Can or something else?

@MontereyJack,

I asked:

Quote:

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

MJ replied:

Quote:

I did. three words.

You've not provided a paraphrase, MJ. Do you need a description of what 'paraphrase' means?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Notice an assymetry here, JTT: you can substitute "could" for "can" in certain present-tense circumstances

[I've taken the liberty of editing the above to make it readable, Jack.]

Why do you think it's possible to "substitute "could" for "can" in certain present-tense circumstances" when COULD is purported to be the past tense of CAN?

Quote:

but you can't substitute "can" for could in past-tense circumstances.

This is false, false, false, Jack. I told you this in an earlier posting. But you have this bad habit of ignoring those things that illustrate how mistaken you are.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

JTT says:

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

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

MJ replied:

Quote:

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

There's a huge difference between "referring to a past situation" and saying that 'could' is the past tense of 'can', MJ. The sentence marked ungrammatical IS ungrammatical for that particular situation.

Quote:

... in English modal auxiliary verbs (can, may, shall, will, etc.) are distinguished from other auxiliary verbs (be, have, do) as well as from ordinary verbs by their lack of tense ... .

...

In English, modals are derived from verbs that did carry tense and take agreement markers during a much earlier stage of the language. ... It is thus important to emphasize to learners that English no longer inflects modals for tense and number.

Perhaps the strongest current support ... for a semantic relationship between present time and remote past time obtains between can and could when could is used to express ability in the remote past:

I can't speak French now, but I could when I was a child.

However, this is a semantic, not a syntactic relationship, and it does not hold for other modal pairs;

The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course pg 137-138

What this means is that 'can' and 'could' share meanings [semantic] so what appears to some to be an instance of a present and a past tense is really only the connection these two modals share with respect to meaning.

It's only natural that 'could', as the historical past tense [no longer] of 'can' would be used to cover certain general meanings in the past. And, it's also natural that 'can', the historical present tense form, would continue to be used to describe present meanings.

But what clearly reveals that modals are tenseless is that 'can' does do some past tense meanings that 'could' cannot do, and, by the same token, 'could' does some present tense meanings that 'can' cannot do.

There is no syntactic, ie. grammatical connection between 'can' and 'could' like there is with lexical verbs - eg. present tense 'pick' versus past tense 'picked' OR with semi-modals - eg. present tense 'want to' versus past tense 'wanted to'.

Quote:

Quote:
in fact, in some cases so-called present-tense modals refer to past time:

Jim may have been late last night (past meaning)

Also, in many other cases, so-called past tense modals refer to present or future time:

That could be Sara. (present meaning)
You should see a doctor. (future meaning)

...

In fact, phrasal forms [eg. is able to; is going to; is allowed to; has to; has got to developed in part because the original class of modals lost their connection to time, and the phrasal forms gave English users a way to mark tense and express modality on one and the same verb form.

Ibid

0 Replies

@JTT,

Hi, both of you! I have the feeling you won’t be able to convince each other. I think it’s over the point when I can speak on the subject. Instead I will also come with other topics soon, so I hope you don’t shoot your bolt only in this topic. So now, only one quistion, JTT, how did you mean that

Quote:

'can' can be used to describe the past. Even 'will' can be used to describe the past.

?

1 Reply

@KaJe,

Quote:

Hi, both of you! I have the feeling you won’t be able to convince each other.

There's no reason to convince MontereyJack, KaJe. He knows he is wrong. He is so terribly confused that he can't tell the difference between a simple 'could' and the perfect aspect.

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language also notes that 'could' cannot be used to describe a one time event past event. You know this yourself.

Quote:

So now, only one question, JTT, how what did you mean by

jtt had written:

Quote:

'can' can be used to describe the past. Even 'will' can be used to describe the past.

It's really quite simple. As modals in modern English are tenseless, they can all be used in all time situations. Modals don't describe time/tense. They are words that we use to show our feelings on a particular topic.

Quote:

.. in English modal auxiliary verbs (can, may, shall, will, etc.) are distinguished from other auxiliary verbs (be, have, do) as well as from ordinary verbs by their lack of tense ... .

...

In English, modals are derived from verbs that did carry tense and take agreement markers during a much earlier stage of the language. ... It is thus important to emphasize to learners that English no longer inflects modals for tense and number.

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

We use "can/can't" in past tenses when we want to state strongly that a certain something really wasn't possible.

[Imagine that a grammar expert, hears from someone what MontereyJack has stated, despite all the evidence, about 'can/could']

Grammar expert: He can't really have said those things about 'could'! Such ignorance is just not possible. They simply aren't reflected in actual language usage!

================
will

[in an airport]

A: What time will BA674 get in.

B: Oh, that flight will have already arrived.

