what they can/could do they have not done

Forums: Grammar, English
Email this Topic • Print this Page

A line: what they can/could/could have do(ne) they have not done.

What verb should be used?

The second part of the sentence has used the present perfect tense, so I think CAN is OK, but on second thought it seems the sentence is related to a past thing, so it seems COULD shoudl be used, but at the same time I am in two minds about using COULD HAVE DONE STH, could you help me?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,876 • Replies: 21

No top replies

@WBYeats,

They could have, but did not.

1 Reply

@roger,

Thanks.

But the thing they were able to do or it was possible for them to do still has the possibility to get done. Then how should I change the sentence?

1 Reply

@WBYeats,

If I'm understanding your question, say "They could have done sth."

1 Reply

@roger,

Thanks.

So do you think it's impossible to say

They could have done sth but they have not.

1 Reply

@WBYeats,

WBYeats wrote:

Thanks.

So do you think it's impossible to say

They could have done sth but they have not.

They could do something, but haven't yet.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Thank you.

According to your example, can I say?:

What might happen has happened

2 Replies

@WBYeats,

It's not clear what you mean.

What might have happened has happened. or

What might happen, will happen.

Use whichever suits your meaning.

1 Reply

@roger,

Opening a second store is something they could do, but have not.

Here you are showing that they have the capability, but up to the present they have not acted on their capability.

Holding weekly competitions is something they could do, but don't.

You can use something like this if what they are doing/not doing is less of a single action and more of an ongoing action.

Nice is something he could be, but isn't.

Or you can do something similar with a state of being.

All of these are highlighting the difference between the capability and the action. In some cases though it may be more effective to simple state that they have yet to do something, and let the reader infer that they had the capability.

1 Reply

@Kedirech1,

Well written, Kedirech1. Maybe you'll stick around for awhile?

0 Replies

@WBYeats,

Quote:

A line:

what they can/could/could have do(ne) they have not done.

What verb should be used?

Use whichever expresses the nuance you want, WB.

what they can do they have not done.

what they could do they have not done.

what they could have done they have not done.

More on this later.

Quote:

The second part of the sentence has used the present perfect tense, so I think CAN is OK, but on second thought it seems the sentence is related to a past thing, so it seems COULD should be used,

Why do you think that COULD should be used instead of CAN, WB?

0 Replies

@WBYeats,

Quote:

WBYeats wrote:

Thanks.

So do you think it's impossible to say

They could have done sth but they have not.

InfraBlue replied:

Quote:

They could do something, but haven't yet.

Quote:

According to your example, can I say?:

What might happen has happened

Yes, you can/could/might say that, WB, but each would hold their own nuance.

'might' and 'could' do sometimes hold very similar meanings but in the usual sense that they are used they hold different meanings. 'could' means 'something is possible' while 'might' means that "there's a miniscule to small chance something will/can/could happen".

So while What might happen has happened is possible, a more likely occurrence would be What could happen has happened.

A 'might' might/could see use in, say,

Of those things that might happen, one [of them] has happened.

The difference is:

'could' = Of those things that are within the realm of possibility, ...

'might' = Of those things that are within the range of possibility described by 'might', ...

1 Reply

@JTT,

Thanks. Your answers are really good, and since you are so good a teacher, I hope you don't mind me asking many questions about English!

But step by step - you say I can say 'What could happen has happened'; this is something I didn't expect, because the present perfect tense (HAS HAPPENED etc) has an important function of describing a past thing with a relevant present result; in other words, the thing happened in the past, at least in my example. But what I learnt is, when we want to say 'it was possible to do sth', we have to say COULD HAVE DONE STH etc, but not COULD DO STH etc.; did I learn the wrong thing?

1 Reply

Apart from the above question, there's another one I can't find a satisfactory answer to.

This is what I learnt: In a discussion, when speaker A talks very fast or something difficult to understand, we would only say, I COULDN'T FOLLOW, never CAN'T.

Is it because when we utter these words about not being able to follow, the act of being unable is a past thing? (So that we have to use the so-called past tense of CAN'T - COULDN'T?

1 Reply

@WBYeats,

Quote:

But step by step - you say I can say 'What could happen has happened'; this is something I didn't expect, because the present perfect tense (HAS HAPPENED etc) has an important function of describing a past thing with a relevant present result; in other words, the thing happened in the past, at least in my example.

What could happen has happened'; = One of those things out of all the things that are possible to happen in all of existence or limited to a particular situation, has happened.

Quote:

But what I learnt is, when we want to say 'it was possible to do sth', we have to say COULD HAVE DONE STH etc, but not COULD DO STH etc.; did I learn the wrong thing?

No, you've got that right, WB. To describe a particular action in the past, we use can't use COULD DO STH. We have to use COULD HAVE DONE STH .

A: Where did John go?

B1: *He could go to the store.*

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

B2: He could have gone to the store.

Of course there are other possibilities, each holding their own special modal meaning.

B3: He might/may/must have gone/probably went to the store.

0 Replies

@WBYeats,

Quote:

This is what I learnt: In a discussion, when speaker A talks very fast or says something difficult to understand, we would only say, I COULDN'T FOLLOW, never CAN'T.

That's not true, WB. CAN'T is a definite possibility although COULDN'T is much softer/more deferential/more polite so it is possible/it could be that your teachers guided you towards the more polite option.

Quote:

Is it because when we utter these words about not being able to follow, the act of being unable is a past thing? (So that we have to use the so-called past tense of CAN'T - COULDN'T?

No, that's not at all true. As noted, CAN'T is a possibility. We can even use CAN'T in the past to state a strong denial.

CAN'T HAVE DONE STH

We can also use WILL;

WILL HAVE DONE STH

1 Reply

Oh...I see....

Your answer has shed a lot of light; excellent!

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote: CAN'T is a possibility

Now, say, I am the owner of a shop and am going to hold a lucky draw, can I say?:

With so many prizes, the majority of the participants CAN win.

I know we can use MAY/MIGHT/COULD, but I am not sure whether CAN is OK....

1 Reply

@WBYeats,

First, WB, read Post: # 5,309,168,

http://able2know.org/topic/212972-1

It's the fifth post down from the start of the page.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Thank you~

According to the one time situation reason, in my example above, CAN is not possible, am I correct? (I'll try to finish that thread, as it's quite long, but I have certainly learnt a lot from it.

1 Reply

what they can/could do they have not done

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know