.

I think the "could" in the line is the subjunctive mood like "I could eat a horse."

I honestly don't understand "subjunctives." I did a little bit of reading after seeing your post, but I don't feel comfortable commenting on whether either is a subjunctive or not.

Mostly what I want to comment on is that "I could eat a horse" is a hypothetical. "Were there a horse here, my stomach is so empty the whole thing would fit inside" is how I've always interpreted it. However, "Jamie could feel a slight rage" is not hypothetical and so it feels very different to me.

If "could" is subjunctive, why does the subjective mood needs to be used here?

I can't really explain the grammar, but when you start a sentence with "why", a verb is required to follow.

When I was reading a novel about a young man who looksing for diamonds, I ruan into a difficult phrase for me to read.

Couldan you help me figure it out?

The main character's name is Jamie.

He meets an old man and gets some supports from this old manains his support to find diamonds.

However, Jamie ibecomes aware of that this old man is deceivesing him and planning to steals of all the diamonds he found.

The novel contains these lines: ¶
¶
The old man shook his head.

I don't understand why "could" is used before "feel" in the second-to-last sentence.

It's no wonder thatBased on the flow of the story, it's obvious why Jamie gets angry with the old man from the flow of the story.

So I think the novel might as well says;should say that Jamie felt a slow rage boiling up within him.

I think the "could" in the line ireflects the subjunctive mood, like "I could eat a horse."

If "could" is subjunctive, why the subjective mood needs to beis it being used here?

Why isn't it "felt" used forinstead of "could feel"?

It would be a big help if you could check and let me know.

When I was reading a novel about a young man who looks for diamonds, I ruan into a difficult phrase for me to read.

Run is the present tense, ran is the past tense.

However, Jamie is aware of that this old man deceives him and steals of all of the diamonds he found.

So I think the novel might as well says; Jamie felt a slow rage boiling up within him.

If "could" is subjunctive, why does the subjective mood needs to be used here?

Why isn't "felt" used for "could feel"?

"could feel" in this context means that one wouldn't normally be able to feel this sensation. Another example would be "The room was so loud that you could hear a pin drop." This means someone wouldn't be able to hear a pin drop but the room was so quiet that it might as well be possible.