Can or something else?

Forums: English, Esl, Grammar, Good Teachers, Poor Native Speaker Intuition
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I don’t think I use “can” correctly. See:

[He can be here to ask us for something. (I think that he is likely here to…)
This can mean that… (This probably means that…)

Maybe these sentences are also wrong, but there is a far most problematic case where I would try to use “can” or some other auxiliary verb but maybe it wouldn’t be the right choice. It is not about some probability but about “how it is possible that”.

For e.g.: He can do so as a result of his assignment. (I mean that it is his assignment that makes it possible that he does so.)

So is there some simplier way to say the followings?
[After mentioning all the processes happening in the womb: ] These are the things which make it possible that one is born. Or: That is the way one is able to be born.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 3,719 • Replies: 93

[+3] - MontereyJack - 04/26/2013Apart from the fact that in virtually all situations people encounter it's impossible to attribute a specific value to a probability, like 50.1 percent or 89 percent, be aware that JTT has his own...

@KaJe,

report Sun 21 Apr, 2013 02:22 pm

I don’t think I use “can” correctly. See:

[He can be here to ask us for something. (I think that he is likely here to…)
This can mean that… (This probably means that…) I would rewrite it to indicate the possibility of his being here. Saying he "can" does not tell us that he probably will. To keep it simple, just say, "He will probably be here to ask us for something."

Maybe these sentences are also wrong, but there is a far most problematic case where I would try to use “can” or some other auxiliary verb but maybe it wouldn’t be the right choice. It is not about some probability but about “how it is possible that”.

For e.g.: He can do so as a result of his assignment. (I mean that it is his assignment that makes it possible that he does so.) This is correct.

So is there some simplier way to say the followings?
[After mentioning all the processes happening in the womb: ] These are the things which make it possible that one is born. Or: That is the way one is able to be born. I would suggest a rewrite. "These are the things which make it possible for one to be born."

1 Reply

@roger,

Thanks very much!

1 Reply

@KaJe,

You're welcome. Drop back any time.

0 Replies

@KaJe,

Quote:

1. [He can be here to ask us for something. (I think that he is likely here to…)
2. This can mean that… (This probably means that…)

First you have to understand what 'can/could' mean, KaJe. They both mean "something is possible [according to the speaker's mind]", but they don't really describe any particular range of possibility like 'might/may/should-likely-probably/must-almost certainly' do.

Let's take one example 'will'. This same range of certainty applies in the same fashion to all English lexical/semi-modal verbs - be, need to, want to, have to, go, eat, be able to, would, could, can, be about to, ... .

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Percents show the English modals/semi-modals used to describe a speaker's measure of certainty

100% will eg. He will go to London.

90-99% must/almost certainly eg. He almost certainly will go to London.

50.1% to 89% should/probably/likely eg. He likely/probably will go to London.

26-50% may eg. He may go to London.

1-25% might eg. He might go to London.

0% won't/will not eg. He will not go to London.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Again, 'can' doesn't describe any specific range of certainty. It only says that something is possible. 'can' is not possible here in your example for this specific reason. In English, we do not use 'can' to describe actual one time realities which is what is being done in your sentence.

We use 'can' to describe general/permanent realities, eg.

It can rain there this time of year.

You can find milk over there in the dairy section.

This type of flour can be used to make pasta.

When denoting 'possibility' we do NOT use 'can' for a one time situation as in your sentence.

For your number 1 sentence;

1. [He can be here to ask us for something. (I think that he is likely here to…)

'can' is NOT possible, for the reason described above. To get the same nuance, we would use, 'could' -

1a. He could be here to ask us for something.

This says the same thing as 'can' in the sense of "it is possible". Indeed we can paraphrase 1a. with,

It is possible [that] he is here to ask us for something.

If you wanted to say, (I think that he is likely here to…), which denotes an over 50% to about 89% certainty,

He likely/probably is here to ask us for something.

If you wanted to say a 35% certainty,

He may be here to ask us for something.

If you wanted to say a 15% certainty,

He might be here to ask us for something.

If you wanted to say a 95% certainty,

He must be here to ask us for something.

OR

It's almost certain he is here to ask us for something.

If you wanted to say a 100% certainty,

He is here to ask us for something.
=======================================

I'll stop here for now because you likely/probably [51-89%] have some things puzzling you and you may [26-50%] want to ask some questions.

1 Reply

Quote:

If you wanted to say a 95% certainty,

He must be here to ask us for something.

OR

It's almost certain he is here to ask us for something.

