Can or something else?

@JTT,

Well, I think you are expecting answers in which I should express possibility simply by modals. However, many other things were also mentioned, in this topic, too, so I tried to write (at least) two sentences in every required situation. The first one is the one I would say normally (it’s the way how it is most natural for me), without any special requirement, and in the other I tried to say something similar simply by a modal. Besides, writing the second sentences, I’ve also used your guideline about percents, however it doesn’t means rejecting contrary opinions, like Monterey Jack’s one. I guess English has many spoken versions and you may prefer different versions. But now I remain at your English, because it may be very much or lesser general, but it’s much more general than my English which is spoken only by me. However, I think the first sentences are better, because they’re based on my total experience, on the whole of my observations.

/1. KaJe, you are 10% certain that John is going to go to Moscow this Saturday./
a)It may happen that John will go to Moscow on Saturday.
b)It may happen that John will go to Moscow on Saturday.

/2. You [KaJe] are 95% certain that Mary likes pizza./
a)It’s very likely that Mary likes pizza. OR: I think Mary likes pizza.
b)Mary must like pizza.

/3. You are 40% certain that Albert lives in Mexico City./
a)It is possible that Albert lives in Mexico City.
b)Albert may live in Mexico City.

/4. You are 75% certain that Gene doesn't work for Toyota./
a)It’s not probable that Gene works for Toyota. OR: I don’t really think that Gene works for T.
b) [Well, “should”/”shouldn’t” don’t seem to be proper now, so no answer of that kind.]

/5. You think it's possible that Martha is at home right now./
a)Martha may at home now.
b)Martha may at home now.

/6. You are 23% certain that Nancy ate spaghetti for lunch./
a)It might be that Nancy ate spaghetti for lunch.
b)Nancy might have eaten spaghetti for lunch.

/7. You are 65% certain that Joan used to be married to Jack./
a)It’s possible that Joan used to be married to Jack.
b)[no answer with modal]

/8. You are 20% certain that Frank died in 1975./
a)Frank might have died in 1975.
b)Frank might have died in 1975.

/9. You are 10% certain that Jillian wanted to go with everyone to the beach./
a)It’s not possible that Jillan wants to go with everyone to the beach. OR: It’d doubtful that…
b)Jillian might not want to go with everyone to the beach.

/10. You are 45% certain that Greg bought wine for the party./
a)It may be that Greg bought wine for the party.
b)Greg may have bought wine for the party.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

“Bill: I can jump 10 feet. [Bill jumps 10 feet] *See, I could jump ten feet.*” /by JTT/
I too think it was wrongly criticized by you. It was clear for me that it was the same attempt of jump which both the preliminary “can” and the “could” were directed to. Therefore it was just twisting JTT’s words, and it’s clear for you too.
However, the other day I too had many doubts about JTT’s examples where Peter, Mary, Jon and Joe jump the tree, and I drafted my opinion as a denial, but with no intention of twisting his words but because with my present (though not too high) English knowledge, I couldn’t really believe he was really right. But if you don’t deny those examples of JTT, then it makes me think that he was still right then.

2 Replies

@KaJe,

jtt wrote:

Quote:

“Bill: I can jump 10 feet. [Bill jumps 10 feet] *See, I could jump ten feet.*” /by JTT/

HOW TO USE THE A2K QUOTE FEATURE

After you hit REPLY, KaJe, you will see either of the following [below, in quotes] at the top of the REPLY box. If it says the latter, "Close BBCode Editor" then click on it to "Open BBCode Editor".

Quote:

Open BBCode Editor/Close BBCode Editor

A bunch of smaller boxes will appear.

From the left:

B = bold
i= italics
u = underline

The fourth one from the left is the "Quote" box. Click and hold while you run your cursor over the part you want to quote; the same procedure you use to Copy & Paste. The click on "Quote" and what you put in blue will be encapsulated by the Quote BBCode. I just did it to "Open BBCode Editor/Close BBCode Editor" above this paragraph.

0 Replies

@KaJe,

The statements both refer to the same jump, KaJe, but the crucial difference is that one was made BEFORE the jump, and the second was made AFTER and refers tlo an action undertaken in the past and a statement made in the past before that action, which that action, now past, has validated. You will also note JTT sets off the second sentence with asterisks, by which he means it's ungrammatical, which it clearly is not. It's a perfectly ordinary sentence which any normal speaker of English would realize is talking about something in the past. Any normal speaker of English in the billion or so which doesn't include JTT, at least.

