Can or something else?

It's not in fact true, but leaving that aside, it is a past tense example of a legal right that existed yesterday that doesn't today (tho it does on Thursday this week but not on Tuesday).

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

It's not in fact true,

Precisely, MJ.

Quote:

but leaving that aside, it is a past tense example of a legal right that existed yesterday that doesn't today (tho it does on Thursday this week but not on Tuesday).

We can't leave that aside I'm afraid because it is highly pertinent to showing that your analysis of this is inaccurate.

It isn't "a past tense example of a legal right that existed" ONLY yesterday. It is an example of a legal right that exists for whatever time is described in the legislation.

You said it yourself;

Quote:

Another perfectly accurate, perfectly grammatical statement describing the situation in Cambridge, which has alternate-side-of-the-street parking for street cleaning.

and here,

Quote:

(tho it does on Thursday this week

This, today, is the Thursday in your quote, above, and you can/could say,

"Today I could park on the odd-numbered side of the street."

You could/can also say,

"Today, I can park on the odd-numbered side of the street."

You could/can also say,

"Next week I could park on the odd-numbered side of the street on those days that it is allowed."

You could/can also say,

"Next week I can park on the odd-numbered side of the street on those days that it is allowed."

Are the sentences, above, with 'could' examples of 'could' as the past tense of 'can'?

0 Replies

What was not true was "anyone". There are in fact other restrictions on who can park there. There are also one-time only restrictions on where you can park, which I could in fact use as real-world examples. And it's only once a month, and only for eight months of the year, so in fact there are a hedge of restrictions which do in fact constitute essentiallyone-time only conditions. You are citing something as a general rule which no one who has ever used "can" and "could" has ever heard of and certainly doesn't folow. You are, in other words, being prescriptive. All of which are irrelevant to the simple fact that "could" is being used as a past tense. That it can also sometimes be used to describe a present tense condition (as I did in fact note above) does not obviate the fact that it also describes past conditions that "can" cannot be used for. It simply makes it 's proper use more complex than you are willing to admit.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

What was not true was "anyone". There are in fact other restrictions on who can park there. There are also one-time only restrictions on where you can park, which I could in fact use as real-world examples. And it's only once a month, and only for eight months of the year, so in fact there are a hedge of restrictions which do in fact constitute essentially one-time only conditions.

Now you've dropped it to "essentially". You are trying to create a smokescreen, Jack. You are being disingenuous. The fact of the matter is that your example describes the general condition of 'could', one that exists for the past, the present and the future, [for this situation] subject of course to the conditions described by the particular statute or bylaw.

You [a person who meets the criteria of the law] could park in a particular place at any time as described in the law.

Quote:

?Yesterday I could go to Disney World. (= unclear - did I go or not?)

Learners [ESL/EFLs] often say or write [that sentence, above,] with "could" when what they want to say requires "was able to". If they truly want to say that only the possibility existed, then a very careful paraphrase - or the addition of perfect aspect - is needed instead of the version with could:

Yesterday, the possibility existed for me to go to Disney World.
Yesterday, I could have gone to Disney World. [perfect aspect in red] (= implies I did not go)

Note that for expressing remote past ability - in contrast to immediate past - both forms are acceptable:

I was able to/I could speak German fluently when I was a child.

The Grammar Book - An ESL / EFL Teacher's Course - Marianne Celce-Murcia & Diane Larsen-Freeman pg 148

Quote:

You are citing something as a general rule which no one who has ever used "can" and "could" has ever heard of and certainly doesn't follow. You are, in other words, being prescriptive.

Let's stay with the specifics, Jack.

Quote:

All of which are irrelevant to the simple fact that "could" is being used as a past tense.

As you should be able to now see, Jack, 'could', in situations like your example,
are not being used as a past tense. You created an ungrammatical sentence and confused yourself into thinking it was grammatical by confusing it with the general condition, 'could'.

As was discussed in the opening pages to this thread, being a native speaker doesn't entail that one can accurately describe the workings of language.

Quote:

That it can also sometimes be used to describe a present tense condition (as I did in fact note above) does not obviate the fact that it also describes past conditions ...

I never said that 'could' can't be used to describe conditions in the past. But that use, in bold, is not the same thing as describing 'could' and other modals as having past [or present] tense.

Quote:

that "can" cannot be used for.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that you are wrong again, Jack. 'can' can be used to describe the past. Even 'will' can be used to describe the past. Modals are emotive words, ie. we use them to state our emotions/feelings. Tense is indicated by other means, as I've described to you above with respect to 'could'.

0 Replies

TYou cannot substitute "can" for the "could" in the examples I've cited. If you insist you must use "was able to" in the instances I've cited, then it is you who is using a PRESCRIPTIVE rule that people who actually do use the language do not follow. You've fallen into the "can/may" trap you accuse others of. Go back to your corpus studies, and I'd bet you you're wrong.
"Yesterday I could see the Boston skyline; today I can't" (I looked yesterday and it was clear; today I looked and it was foggy). If you think this is ungrammatical, you're loopy.

1 Reply

"I could have danced all night, and still have danced some more...." My Fair Lady. A singular occasion, describing the singular reaction to a singular event, not experienced in that (ficyive) person's life before. I don't recall anyone ever claiming this song, in a musical about grammar, was ungrammatical. I don't recall 'Enry "iggins ever saying, "Eliza, you dolt, that's ungrammatical". Face it, JTT, you're being,horrors, prescriptive, and, horrors, wrong.

