questions about permission

Questions about permission include; am, is, are/ allowed, can in the present and could, was, were/ allowed in the past.

Navigator, where did your other avatar go, the darling little baby. Is he/she yours?

<can & could> are tenseless modal verbs. In modern English, modal verbs have no tense, they don't show tense. All they do is show modality, ie. the speaker's feelings. They can operate in the past, present and future.

The following are

correct (I assume that ),

1) Is Tom allowed to take the car?

2) Was Tom allowed to take the car?

3) Could Tom take the car?

4) Can Tom take the car?

Sentence 3) does not have any past tense meaning. It means the same thing as 4) and it's used in the same time parameters as 4); in the present to ask about a future possibility, hence permission. It is just more polite, less direct, more deferential.

Both <can & could> are used to ask permission. Letty is mistaken when she says that 'can' only means ability. This is a common misconception, but a misconception nevertheless.

'can' has many meanings, one of which is 'possibility', which gives it a similar meaning to <could, may. might>. This is how they come to be used for permission and it's the same for <can>.

<May, might, can, could> all express "It's possible". And all are used to ask permission.

In fact, this is where modals get their "politeness" and the relative degree of politeness relates to how strong a possibility is contained within a given modal.

'could' is more polite than 'can' because 'could' has a greater conditional sense than 'can'. 'might' is more deferential than 'may' because 'might' has a lower epistemic {level of certainty} meaning than 'may'.


What about may/ might?,

5) Might Tom take the car?

6) May Tom take the car?


Here, both are expressions asking for "permission". <might> is a more deferential form than <may>. Explained above.

About number 3 and 4, I read that can and could used when the person
who asks hopes for an affirmative answer.

I think that most people asking for anything want an affirmative, so in that sense, yes, Navigator. But people ask all the time for things even when they don't think they will receive an affirmative.

Also, might and may in 5 and 6 sound awkward ( [aren't] don't they ? ).

Not awkward for every situation but yes, they could sound very awkward for many situations. They are both too deferential for many social situations and here 'can' and 'could' are much more likely.

I read that for possibility in an interrogative we replace them by do you think? Or be+ likely, but that for possibility and we have here permission.

I don't quite understand your meaning here, Navigator.


[Thanks everybody

Hi JTT, I don't know the child in that avatar, I just like it. I don't have

kids, too busy to get married. But, my nephew ( near five now ) is a cute

child, and I love him. The kind that talk too much, ask about everything. I

think I lost the pretty face after formatting this old machine I have .

I guess around age five is the time for discovering things. My nieces and nephews did the same thing, ask a lot of questions. It's too bad you've lost the avatar; he/she sure was a cutie.

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

If I want to put the following sentences in the interrogative form,

-He might / may be alone.

The plane might / may be late.

We ( as I read ) normally express the interrogative using be+ likely and

do you think? So, for any of the sentences I can say,

Is the plane likely to be late? Or is it likely that the plane will be late or do

you think that the plane will be late?

The questions we use, just like the answers, depend on what we want to express, Navigator. So yes, any of your example questions would work.

But we don't necessarily have to ask using doubtful question forms, eg. "do you think ...?" "Is the plane likely to be ...?"

We could use and they are probably the more common ones; Will the plane be late?; Is the plane going to be late?:

Using forms of doubt in a question probably means that the speaker already has some info that leads them to believe the plane will be late. Then these expressions of doubt enter question forms.

Can for possibility,

Can with subject can be used for possibility. Then, we have to take in my

mind that this happens in the affirmative, present and past. Examples,

Affirmative,

-you can ski on the hills. Okay.

negative,

-we can't bathe here on [the] account of sharks. Okay, but no 'the'.

Also, we use can for occasional possibility,

Measles can be quite dangerous ( sometimes it can be quite dangerous,

sometimes it's quite dangerous )

Your sentence is fine, N, but I'd say rather than "occasional possibility", it's better to describe it as general or theoretical possibility.

We don't normally use 'can' [possibility] for things true at the moment or for things that will actually happen. <may, might and could> are used for such situations.


What do you think ?

I found out that could is used in the past like the following,

1. He could be quite unreasonable.

But I feel that this sentence isn't in the past ( mentioned above ). It's like

you judge the person that he isn't quite reasonable all the time. It's

possible that he is unreasonable.

So, why it's said in the past.

<could> is not a past tense, Navigator, it's tenseless, ie. it has no tense. 'could', like all the modal verbs, can be used in the past, present and future. That's what makes them tenseless.

You're right, your example sentence doesn't point to a past time, Navigator. It's as you say, it may be pointing to a specific future encounter with a meaning like,

"It's possible that he will be unreasonable.

Or the speaker might be describing a general condition, as in,

"He can be quite unreasonable".

Some grammar, huh?!

You're doing grand, Navigator!

You're right, your example sentence doesn't point to a past time, Navigator.

Quote:

JTT: You're right, your example sentence doesn't point to a past time, Navigator.

But it may do, depending on the context. Suppose the full sentence was "It was difficult working with Jack; he could be quite unreasonable". Here could is used simply in the past tense, i.e. "he had the capacity to be". Whereas if the full sentence were"I don't know if Jack would agree; he could be quite unreasonable", could would be a future conditional (= "he might be")

For requests for permission we use can I?, could I?, may I?, might I?.

There are others too, N. "Will/Would you let me ...?"; Will/Would I be able to ...?"

Could is more generally used of the four. It's useful as it means or expresses informal and formal way.

The LGSWE states that "can differs from these other modals in that it commonly occurs with permission and ability meanings in conversation ... ."

I'd say that 'could' is fairly common. "Could and might are much more common expressing logical possibility than permission or ability." {LGSWE}

On the other hand, may is a little more formal than could. So, if I say,

May I have that book?

Could I have that book?

I'd use may because it's more formal, but could is right of course.

LGSWE: "Despite a well-known prescription favoring may rather than can for expressing permission, may is especially rare in the sense of permission."

Most examples of may for permission found within the LSWE Corpus were "caregivers in conversation with children".

If I say,

You can park here.

I think this would be right for either possibility or permission.

I appreciate any ideas

That's right, Navigator. Often it's unclear whether the actual meaning is one or the other. I can/could tell you of a possibility to park somewhere but I may well not have any authority to grant you permission to do so.