Can or something else?

@MontereyJack,

Well, I’m not aware of anything going on here before my coming here. I didn’t even think that I would happen to find myself in the middle of such a debate. I’m far away to being able to add anything to it. It would be good to see who is right and who is less right in a question. But I think that at first I need to understand some basic things. Roger and Jack, please tell me what you think about my sentence about which JTT has told me his opinion. Do you agree that when I write “The meaning of the story could be that…” or “These things could mean that…” than it is a general usage of “could,” and it expresses “in my opinion,” no matter if it is a strange opinion or not, but that is what I claim without any considerable doubt. Is it correct? It would be a great result to find a really fix point in this debate, no matter how it’ll continue between you.

0 Replies

Quote:

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.

And you believe that organizations special purpose language such as jargon describes how the vast majority of native speakers actually use language? You're not near as bright as I've heretofore given you credit, MJ.

Next you're going to try to tell us that L'Academie d' Francais determines how the French people use their language or that English prescriptivists determine how we use our language.

Quote:

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.

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

There was you, MJ, stridently ignoring the fact that 'probably/likely/should' hold the same meaning as 'probable' - there is a greater chance than there is a lesser chance that something will occur.

Infra was there for a short time but he soon saw the error of his ways.

Have you fully disclosed all the sources that were brought up in that discussion of 'probably/likely/should'? Are you conveniently forgetting some vitally important sources that were part of the discussion?

0 Replies

@JTT,

Then I think I'm got something I'd been searching for. It is "could." I'm just wondering why I hadn't known that usage of this word at all. I looked into my (Hungarian) language book, and only two basic usage of "could" is mentioned. 1. It's the past version of "can," 2. it's the conditional version of "can." But when I claim, state something, expressing my opinion, it is neither a past or a conditional thing. When I say, "the bag we found could be Joe's," and I think then it too is right, meaning that there are several signs (the contents of the bag or anything else) which make me think rightly that it is Joe's bag, so I could (this could is really conditional could) also say, "I think the bag is Joe's," or "the bag seems to be Joe's," or "in my opinion, the bag is Joe's", than it is a sheer declaration of my opinion. You know many language books, so you can tell me if it is general that only the two mentioned meaning of "could" (conditional and past) is written.

1 Reply

@KaJe,

Quote:

Then I think I'm got something I'd been searching for. It is "could." I'm just wondering why I hadn't known that usage of this word at all. I looked into my (Hungarian) language book, and only two basic usage of "could" is mentioned. 1. It's the past version of "can," 2. it's the conditional version of "can."

Quote:

You know many language books, so you can tell me if it is general that only the two mentioned meaning of "could" (conditional and past) is written.

I've moved this second quote from the end of your post to the beginning, KaJe, as they both discuss the same thing.

That is one of the falsehoods that has been spread for a long time, KaJe. In modern English, modal verbs, like 'can' and 'could' are tenseless auxiliary verbs that illustrate speaker emotion or opinion. Both can and could have many more meanings than those two false ones you provided from your Hungarian language book.

Traditional paradigm: Present tense on the left and past tense on the right

can - could
may - might
will - would
shall - should

It is very easy to disprove that modals have tense because no one can make a sentence showing that.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let's look at a few examples:

[asterisk *, denotes ungrammatical for the situation. The B sentence of each modal pair as a past tense example of the A sentence]

1A. Peter: I can climb that tree. [Peter climbs the tree]

2A. Peter: *I could climb the tree.*

1B. Jon: I may climb the tree. [Jon climbs the tree]

2B. Jon: *I might climb the tree.*

3A.Mary: I will climb the tree. [Mary climbs the tree]

3B. Mary: *I would climb the tree.*

4A. Joe: I shall climb the tree. [Joe climbs the tree]

4B. Joe: *I should climb the tree.*

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

Also, all these modals can be used with past, present and future meanings.

If you would like examples, I will/would be more than willing to provide them // I can/could provide them// I shall [should??] provide them.

Quote:

2. it's the conditional version of "can."

That's also false. 'could' is more tentative, but both 'can' and 'could' are used in conditional situations.

If I go with you, can I borrow some money?

If I go with you, could I borrow some money?

Quote:

But when I claim, state something, expressing my opinion, it is neither a past or a conditional thing.

You are 100% correct, KaJe. Just from your natural use/knowledge of how English uses these verbs you have been able to determine more than many native speakers. I congratulate you on your focused thinking.