0 Replies

@KaJe,

/1. KaJe, you are 10% certain that John is going to go to Moscow this Saturday./
a)It may happen that John will go to Moscow on Saturday. YES

b)It may happen that John will go to Moscow on Saturday. YES

"will' is a speaker's expression of 100% certainty. In English modals modify those 100% expressions of certainty. For 1, doing it in the modal fashion I requested of you, there are at least three possibilities;

(b1) John may go to Moscow on Saturday.
(b2) John may be going to go to Moscow on Saturday.
(b3) John may be going to Moscow on Saturday.

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

a)It’s very likely that Mary likes pizza. OR:

95% is getting to a level that is very certain. The epistemic equivalent of modal 'must', which you have used in (b) is the semi-modal, "almost certain/almost certainly"

a) I think Mary likes pizza.

"I think" is like 'could'. It doesn't describe any specific range of certainty. In speech, you can/you could make an "I think" sound like a 'might' - I thiiiiiiiiink or a 'may' - I thiiiink or a 'probably/likely/should' - I thiiink or a 'must/almost certainly' - I THINK.

We can/We could do the same thing in speech with "could", ie. make it sound highly doubtful, down in the 'might' range - He cooooooould ... OR we can bring it up thru the may range to the probably/likely range to the must/almost certainly range all with intonational changes.

b)Mary must like pizza.

Excellent. OR Mary almost certainly likes pizza.

Though 'must' and 'almost certainly' hold the same epistemic/level of certainty meanings 90-99% certain, they cannot be used in all the same situations. This caveat also applies to 'probably/likely/should', ie. they all hold the same epistemic/level of certainty meanings - 50.1 to89% certain, but they cannot be used in all the same situations. You seemed to recognize this in #4, below where you correctly rejected 'should' as a possible in 4. b) More there.

/3. You are 40% certain that Albert lives in Mexico City./
a)It is possible that Albert lives in Mexico City.

All these modals that I'm trying to help you become proficient in using say "It's possible", but again, possible doesn't express a range.

'may' expresses the range of 26-50%, as do two other very commonly used 'may' synonyms; perhaps/maybe.

Maybe Albert lives in Mexico City.
Perhaps Albert lives in Mexico City.

b)Albert may live in Mexico City. YES

/4. You are 75% certain that Gene doesn't work for Toyota./
a)It’s not probable that Gene works for Toyota. YES

OR:

I don’t really think that Gene works for Toyota. YES

Gene probably doesn't work for Toyota. OR Gene likely doesn't work for Toyota.

b) [Well, “should”/”shouldn’t” doesn’t seem to be proper now, so no answer of that kind.]

That's right. 'should' isn't possible here with an epistemic meaning. It's only possible to understand it with a deontic/social meaning - "Gene shouldn't work for Toyota" = it's not a good/desirable thing to do OR My advice is that Gene not work for Toyota.

/5. You think it's possible that Martha is at home right now./
a)Martha may at home now.
b)Martha may at home now.

"Martha is at home right now" = The speaker is 100% sure, which is described by 'IS', in bold. All modals need a lexical verb to modify. Try a) and b) again.

/6. You are 23% certain that Nancy ate spaghetti for lunch./
a)It might be that Nancy ate spaghetti for lunch. YES
b)Nancy might have eaten spaghetti for lunch. YES

/7. You are 65% certain that Joan used to be married to Jack./
a)It’s possible that Joan used to be married to Jack.

Again, "possible" doesn't describe a range.

b)[no answer with modal]

Try the semi-modals that describe that range.

/8. You are 20% certain that Frank died in 1975./
a)Frank might have died in 1975. YES
b)Frank might have died in 1975. YES

/9. You are 10% certain that Jillian wanted to go with everyone to the beach./
a)It’s not possible that Jillan wants to go with everyone to the beach.

This holds quite a different meaning. "not possible" says 0% chance. Here the intent is to state a tiny possibility in a positive manner.

OR: It’d doubtful that…

Could you try this again with no contraction?

b)Jillian might not want to go with everyone to the beach.

Again, the intent is positive, not negative. And note that it is "wantED, not want.

/10. You are 45% certain that Greg bought wine for the party./
a)It may be that Greg bought wine for the party. YES
b)Greg may have bought wine for the party. YES

0 Replies

@KaJe,

Quote:

/5. You think it's possible that Martha is at home right now./
a)Martha may at home now.
b)Martha may at home now.

1) Martha could be at home right now.

