They could reach the top Mt. Everest yesterday.

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

Here are two sentences.

1. They could reach the top of Mt. Everest yesterday.
2. They were able to reach the top of Mt. Everest yesterday.

My grammar book says, the former is grammatically wrong while the latter correct.

To my knowledge, 'could' is simply the past form of 'can'
and interchangeable with 'be able to' as well, which I am no longer sure of.

One usage of 'could' I am familar with is as follows.

- If I were a bird, I could fly.

Here, it would not make any sense at all if it was written

- If I were a bird, I was able to fly.

Is the sentence #1 wrong for the same reason?

Actully I once said,

"From such a big hit 'Frozen', I could catch this expression...'

And I was told I should've said
'I was able to catch this expression',

I've been doing my own research since then, and I've made little progress.

I'd love to ask more delicately,
but my poor English is keeping me from doing that.

Would you please help me to figure it out?

I'd appreciate any of your comment.
Thanks.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 575 • Replies: 7

No top replies

@SMickey,

Your grammar book is correct. "Could" is not simply the past participle of can, it is also a conditional form. The first sentence might be written:

"They could have reached the top of Mt. Everest yesterday."

No condition is specified, but it is implied.

2 Replies

By the way . . . "If i were a bird, i could fly."--is a classic use of the subjunctive mood with a conditional form of a verb. In that sentence, "were" is not used as a past tense of the verb to be, it is the present subjunctive of that verb, and "could" is used because it refers to the condition in the opening clause--"If i were a bird . . . "

0 Replies

@SMickey,

One use of 'could' is to indicate possibility. Sentence (1) is incorrect, not because of the use of 'could', but because of 'yesterday':
"They could reach the top of Mt. Everest today/tomorrow."
"You could go to university next year if you get good grades in your high school exams."
Here, we are talking about possibility in the future.

We may not know, but we can speculate what might have happened in the past:
"If the weather was good, they could have reached the top of Mt. Everest yesterday, and be on the way down."

"If I were a bird, I would be able to fly."
Since we associate birds with being able to fly, it doesn't really make sense to say:
"If I were a bird, I could fly."
Why is this only a possibility? The whole reason to imagine oneself as a bird is to be able to fly.
It makes more sense with 'could' if the sentence were:
If I were a bird, I could fly home from school instead of having to take the bus."

0 Replies

@SMickey,

SMickey: To my knowledge, 'could' is simply the past form of 'can'
and interchangeable with 'be able to' as well, which I am no longer sure of.

//////////

No, COULD is not the past tense of CAN. Modal verbs are tenseless in modern English.

Grammars have misstated this idea for many years, that modals have tense. This was based on the "back shifting " that sometimes occurs in reported speech. But that isn't a use of modals for past tense, it's only modals used as a marker for reported speech.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Your grammar book is correct. "Could" is not simply the past participle of can, it is also a conditional form. The first sentence might be written:

I'm puzzled by Set's comments. The grammar book says using COULD as a past tense (not PAST PARTICIPLE) is wrong so why does Set describe COULD as any past form?

All modals can be used in a conditional sense. Why make particular note of COULD?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

The first sentence might be written:

"They could have reached the top of Mt. Everest yesterday."

No condition is specified, but it is implied.

This could also mean,

It is possible that they reached the summit of Everest yesterday.

And there is always a potential for conditions to be applied when we speculate on something.

They could, may, might, should, will, would, must, HAVE reached the summit yesterday if ... .

0 Replies

@SMickey,

Quote:

To my knowledge, 'could' is simply the past form of 'can'

Both CAN and WILL are used to describe single past time situations.

0 Replies

They could reach the top Mt. Everest yesterday.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know