Quote:

When I say, "the bag we found could be Joe's," and I think then it too is right, meaning that there are several signs (the contents of the bag or anything else) which make me think rightly that it is Joe's bag, so I could (this could is really conditional could) also say, "I think the bag is Joe's," or "the bag seems to be Joe's," or "in my opinion, the bag is Joe's", [than] then it is a sheer declaration of my opinion.

I addressed this in one of my previous posts. In addition to the ACTUAL modal verbs, [listed above as the historical present and past tenses], which English speakers use to express their social [deontic] opinions and their level of certainty [epistemic] opinions, English also has many lexical modals.

You've given some examples above, KaJe;

I think/seems/in my opinion.

Let me now give you some more, which you are almost certainly already aware of.

['almost certainly' states my opinion [it's a synonym of 'must'] that "I 90 to 99% think/believe that you already know of these other lexical modals".

Quote:

Adjectives: like possible, necessary, likely, probable, bound, supposed
Adverbs: like perhaps, possibly, necessarily, probably, certainly, surely
Verbs: like insist, permit, require
Nouns: like possibility, necessity, permission, and similar derivatives

Paraphrased from: The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language pg 173

1 Reply

@JTT,

Well, thanks very much, it's a good feeling to think that I’m not so bad in English, however, if the conditional and past version is a false idea, and I can’t still believe it isn’t, I’m still very bad in English, so then I gain less with that certain meaning of “could” than what I lose. Because, don’t you get angry with me, but what you say is so strange for me that I feel you’re just kidding. Okay, there is another possibility: I misunderstand you.
Let’s take your example. (Sorry, I don’t know how to cut some text as quotation, as you too do.)
Well, I myself would have said instead of “I could climb the tree”: "I was able to climb the tree.” Or “I managed to/succeeded to…”
But see: One says, “I like to live here. I like climbing trees, and there are so many trees here. So I can climb a tree if I think so.” And later he remembers: “Life was so good then. There were many trees there, so I could climb a tree if I liked." If it is correct, it’s “can” in past.
As for Jon: wait a minute, it’s clear that Jon won’t say after climbing the tree: “I might climb the tree” because he knows he does so, unless just wakening there after a hard drunkenness, and thinking about how he’s got there. Yes, I think then it must be a past version of “may.” But I can also imagine a situation when Jon is talking about somebody else. He and others are crossing a forest and he says, “Let’s watch Mary, not to lose sight of her. She’s able to do strange things. She may climb a tree, and we won’t find her.” And after really not finding her, he says, “She might climb a tree.” I think it is the equivalent of the previous “can,” although it’s true that when Mary is really lost, it is most probable that it happened because she climbed a tree than the possibility issued previously, when she was there yet.
So it still seems to me that modals have tense. It would be strange indeed if (3.B) Mary said, “I would climb the tree.” But when somebody says, “I will climb the tree,” later it is recalled as “then she said that she would climb the tree.” Or an “I can climb the tree” is recalled as “then he said he could climb the tree,” just like “I shall…” is as “then he said that he should.” So then “might” is the past version of “may,” etc., or not?

4 Replies

@KaJe,

KaJe, would you refine this to the point where you are asking one question? The . . . that you use indicates a missing thought or word, and is called an ellipsis. I do not believe this is one of the times it is helpful.

2 Replies

JTT, we are talking about the MEANING of words in common usage, not their grammatical role. And the MEANING of "probably" and "likely" for that matter is NOT "50.1 % and above". As far as I can tell, you pulled that number out of hat, or rather from another silly post by OmSigDavid". As I remember, at one point yhou quoted from the Cambridge Grammar and your quote didn't use that figure, or any figure. There was a large leap of logic from it to you. You're engaging in what has been called spurious precision--attempting to put a precise value, down to tenths of a percentage point, on something which by its nature isn't that precise, and can't be, and you've picked the wrong points.

The IPCC and other scientific bodies who do in fact deal with precise staqtistical values are then faced with the task of translating something which does in fact have a precise value, into natural language so it will be meaningful to ordinary speakers (which of course they are as well). And "probvably" in such uses is NOT 50.1 and abopve, but much higher. They do njot engage in spurious precision, as you do. You try to mathematicise something and fail.

As usual you come up with the quote about native speakers not understanding language(self-serving because it implies you of course do, so no one who speaks a language can comment on it except you). It is however native speakers who determine what something means, by consensus on how words are used. And you are woefully wrong on the consensus here.

