Modal verb referring to possibility

Hi Bubu

The sentence should read 'he could have stolen the car' there's no situation I can think of where it would be correct to use 'had' in that sentence.

Depending on context the sentence could mean either:
Context 1: he had the opportunity to steal the car but didn't take it
Context 2: that the car was stolen and he is possibly the person who stole it.

Could have, might have, may have are fairly congruous if referring to the whether he stole the car (context 2)

As far as having the opportunity to steal the car (context 1) 'could have' is the most common usage, although some (particularly UK) can get a with 'he might have' but it's a little colloquial and tends to mean 'he should have'. 'May have' would never be used in context 2.

So sorry! 'I could had' was just a typo. I should have checked before sending the question. Thank you for the correction.

I respectfully disagree, Hingehead. Each of those modal verbs covers a certain area of level of certainty.

'might' is the weakest epistemic modal. For pedagogical purposes in helping ESLs to get a grasp of modal epistemic meaning,


S [lexical verb] 100%

S almost certainly/must - 90-99%

S likely/probably/[should] - 51 to 89%

S may - 26 to 50% certainty

S might - 1 to 25% certainty

[S = subject]

'could' [and 'can'] just says "it is/was possible"

Context 1: he had the opportunity to steal the car but didn't take it
Context 2: that the car was stolen and he is possibly the person who stole it.



I'm not sure that 'could' is the most commonly used modal for this situation. I'd say that it depends on how much information the speaker has or how forceful the speaker wants to appear.



It only holds that meaning if that is the intended meaning. Otherwise, it can be pure modal speculation.

[/quote]'May have' would never be used in context 2.[/quote]

I don't understand this at all.

He may have stolen the car.

Just shoot him.
could have is probable cause. He probably works for a mexican drug cartel anyway.

When I read that post by JTT (whom I deeply detest) I felt a taste of sesquipedalian hell.

If he was a cruciverbalist It might legitamise the propensity to be a sesquipedalian

And you suggest that you were an English teacher, C.

No, not the same meaning as I explained in Post: # 4,419,648



Never. Each one has their own meaning. Of course each can be strengthened or weakened by intonation -->

he may have ...

he miiiiight/maaaaay have ...

or by adverbs

He might/may/could well have ...

He certainly/definitely/absolutely could have ...