OR

He is almost certainly here to ask us for something.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Thank you! And if you’ve given me 26-50% to do so, then I really put some further questions.
But you’ve helped me very much, and as for the percents, it is 100%.
See, the truth is that I’m trying to write a scholarly essay. So the general case is that I express an opinion about things. So I have a firm conviction about these things, thinking that what I state is the truth. Taking an example /it is about mythology/ : "In the mentioned story/myth … symbolises … "
Sometimes I speak so, but however firm belief I have, it is an opinion even then. So in other cases I say: “I think that…,” “I guess that,” “In my view/opinion…,” but it seems to me that in English, auxiliary verbs very often used, so I wondered if there is a way to use some auxiliary verb instead of “I think” in such cases. (I use “I think” too often.)
So I don’t know if it is correct that “the hero’s name can refer to the idea that…” It is intended to mean “I think.”
Or: “the mention of the … can refer to the fact that…”
“The …s may be the representatives of divine powers.” But then “may” is absolutely wrong, as you’ve said. I would like to say, here too, “in my opinion, the …”
Or: “It may??/can??/must?? be in this way/for this reason that the hero says…”

2 Replies

@KaJe,

Quote:

So I don’t know if it is correct that “the hero’s name can refer to the idea that…” It is intended to mean “I think.”

A greater context would help me to determine if 'can' can be used in this particular situation, Kaje.

Let me give you some further examples of that convention I described to you that prohibits us from using [epistemic/level of certainty/possibility] 'can' in situations of a one time reality.

Imagine that there are four people present, you [KaJe], me [jtt], Roger and Mary. We have a bag with many different colored magnets in it. Each of us picks one colored magnet from the bag secretly, meaning none of us know which color any of us chose. We each hold one in our clenched fists.

Roger: KaJe might/could/may have a blue one.

KaJe: jtt could/may/might have a red one.

Mary: *Roger can have a green one.*

[* denotes ungrammatical]

The reason that Mary can't use 'can' here is because the meaning shifts from a epistemic/level of certainty modal meaning for 'can' to a deontic/social sense modal meaning of 'can', which means, "It's permissible for Roger to have a green one".

Quote:

“The …s may be the representatives of divine powers.” But then “may” is absolutely wrong, as you’ve said. I would like to say, here too, “in my opinion, the …”

Determining whether 'may' or 'can' or 'might' is "right" or "wrong" is a difficult thing to do. You must remember that these words always describe the FEELINGS/OPINIONS of each INDIVIDUAL SPEAKER so I, or anyone cannot really determine another speaker's feelings/opinions.

If I read or hear from someone,

“The …s may be the representatives of divine powers”,

I understand that it is the writer's/speaker's opinion that that person is 26 to 50% certain that the ___s are the representatives of divine powers.

It's not important whether I agree or not. What is important is that I understand what that speaker is stating.

Quote:

Or: “It may??/can??/must?? be in this way/for this reason that the hero says…”

The only way to decide which modal to use - 'may, must, should, might' is to determine how certain YOU FEEL about an issue and use the modal/semi-modal to convey that thought, following the guidelines I've given you.

Let me give you some examples of my opinions.

100% The sun is yellow. ['is' denotes 100% certainty on my part]

90-99% My mom is almost certainly/must be in bed now. [I know her habits and her lifestyle]

51-89% My dog should be/ probably/likely is full now. [I gave her enough food and there's still some in her bowl]

26-50% It may rain this evening and tomorrow morning.

1-25% I might win millions of dollars in the lottery some day.

No specific percent - I could win millions of dollars in the lottery some day.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Thank you! Your example is very good because I understand what you say, the only thing I was thinking about a bit that who could Mary be. Here are you, just like Roger, but I haven’t met her. However, she’s a woman, so it’s ok. The only problem is that I speak better than her in your example. I hope it isn’t so in reality, if she’s a real person, however, thanks that I speak correctly in your example of the magnets and bag.
But as for my imaginary bag, it contains one more thing I usually use in the mentioned situations. It is "seems to." But I haven’t even thought about "could." I wonder if it is similar, or if it is similar to "I think," having no specific percent. If it has no specific percent, I think it can be used much more probable situations than winning millions in the lottery. Though I wish you let it be so.
At any rate, "He could be here to ask us for something," the version you’ve suggested seems to be the same as what I had wanted to express.
So I wonder how it could sound: "the hero’s name could refer to the idea that…" "A greater context would help me to determine if 'can' can be used in this particular situation," you said. Well, though I don’t want to say exactly this sentence in reality, but ok, let he be called, say, Fern, so the sentence: "The hero’s name could refer to the idea that fern leaves have magical power." It’s not a real idea but suppose it’s a fact, and I’m sure that it’s a real connection. So in such situations, sometimes I say, "I think," or its mentioned equivalents, or "I’m convinced that…" (Though the latter one is also about 100%.)
So what about, similarly "the mention of the … could refer to the fact that…" and "… could be the representative of…" and "it could be in this way that he says that…"? In all these situations I would claim that it is my opinion, without considerable doubt, but I wouldn’t like to decide if it means "without any doubt" or it is just quite probable. But even if it doesn’t work, it’s a big result to know how not to use "can" or other words, some repetition of words is not the same kind of problem. So thanks once again!