Try a thought experiment. You maintain something with a probability (ususally undetermable in actual experience ) of 5o.1 % will "probably" happen, but something with a probability of 49.9% will "probably" not happ[en. If we have a coin we know from a million trials (which we migh need to actually determine this, since even a thousand trials wouldn't suffice) has arobability of turning up 50.1 heads, and another coin which will turn up 49.9% heads, and we have a hundred trials--far above what we normally get in real life, you'd say one coin will probably turn uyp heads and the other will proabably turn up tails. Yet the actual modal value in a hundred trials for each coin is 50 heads and fifty tails (since you can't toss a coin and get a tenth of a head). Which is precisely the same value as a truly random coin in a hundred trials. To use "probably" as you do it, is spurious precision, yields an absurd result, and goes against the way it's commonly used, which demands a much higher proability.

0 Replies

JTT, Take a real world example. We know that about 52% of births are boys. Would you say to every pregnant woman you encounter, "you're probably going to have a boy"? Pretty much everyone consideers in the absence of prenatal tests that it's a tossup and would never consider using that as a valid use of the word. But not, of course, you, who knows how language works. Sure you do. <sarcasm alert>

0 Replies

@roger,

If you suggest avoiding the frequent usage of “…” generally, I’ll keep it in view, although I used it only when I thought it was clear that the continuation was the same as in the previous sentence, so it was meant to be an abridgement, or when the continuation could be anything. But I admit there can(could?) be situations where the first part of the sentence also changes depending on the continuation.
I’m not sure, but if you suggest repairing a few sentences which are not really clear, I don’t know which sentence it is. There are many ones with “…”, indeed, but I take the recent few ones.
“The meaning of the story could be that…” Repairing: The meaning of the symbolical story about the fish and the bird /a non-existing story/ is that winter is always followed by spring. (I.e. that is my opinion, while others say the story is about social development or about Trojan war or about anything else.)
"These things could mean that…" Repairing: These things could mean that Peter don’t want to come. (It’s a conclusion.)
And: “I was able to climb the tree. Or I managed to/succeeded to…” Repairing: I managed to/succeeded to climb the tree.

1 Reply

@KaJe,

Well, as they say, . . . .

0 Replies

@roger,

Quote:

KaJe, would you refine this to the point where you are asking one question?

That won't help you in the least, Roger.

Quote:

The . . . that you use indicates a missing thought or word, and is called an ellipsis. I do not believe this is one of the times it is helpful.

If you're not able to follow, you're certainly not able to lead, so best that you take a seat and not confuse things farther.

Even after KaJe explained it to you in plain English, you still seem to be lost.

All you need do is read behind the two ...s to grasp the "missing thought or word".

1 Reply

@JTT,

Then, answer the plain question.

1 Reply

@roger,

Quote:

Then, answer the plain question.

I've been doing that. Do you think it helpful to offer advice on things you know little about?

Roger:

Quote:

I would rewrite it to indicate the possibility of his being here.

'can' does "indicate the possibility of his being here"! If you had thought for a little you would have realized that. There are reasons that ENLs do not use 'can' in such situations. It is very natural that ESLs would think 'can' is possible in these situations; it's just not grammatically or semantically possible because of the meaning and the NUANCE that 'can' holds.

Saying he "can" does not tell us that he probably will.

KaJe didn't want to know about 'probably will'. He asked about 'can'.

To keep it simple, just say, "He will probably be here to ask us for something."

That's not simple, Roger. It's wrong, it's bad advice. Each and every piece of the advice you offered was completely bogus. Is this what you mean by "answer the plain question"?

When you think you often come up with decent advice, Roger.

0 Replies

@KaJe,

Quote:

(Sorry, I don’t know how to cut some text as quotation, as you too do.)

I'll find a link that explains this so that you can learn how to do this, KaJe.

0 Replies

@KaJe,

Quote:

Because, don’t you get angry with me, but what you say is so strange for me that I feel you’re just kidding. Okay, there is another possibility: I misunderstand you.

I'm an English teacher, KaJe, with a quarter century of teaching and studying the English language under my belt. The only teachers who get angry are those that are wedded to the old nonsensical prescriptions.

I understand when you say what I've said is so strange to you. We all tend to want to believe the things we have been taught.

You could even find many dictionary entries suggesting that modal verbs do have tense. And I urge you to do so as this will only help me show you that they are wrong.

Quote:

Let’s take your example.