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

Have you read the discussion on modals in the thread with WBYeats, KaJe?

http://able2know.org/topic/213790-1

and,

http://able2know.org/topic/214737-1

1 Reply

@JTT,

Well, I maintain that Monterey Jack helped me, just like you, and even in the debated question he had a helping intention (just like you); it is another matter that both of you can't be right. But I can't decide in this matter because both of you know much more about English than me. As for your present examples, I would say, it is "can+have+ed" and "will+have+ed" which describe past, not the simple can and will, as I thought when I asked this question, so we meant it differently. Well, it was just a digression, now I leave you with your debate but, as I've mentioned, I hope we'll meet in another topic.

1 Reply

@KaJe,

Quote:

As for your present examples, I would say, it is "can+have+ed" and "will+have+ed" which describe past, not the simple can and will, as I thought when I asked this question, so we meant it differently.

"have + ed/en" are what denote the past, KaJe. The modals CAN'T and WILL are used by speakers/writers to describe their feelings in an epistemic/level of certainty manner or in a denotic/social sense.

1 Reply

@JTT,

"Once, he could run a mile in under four minutes". You cannot subsitute the present tense"can" for the past tense "could", which presumably you should be able to if in fact the pair had no tenses. There is no "have" in the sentence, and the verb has no past tense marker. You get that entirely from the past tense "could". While you admit that "could" is historically the past tense of "can", you somehow ignore the fact that for most people, aside, apparently, from ESL instructors, that's the way it still functions. Dogma somehow seems to preclude attention to reality.

1 Reply

OK, then I still don't leave this topic without telling any opinion, after such long debate. So the truth is that for me, could has remained a "past can." (Beside being "conditional can," etc.) However, it may be that it isn't the grammatically correct point of view, and that correct point of view is still represented by you, JTT. But I'm a Hungarain, and I'm sure that this kind of approach is absent in Hungarian language, and maybe I can't think in a correct English way, at least on the level where I'm now. So it seems to me that M.J. is right regarding that there is a general past meaning of could. I'm trying to develop, and maybe then, JTT, I can accept your approach better, the only thing I can promise that I will keep it in mind.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

"Once, he could run a mile in under four minutes". You cannot subsitute the present tense"can" for the past tense "could", which presumably you should be able to if in fact the pair had no tenses.

I'm sorry to say, Jack, that that is a completely fatuous argument. You can't substitute "can" there because "can" doesn't function for that general past condition meaning.

Go back to KaJe's first question on the use of 'can'.

[Colored magnets in a bag; everyone picks one without seeing the color or showing others the color]

A: B might have a red one.

B: D probably has a yellow one.

C: A may have a green one.

D: E could have an orange one.

E: *C can have a blue one.*

[*---* denotes ungrammatical for the situation]

'could' can be used here for a present meaning, Jack, but purported present tense 'can' cannot. You're confused by what you were taught as a youngster. It's modal meaning that determines particular uses; it has nothing to do with tense.

Did you miss this?

Quote:

... in English modal auxiliary verbs (can, may, shall, will, etc.) are distinguished from other auxiliary verbs (be, have, do) as well as from ordinary verbs by their lack of tense ... .

...

In English, modals are derived from verbs that did carry tense and take agreement markers during a much earlier stage of the language. ... It is thus important to emphasize to learners that English no longer inflects modals for tense and number.

Perhaps the strongest current support ... for a semantic relationship between present time and remote past time obtains between can and could when could is used to express ability in the remote past:

I can't speak French now, but I could when I was a child.

However, this is a semantic, not a syntactic relationship, and it does not hold for other modal pairs;

The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course pg 137-138

Quote:

There is no "have" in the sentence, and the verb has no past tense marker. You get that entirely from the past tense "could".

Again, you are confused. That's 'could' operating in its role as a GENERAL PAST ABILITY. Notice how limited this particular use is. It comes, of course, as I've described, from the modal verbs history, from the time when these verbs DID carry tense.

It's only natural that 'could', as the historical past tense form of 'can' has been retained for this this meaning. 'would' has also been retained for some very specialized past tense meanings; in one it functions as a "future in the past" -->

"Bonkstou was elected a senator in 1856. Two years later he would become president."

But 'would' doesn't ever function as the syntactic/grammatical past tense of 'will'. [See below]

Look at it closely. It's not the syntactic/grammatical past tense of 'can'. We know this because,

Jack: I can make you a Martini, KaJe. [Jack makes a Martini and hands it to KaJe.

Jack: *I could make you a Martini.*

[*-----* denotes ungrammatical for this situation]

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

will - would

Jack: Watch me. I will jump over the coffee table. [Jack jumps over the coffee table.]

Jack: *See, I would jump over the coffee table.*

[*------* denotes ungrammatical for the situation]

=============================
shall - should

Jack: Watch me. I shall jump over the coffee table. [Jack jumps over the coffee table.]