1 Reply

@KaJe,

Quote:

the only thing I was thinking about a bit that who could Mary be.

Just a name to fill out the example, KaJe.

Quote:

But as for my imaginary bag, it contains one more thing I usually use in the mentioned situations. It is "seems to." But I haven’t even thought about "could." I wonder if it is similar, or if it is similar to "I think," having no specific percent. If it has no specific percent, I think it can be used much more probable situations than winning millions in the lottery. Though I wish you let it be so.

'could' is similar to 'I think'. And you're right, 'I think' doesn't relate any specific percent unless we strengthen it --> 'I really think ...' --> I really really really think ..." or if we, in speech, use intonation to strengthen it. We can also do the same for 'could' and 'can' ie. make them show stronger possibility by intonation or with added adverbs --> 'that really really could happen'.

We can also strengthen 'might and may' --> eg. 'he very well might/may come'

And 'likely/probably' --> very likely/probably.

Quote:

So I wonder how it could sound: "the hero’s name could refer to the idea that…" "A greater context would help me to determine if 'can' can be used in this particular situation," you said. Well, though I don’t want to say exactly this sentence in reality, but ok, let he be called, say, Fern, so the sentence: "The hero’s name could refer to the idea that fern leaves have magical power." It’s not a real idea but suppose it’s a fact, and I’m sure that it’s a real connection. So in such situations, sometimes I say, "I think," or its mentioned equivalents, or "I’m convinced that…" (Though the latter one is also about 100%.)
So what about, similarly "the mention of the … could refer to the fact that…" and "… could be the representative of…" and "it could be in this way that he says that…"? In all these situations I would claim that it is my opinion, without considerable doubt, but I wouldn’t like to decide if it means "without any doubt" or it is just quite probable. But even if it doesn’t work, it’s a big result to know how not to use "can" or other words, some repetition of words is not the same kind of problem. So thanks once again!

I don't understand much of this. If you want to explain further I'm willing to offer my suggestions.

1 Reply

Apart from the fact that in virtually all situations people encounter it's impossible to attribute a specific value to a probability, like 50.1 percent or 89 percent, be aware that JTT has his own idiosyncratic way of using modals which does not necessarily agree with the way others, probably the largest percentage of English speakers use them, or the way they will be defined in a dictionary, which also is based on the way most people use them. He is particularly far afield on "probably" or "probable". A typical definition is "without much doubt", which 50.1% does not provide.

3 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Thank you, and you might be right. But let me not decide that it is your "might" or JTT's "might," as for the measure of probability. I mean that every opinion is useful for me, because the more opinions are told me, the bigger is the possibility that they together drive me closer to the truth.

0 Replies

@JTT,

I hope you agree with me that I can’t judge either your and Monterey Jack’s opinion. You try to help me, and apparently he too tries to help me, but the point is that every help is important. But I think you’ve basically given me good fixed points. It would be good if “could” was also be such one. So let’s drop the above sentences, because in all of them, “could” is intended to express the same as in the following ones.
“The meaning of the story could be that…” “These things could mean that…” In these cases “could” is intended to mean “in my opinion.” Do you think it is right?

3 Replies

@KaJe,

If you say something "could be", it really only indicates a possibility. What you think is possible might very well be influenced by your own opinions.

I think you are wise not to select one person as an expert, to the exclusion of all others. Not only is no one always right, but as you indicate, the discussion itself can be helpful. Also, sometimes one gets the feeling that the entire group has failed to understand the question.

1 Reply

@KaJe,

Quote:

I hope you agree with me that I can’t judge either your and Monterey Jack’s opinion.

Sit tight, KaJe. I'll show you presently that Monterey Jack is pretty much dead wrong.

0 Replies

@KaJe,

Quote:

“The meaning of the story could be that…” “These things could mean that…” In these cases “could” is intended to mean “in my opinion.” Do you think it is right?

Yes, you are 100% right!!!

This is thee MOST important thing that you must understand about modal verbs [may, would, could, can, etc] and periphrastic/semi-modal verbs [probably, likely, etc].

All of these verbs contain the central feature “in my opinion". Modals/semi-modals ALWAYS are the opinion of the speaker. That's what these verbs are meant for in English - to allow speakers/writers to express their opinions.

More to come.

1 Reply

@roger,

Quote:

I think you are wise not to select one person as an expert, to the exclusion of all others.