Well, I myself would have said instead of “I could climb the tree”: "I was able to climb the tree.” Or “I managed to/succeeded to…”

ENLs [English native speakers] do this too for a very good reason. 'could' is not the past tense of 'can'.

Bill: Watch me jump 10 feet. [Bill jumps 10 feet] I jumped ten feet.

Bill: I can jump 10 feet. [Bill jumps 10 feet] *See, I could jump ten feet.*

(* ....* denotes ungrammatical for the situation)

===========================

I was going to reply to your examples and your ideas on them found below, KaJe, but first we have to do some other things. I can see that you have some holes in your understanding of modals that have come about through no fault of your own. It is what you have been taught.

Please stay with me on this because I firmly believe that I am about to open for you a world of understanding on English that you heretofore havent had.

I am going to do it in a new posting.

Quote:

As for Jon: wait a minute, it’s clear that Jon won’t say after climbing the tree: “I might climb the tree” because he knows he does so, unless just wakening there after a hard drunkenness, and thinking about how he’s got there. Yes, I think then it must be a past version of “may.”

Quote:

But I can also imagine a situation when Jon is talking about somebody else. He and others are crossing a forest and he says, “Let’s watch Mary, not to lose sight of her. She’s able to do strange things. She may climb a tree, and we won’t find her.” And after really not finding her, he says, “She might climb a tree.” I think it is the equivalent of the previous “can,” although it’s true that when Mary is really lost, it is most probable that it happened because she climbed a tree than the possibility issued previously, when she was there yet.

But see: One says, “I like to live here. I like climbing trees, and there are so many trees here. So I can climb a tree if I think so.” And later he remembers: “Life was so good then. There were many trees there, so I could climb a tree if I liked." If it is correct, it’s “can” in past.[/quote]

1 Reply

@JTT,

Do you ask me to stay with you? Hey, it should be just the other way round, asking you for keeping explaining things. But after writing so much with such an energy, I can't ask anything which is above your time and energy. So it's a good surprise that it is from his free will, and of course I will listen to you because it is interesting, and after all I would like to be better and better in English.

1 Reply

JTT says:

Quote:

Bill: I can jump 10 feet. [Bill jumps 10 feet] *See, I could jump ten feet.*

(* ....* denotes ungrammatical for the situation)

Not ungrammatical at all. It's referring to a past situation. Compare with Bill, who comes up lame todayfrom his 10 foot jump yesterday, "I could jump ten feet, but today I can't". Past.

3 Replies

@MontereyJack,

jtt wrote:

Quote:

Bill: I can jump 10 feet. [Bill jumps 10 feet] *See, I could jump ten feet.*

(* ....* denotes ungrammatical for the situation)

Quote:

Monterey Jack replied:
Quote:
Not ungrammatical at all. It's referring to a past situation.

Quote:
Compare with Bill, who comes up lame todayfrom his 10 foot jump yesterday, "I could jump ten feet, but today I can't". Past.

We'll leave this for the moment for Roger, Contrex, McTag, Setanta, ... to address. And for you to reconsider your position, MJ.

0 Replies

@KaJe,

Quote:

Do you ask me to stay with you? Hey, it should be just the other way round, asking you [for] to keep [ing] explaining things. But after writing so much with such an energy, I can't ask anything which is above your time and energy. So it's a good surprise that it is from your free will, and of course I will listen to you because it is interesting, and after all I would like to be better and better in English.

Okay, here we go, KaJe.

I'm going to give you some examples and I am going to be the one to determine your level of certainty. I would like you to reply as appropriate considering that I am describing your [Kaje's] level of certainty - ie. how certain you are about these events.

These are all imaginary situations and the people are also imaginary. Assume that you know all these imaginary people.

Example:

1. KaJe, you are 10% certain that John is going to go to Moscow this Saturday.

2. You [KaJe] are 95% certain that Mary likes pizza.

3. You are 40% certain that Albert lives in Mexico City.

4. You are 75% certain that Gene doesn't work for Toyota.

5. You think it's possible that Martha is at home right now.

6. You are 23% certain that Nancy ate spaghetti for lunch.

7. You are 65% certain that Joan used to be married to Jack.

8. You are 20% certain that Frank died in 1975.

9. You are 10% certain that Jillian wanted to go with everyone to the beach.

10. You are 45% certain that Greg bought wine for the party.

1 Reply

OK, I've reconsidered my position, and on reconsideration I realize it was correct.

1 Reply

Can or something else?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know