2) *Martha can be at home right now.*

[* denotes ungrammatical for this epistemic situation ]

1 Reply

@JTT,

Well, you’ve also touched upon speech. But my problem is just that many things which works in speech doesn’t work in writing. And I write.

/7. You are 65% certain that Joan used to be married to Jack./
Try the semi-modals that describe that range.
Joan used to be likely/probably to married to Jack. (But I’m not sure in the place of likely/probably here.)

/9. You are 10% certain that Jillian wanted to go with everyone to the beach./ (JTT)
a)It’s not possible that Jillan wants to go with everyone to the beach. (Me)
This holds quite a different meaning. "not possible" says 0% chance. Here the intent is to state a tiny possibility in a positive manner. (JTT)
Sorry I often confuse “possible” and “probable,” I wanted to say, “It’s not probable that Jillian…”

“It’d doubtful that” – I made a mistype. Correction: It’s doubtful that Jillian wanted to go with everyone to the beach.

1 Reply

@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.”
Or: “the mention of the … can refer to the fact that…”

You haven't provided enough context for me to be sure, but it seems like 'can' is possible/correct/grammatical in both instances. If you are talking about a generality, something that is the general case/situation, then 'can' is okay.

“the hero’s name can refer to the idea that -----------

“the mention of the … can refer to the fact that ---------

Why don't you finish these and I'll better be able to offer specific advice. Remember, 'can' and 'could' both state the same thing, ie. "it's possible that ..."

The difference between them other than what I've told you before and described again above, is that we use 'could' to be more polite/more deferential/it makes one's ideas seem less "I know it all!!!"

'can' has a closer connection to reality than 'could', which for English, makes these greater reality modals less polite/less deferential/less formal/slightly more aggressive.

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 …”

I don't recall saying that 'may' is wrong, because it isn't. 'might/may/probably-likely' all say "in my opinion, but they also tell listeners how strong the opinion is by letting listeners know where in the range of certainty our "opinion" lies.

Quote:

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

Look again at the chart, think of the chart and the placement of these modals.

It may = my opinion is 26-50% that X is in this way/that this is the reason the hero says ...

It must = my opinion is 90-99% that X is in this way/that this is the reason the hero says ...

It can = it's possible that ... [but 'can' is limited to those situations I described before.

Try some sentences yourself using all these modals, KaJe.

1 Reply

@KaJe,

Quote:

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?

These examples that you have given, KaJe, are not examples of past time. They are examples of Reported Speech. I'd like you to go to another thread where I have explained this.

Post: # 5,313,369

http://able2know.org/topic/213317-1

7th post down from the start

1 Reply

@KaJe,

Quote:

Well, you’ve also touched upon speech. But my problem is just that many things which works in speech doesn’t work in writing. And I write.

I understand but rest assured that everything I'm giving you can be used in writing.

Quote:

/7. You are 65% certain that Joan used to be married to Jack./
Try the semi-modals that describe that range.
Joan used to be likely/probably to married to Jack. (But I’m not sure in the place of likely/probably here.)

Though it's possible to squeeze the semi-modals in with "used to", more likely we'd just,

Joan likely/probably was to married to Jack.

Quote:

/9. You are 10% certain that Jillian wanted to go with everyone to the beach./ (JTT)
a)It’s not possible that Jillan wants to go with everyone to the beach. (Me)

This holds quite a different meaning. "not possible" says 0% chance. Here the intent is to state a tiny possibility in a positive manner. (JTT)

Sorry I often confuse “possible” and “probable,” I wanted to say, “It’s not probable that Jillian…”

“It’s not probable that Jillian…” still holds a negative connotation.

We want a positive one - Jillian might have wanted to go with everyone to the beach.

And getting down to 10% is kind of getting close to 'must/almost certainly'.

If you wanted to state this with a negative viewpoint - Jillian almost certainly didn't want to go to the beach.

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

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

“the hero’s name can refer to the idea that -----------
“the mention of the … can refer to the fact that ---------
Why don't you finish these and I'll better be able to offer specific advice.

You had asked me to finish the “hero’s name” sentence earlier too, though it was after suggesting “could,” and then I did finish it. Though this topic is quite large and it’s not a wonder that it got lost, so one more time:

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.