Roger is right here and he is also spectacularly wrong. What he is suggesting is that most native speakers are good sources when it comes to how language works.

That is FALSE FALSE FALSE!

Quote:

... native speakers rarely have accurate perceptions of these differences [information about frequency of use of various structures]

When it comes to describing differences across registers, native-speaker intuition is even less reliable. ... most native speakers are not aware of the more pervasive differences in the use of core grammatical features.

Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English Biber et al page 8

Having most natives speakers help an ESL with English is like having a butcher do open heart surgery. This problem is further exacerbated die to the fact that for the last 300 years the only grammar that has been taught to these native speakers has been a limited collection of non-rules, prescriptions, made up nonsense that never had anything to do with how English actually works.

Quote:

April 17, 2009
50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice
By Geoffrey K. Pullum
April 16 is the 50th anniversary of the publication of a little book that is loved and admired throughout American academe. Celebrations, readings, and toasts are being held, and a commemorative edition has been released.

I won't be celebrating.

The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its enormous influence has not improved American students' grasp of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it.

The authors won't be hurt by these critical remarks. They are long dead. William Strunk was a professor of English at Cornell about a hundred years ago, and E.B. White, later the much-admired author of Charlotte's Web, took English with him in 1919, purchasing as a required text the first edition, which Strunk had published privately. After Strunk's death, White published a New Yorker article reminiscing about him and was asked by Macmillan to revise and expand Elements for commercial publication. It took off like a rocket (in 1959) and has sold millions.

This was most unfortunate for the field of English grammar, because both authors were grammatical incompetents. Strunk had very little analytical understanding of syntax, White even less. Certainly White was a fine writer, but he was not qualified as a grammarian. Despite the post-1957 explosion of theoretical linguistics, Elements settled in as the primary vehicle through which grammar was taught to college students and presented to the general public, and the subject was stuck in the doldrums for the rest of the 20th century.

http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497

Geoffrey K. Pullum is one of the authors of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language

Quote:

Not only is no one always right, but as you indicate, the discussion itself can be helpful.

The discussions can be helpful, Roger. They are especially helpful when someone advances an old canard/prescription because, sadly, these have been taught to ESLs too.

Quote:

Also, sometimes one gets the feeling that the entire group has failed to understand the question.

This is the "butcher doing open heart surgery" problem, Rog. Most native speakers can't see the wider implications. Most native speakers are limited by the few silly "rules" y'all learned in school.

Your focus is that of a butcher, giving advice to medical students. Without the knowledge that a butcher actually has about anatomy.

Your best advice comes when you use your native intuition, but as I've pointed out, that most certainly has its narrow limits. Without that ability to view things from a wider perspective, you can actually do more damage than good.

Nowhere is this more evident than when you come to something as complicated as the modal/semi-modal verbs.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Apart from the fact that in virtually all situations people encounter it's impossible to attribute a specific value to a probability, like 50.1 percent or 89 percent,

I'm not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested, that in each and every situation it's possible to attribute a specific value to 'probably/likely/should'. All I have done is describe the COMPLETE range of certainty that 'probably/likely/ should' cover.

I've done the same with the other modal/semi-modal verbs [SM], ie. describe the complete range they cover.

I've explained this to Monterey Jack a number of times but he has never seemed to understand.

Quote:

be aware that JTT has his own idiosyncratic way of using modals which does not necessarily agree with the way others, probably the largest percentage of English speakers use them

Monterey Jack is misleading everyone here.

His entire complaint revolved around his idea [mistaken as it is] that 'probably/likely/should' was only used to describe higher percentages, somewhere in the 75% plus range, if I remember correctly.

The group 'probably/likely/should' covers that portion of the range of certainty above 50% to roughly 89 or even 95%.

Above 50% describes 'probable' - something is more likely to happen than not.

And 'probable' is part of the group that The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language calls (a) Lexical Modals and 'probably' and 'likely' are included in that group.

Of course there are other Lexical Modals that match the full range of certainty I've described that I'll introduce later. My point now is to clearly illustrate that how I've described these modals/semi-modals, is pretty much how language science describes them.

Monterey Jack has entered this thread to cast doubt without offering anything to help clear things up.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MJ, you haven't even provided any sources for your "ideas", nor have you discussed your ideas to illustrate they have any veracity.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

1 Reply

Actually I did. Three different dictionaries. One of the UN's premier scientific bodies, the IPCC, any of whose Assessment Reports for Policymakers include their rendition of mathematical probabilities into English for policymakers whose grasp of statistics is usually sketchy at best. Plus the way I as a native speaker use it, and the way it was used in the topic by other native speakers, and what it meant to them. And there certainly was discussion of it. Are you blanking again?

1 Reply

Can or something else?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know