1 Reply

And I might add, you cannot substitute "I can have danced all night" for "I could..."

1 Reply

And "I was able to have danced all night" would have produced a clunky and unlistenablre song.

1 Reply

In addition to which, "I was able to have danced all night" does not mean the same thing as "I could have danced all night". Your "version" is talking about physical ability. The song is talking about desire and elation. Not the same at all. Your ear is tin, JTT. Or maybe lead.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

TYou cannot substitute "can" for the "could" in the examples I've cited.

I didn't say I could, Jack. Relax a bit, you're getting hot under your collar. 'can' and 'could' hold different nuances. That why 'could' fulfills those functions for a 'general remote past'. 'can' fills other past time situations that 'could' can't. This isn't so difficult to grasp. 'would', 'will', 'should' are used to describe other meanings in past time situations.

Quote:

If you insist you must use "was able to" in the instances I've cited, then it is you who is using a PRESCRIPTIVE rule that people who actually do use the language do not follow. Go back to your corpus studies, and I'd bet you you're wrong.

Please, Jack, stop being disingenuous. It's not just me. Why are you avoiding the source I cited?

You described an example where it isn't grammatically possible to use 'could'. It's a common mistake for some ESLs because their language permits that, but when pointed out to them, eg. KaJe and WBYeats, they acknowledge that they made a mistake. KaJe even told you you had made a mistake but you just flitted off in your ignorance.

Quote:

You've fallen into the "can/may" trap you accuse others of.

What "trap" would that be, Jack. The one that accurately describes how the two are used in English, have always been used in English.

I've started a thread so we can discuss the 'can/may' for permission thing.

http://able2know.org/topic/214950-1

0 Replies

Huh, well that's interesting. I was sort of free-associating on you, and I got a message from the hamsters, "Flood Prevention"--you have to wait nine minutes before you can post again after a number of posts to a thread. The nine minutes are up.
\Notice an assymetry here, JTT: you can substitute "could" for "can" in scertainpresent-tense circumstances vut you can't substitute "can" for could in opast-tense circumstances.

1 Reply

The "mistake" that "can" does not mean "permission". You're making a similar mistake here. "Could" does not mean only the remote past. It applies to near-immediate past. "I could have picked you up from work if you finished before noon, but I can't now" (said after 3:00). If ESLs are told that, they're getting bogus instruction and you shold be ashamed of yourself. Damn, JTT, that's what people ACTUALLY SAY.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Oh dear! Jack, stop and think before you reply.

Quote:

"I could have danced all night, and still have danced some more...." My Fair Lady. A singular occasion, describing the singular reaction to a singular event, not experienced in that (ficyive) person's life before. I don't recall anyone ever claiming this song, in a musical about grammar, was ungrammatical. I don't recall 'Enry "iggins ever saying, "Eliza, you dolt, that's ungrammatical". Face it, JTT, you're being,horrors, prescriptive, and, horrors, wrong.

Think about what I could have danced all night, and still have danced some more really means, Jack.

I'll leave the rest for later.

===========

And I might add, you cannot substitute "I can have danced all night" for "I could..."

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

And "I was able to have danced all night" would have produced a clunky and unlistenablre song.

======

In addition to which, "I was able to have danced all night" does not mean the same thing as "I could have danced all night". Your "version" is talking about physical ability. The song is talking about desire and elation. Not the same at all. Your ear is tin, JTT. Or maybe lead.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

The "mistake" that "can" does not mean "permission".

There's a thread for you to discuss that one. You are terribly confused, Jack. I've never said 'can' does not mean permission.

Quote:

You're making a similar mistake here. "Could" does not mean only the remote past. It applies to near-immediate past. "I could have picked you up from work if you finished before noon, but I can't now" (said after 3:00).

Jack, Jack, Jack, here you have added the perfect aspect 'have picked'. That is substantially different from,

"I could have picked you up from work if you finished before noon, but I can't now"[/u] (said after 3:00).

0 Replies

Yep, and why don't you think about what it means, and why it's uses the words it does, too, since you seem to have no idea.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Relax, Jack.

Just tell us what it means. You can paraphrase it, can you not?

0 Replies

I did. three words.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

"I could have danced all night, and still have danced some more...." My Fair Lady. A singular occasion, describing the singular reaction to a singular event, not experienced in that (ficyive) person's life before.

Not at all a singular event, Jack. Not even an event.

"I could have danced all night, and still have danced some more...." describes a theoretical idea in which the fair lady was so thrilled by the dancing she wished it could have go on all night and longer.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

And I might add, you cannot substitute "I can have danced all night" for "I could..."

No, you most assuredly can't, Jack. But that's no different from saying that I cannot substitute, "No, you might assuredly can't, Jack" for what I did say.

Modals have different meanings. Children understand this.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

And "I was able to have danced all night" would have produced a clunky and unlistenablre song.

Oooooh lord.

I trust you read my last post. The same applies here. But let me spell it out for you.

"was able to + [present simple form]" does not hold the same meaning as "could have + PP".

Do you even realize that you've produced a ungrammatical form that isn't possible for the English language.

0 Replies

Can or something else?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know