Jack: *See, I should jump over the coffee table.*

[*------* denotes ungrammatical for the situation]

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

may - might

Jack: Watch me. I may jump over the coffee table. [Jack jumps over the coffee table.]

Jack: *See, I might jump over the coffee table.*

[*------* denotes ungrammatical for the situation]

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

Quote:

While you admit that "could" is historically the past tense of "can", you somehow ignore the fact that for most people, aside, apparently, from ESL instructors, that's the way it still functions. Dogma somehow seems to preclude attention to reality.

You're still badly confused by the modal perfect and modal meaning, among other things.

But you are flat out, dead wrong that native speakers of English use 'can' as the past tense of 'could'.

1. That plane will have already arrived.

2. She can't have run a four minute mile. She was a quadriplegic at that time.

Here, above, we have two examples of purported present tense modals being used to describe past situations. They work fine without their purported past tense partners - would & could.

Quote:

The Grammar Book - An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course

...

in fact, in some cases so-called present-tense modals refer to past time:

Jim may have been late last night (past meaning)

Also, in many other cases, so-called past tense modals refer to present or future time:

That could be Sara. (present meaning)
You should see a doctor. (future meaning)

...

In fact, phrasal forms [eg. is able to; is going to; is allowed to; has to; has got to developed in part because the original class of modals lost their connection to time, and the phrasal forms gave English users a way to mark tense and express modality on one and the same verb form.

Ibid

0 Replies

@KaJe,

Quote:

OK, then I still don't leave this topic without telling any opinion, after such long debate. So the truth is that for me, could has remained a "past can." (Beside being "conditional can," etc.) However, it may be that it isn't the grammatically correct point of view, and that correct point of view is still represented by you, JTT.

This notion that modals have tense is simply another of the many mistakes that have been made about English grammar, KaJe.

Quote:

For here are the remarkable facts. Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since. For as long as they have existed, speakers have flouted them, spawning identical plaints about the imminent decline of the language century after century. All the best writers in English have been among the flagrant flouters. The rules conform neither to logic nor tradition, and if they were ever followed they would force writers into fuzzy, clumsy, wordy, ambiguous, incomprehensible prose, in which certain thoughts are not expressible at all. Indeed, most of the "ignorant errors" these rules are supposed to correct display an elegant logic and an acute sensitivity to the grammatical texture of the language, to which the mavens are oblivious.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html

While this issue of modal verbs hasn't been the target of prescriptivists - because they don't have the ability to analyze such difficult issues, it has still been a major error in describing how language works.

It has made no difference to native English speakers because we have the natural rules of English grammar in our brains. It does make a big difference to ESL/EFls though. The modals are one of the hardest areas of the English language and if ESLs believe that they have past and present tense forms they are really put at a great disadvantage in becoming fluent English users.

I had some of my foreign students visit me in an English speaking country. I said things like, "Tomorrow, we might go hiking" OR "On Friday [future] we might go canoeing".

They were so confused because they were taught that 'might' is the past tense of 'may'.

They would say "Why are you talking about doing things in the future with 'might', Sensei?

Think about it, KaJe.

If modals really did have tense, the native English speakers here at A2K would be flooding these pages with examples.

There are NONE!

Notice my sentence, above, in red. I used 'would' with a future meaning. 'will' is not possible.

0 Replies

Nonsense. You've gotten numerous examples of "could" as the past tense of "can". And you've even postulated peculiar rules for its usage, and declared common usages of it (ACTUAl usage, isn't that what decriptivists go by?) as ungrammatical because they don't follow your peculiar rules. And I would say you were using "would" as a past tense, since you were posstulating that as a result of your past statements there would have been examples showing up in profusion before you made your statement in your last post. That's not future, that's past. And, I repeat, there have in fact been such examples.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

You talk generalities, Jack, because you don't have the capacity to deal with the specifics. You advance numerous little lies to try to smudge the entire process. You ignore sources that show you are wrong. You, again, simply do not possess the necessary intelligence to view these complicated language issues.

You did this same thing with 'can/may' and though you were provided with a golden opportunity to present your position, and I use that term lightly, you avoided that completely.

Quote:

And I would say you were using "would" as a past tense, since you were posstulating that as a result of your past statements there would have been examples showing up in profusion before you made your statement in your last post. That's not future, that's past.

You are a study in confusion. Be specific, if you intend to discuss these complicated issues.

You contradict yourself in your own words. Your "And I would say", put in bold, above, is not past tense or past time.

0 Replies

Quote:

If modals really did have tense, the native English speakers here at A2K would be flooding these pages with examples.

See what I told you, KaJe. There are no examples because it is impossible to create such examples.

0 Replies

Can or something else?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know