Well, as for the "the mention of the” sentence I’m really owe you it, so: When Tom wears hat he always talks about serious things. He’s called me just now and said he would come here soon, but only after going home for his hat. The mention of the hat would refer to the fact that we need to prepare for hearing serious things.
Although the word “fact” is not the most proper one here. It is also about “100%,” so while we’re just talking about “can” and “could,” “fact” allows no doubt at all, so even if I use a modal correctly here, this “fact” may be another attack against clarity. See, the Hungarian way of telling this sentence would be “The mention of the hat would refer to that we need…” In Hungarian speech and writing, there’s no need for this hard work to find out if it is a “fact” or an “event” or a “possibility” or a “thought,” etc. But maybe I’ll make another topic for this question, now it’s not important.
Another remark: The half sentence was originally intended to be a scholarly statement, though I couldn’t finish it so, however, you say,

Quote:

The difference between them other than what I've told you before and described again above, is that we use 'could' to be more polite/more deferential/it makes one's ideas seem less "I know it all!!!"

That is what I won’t able to put into words. I think in a scholarly work, one can be polite in some cases. Even if my opinion is strong enough, I can’t say in every situation that it’s only me who knows the truth. It would be good to make it clear that it’s my opinon, but it also would be good to let a slight chance that I’m not infallible.
You also talked about “may” and “might.” Yes, I use them, they’re not a problem, it’s clear that what is the case when I really doubtful and then I take them. The point is the cave mentioned above.

1 Reply

@KaJe,

Correction of "That is what I won't able to put into words": not won't but wasn't.

Plus I think it was a quite wrong sentence with Tom’s hat, because it would be much simpler to say something like "he could mentioned the hat to get to know that we would hear serious things.”
But rather I say: Tom said that he would come here soon, but only after going home for his head. The mention of the hat could refer to the fact that he always talks about serious things when wearing hat.

0 Replies

@JTT,

I’ve read the link you’d suggested.
Thus I have another question. You said there,

Quote:

“English native speakers use a backshift to mark someone's speech as not a direct/exact quotation.”

But when I say this: Joe knew that Kate would go there, then it’s not reported speech because nothing was said. Just like when Joe hoped that somebody would go there, or was glad/sorry about/etc.
It may be that it’s not the past form of “will”, because there are many cases when “would” or “could” plays conditional role or some very different role. So my point of view is very simple, seeing only the result, but from this point of view, it is “past could,” “conditional could” and other kind of coulds. I don’t know if it can be accepted.
And then I think that even Jon can say after climbing the tree “I might climb the tree,” in the case of

Quote:

“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”

as I said the other day. But I don’t know if I was correct or not.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

JTT says:

Quote:

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

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

MontereyJack replied:

Quote:

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.

Even ESLs know that you can't use 'could' to describe a one event past situation like this.

WBYeats writes:

Quote:

Oh, I forgot the rule of not using COULD for a particular past instance!

http://able2know.org/topic/213954-1#post-5333844

0 Replies

JTT says:

Quote:

Even ESLs know that you can't use 'could' to describe a one event past situation like this.

Don't be absurd. Of course you can. I just did. A perfectly ordinary, grammatical sentence

"Yesterday I could park on the odd-numbered side of the street. Today I can't." Another perfectly accurate, perfectly grammatical statement describing the situation in Cambridge, which has alternat-side-of-the-street parking for street cleaning. You're being very prescriptive deciding a perfectly common statement can't be stated. And "could" very clearly describes a past action. You cannot say "Yesterday I can park on the odd-numbered side of the street. "Could" and "can" convey different times, depending on the context of the sentences.
"I could no more, I was really exhausted." 1807. OED. past tense. Been that way for centuries, in actual usage.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Don't be absurd. Of course you can. I just did. A perfectly ordinary, grammatical sentence

"Yesterday I could park on the odd-numbered side of the street. Today I can't."

Did you actually perform the action you've described in your quote, above, Jack?

0 Replies

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did. Performing it is vastly better than getting your car towed. Trust me, I know.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did.

And you believe that saying "Yesterday I could park on the odd-numbered side of the street." is a past tense example describing you actually doing that action?

0 Replies

Yes. It's a past tense example of my having a legal ability yesterday that I don't have today (considering in the real world these actuallyt applied to Monday and Tuesday this week). You think it isn't? Has anyone told you lately how peculiar you are?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

I asked:

Quote:

And you believe that saying "Yesterday I could park on the odd-numbered side of the street." is a past tense example describing you actually doing that action?

MJ answered:

Quote:

Yes.

Is,

"Yesterday anyone could park on the odd-numbered side of the street."

a past tense example describing anyone actually doing that action?

0 Replies

Can or something else?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know