Is could the past tense of can?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:46 am

The figure of 95% is part of the 88.58% of statistics that are made up.

It would be quite hard to collect information since the proportion would presumably differ considerably according to the type of discourse, and how would one weight them.

You could choose a couple of common past verbs and do a Google search for them and then see how often they are used to describe the past. You should also do a text search on some of the texts in Project Gutenberg, and if you download the .pdf version of the guardian you could do a search on that.

Go for it! You're the discourse analyst!

And why did that "extension" happen.

I missed out on the mindreading lectures in the historical linguistics course!

Might not the disappearanc of the subjunctive mood have something to do with it?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:47 am

2. If today is Tuesday and the sky is now so cloudy that Tom predicts it CAN rain tonight, it is a possibility.
**************
This sounds awkard. What do you think of this example for "can" indicating possibility:

"Driving drunk can be dangerous."

You failed to say why it is awkard.

The "rain" sentence sounds awkward because we talk about the chance of rain. Knowing the future weather is only a prediction and predictions are not facts-no matter how sure we feel. The drunk driving sentence shows can as a possibilty, but also as a fact. It is logically more sure thing. So with weather, play safe and use the weaker modal of "could", with drunk drivers you can feel safe in using can.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:55 am

It's Shuntang who has introduced the Trojan that 'can' is used to indicate possiblity.

'can't' is used to indicate impossilbity, though it might be clearer to say a negative conclusion based on logical deduction.

He can't be in New York I only saw him a few minutes ago.

The possiblility of drivers being dangerous is based on their ability to be so.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:00 am

I hesitate to jump in here with my two-bits worth, as you guys seem to be thriving on making things as complicated as possible.

You know me: I like to make things simple. Maybe it's a product of a simple mind.

If Tom says, "It can rain tonight.", he is simply saying that it is a possibility. He is suggesting that the meteorological conditions are such that rain is one possible result. If it sounds awkward, as some of you have suggested (and I concur), perhaps that is because few people would actually be in a position to make such a statement. (You would just about have to be a meteorologist). If he uses "could", as in, "It could rain tonight.", it is not a weaker conclusion, in the sense that his deduction is necessarily on shakier ground, but he does feel more remote about it, which is more likely for most of us non-weatherpeople. It could simply be because of his personality, which does not like to bet heavily on future events. It could also mean that he is not entirely sure about his estimate of the likelihood of the rain.

Larry Latham

Metamorfose · Post by **Metamorfose** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:34 am

It could rain tonight.

Couldn't one also interprete this like I wish it would rain tonight?

José

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:35 am

LarryLatham wrote:If he uses "could", as in, "It could rain tonight.", it is not a weaker conclusion, in the sense that his deduction is necessarily on shakier ground, but he does feel more remote about it, which is more likely for most of us non-weatherpeople.
Larry Latham

You have got my idea wrong. Rather than remote, I feel long, obviously. There is some difference. You cannot change my tense according to what you feel.

Shun

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:14 pm

"Metamorfose"]It could rain tonight.

Couldn't one also interprete this like I wish it would rain tonight?

That awful new neighbour is having a barbeque today, ...

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:51 pm

If Tom says, "It can rain tonight.", he is simply saying that it is a possibility. He is suggesting that the meteorological conditions are such that rain is one possible result. If it sounds awkward, as some of you have suggested (and I concur), perhaps that is because few people would actually be in a position to make such a statement. (You would just about have to be a meteorologist).

This, from Leech and Coates (1979), is interesting:

(...) the difference between CAN-as-ability and CAN-as-possibility is amenable to three features characterising ability: (i) the subject-referent has an agentive function, (ii) the main verb denotes a physical action or activity, (iii) the possibility of the action is determined by inherent properties of the subject-referent.

(i) subject-referent is the weather and using the "dummy it" allows it to have kind of an agentitive function.

(ii) the main verb is "rain" a physical action.

(iii) the subject-referent ( the weather) has, among other inherent properties, the inherent property of "to rain".

And what about this:

You should bring warm and a raincoat when you come to visit us because it can rain a lot at even this time of year.

(Generic propertyof the weather)

Still, for me:

It can rain tonight. (Weatherperson or similar. Possibilty. Present simple for future reference)

I can rain even at this time of year.

(Localperson/weatherperson/knowledged outsider/pessimist. Ability and present simple for habit/generic nature)

In most cases, with the layperson's point-of-view, we would hear "could". The pragmatics connected with the weather tells us to be cautious when making statements.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:17 pm

I would accept It can rain at this time of year
but not
It can rain tonight.Wrong

I would say only It could rain tonight is correct.

Why?

I think the difference between
It can rain at this time of year. -- a general statement referring to previous, present and future years
and
It could rain at this time of year. - a prediction referring to a future part of this year

gets us nearer the answer..

Consider also
She can still be working at nine 0'clock. ----general statement
it's nine o'clock. She could still be working. --- possiblity now.

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:09 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:I think the difference between
It can rain at this time of year. -- a general statement referring to previous, present and future years
and
It could rain at this time of year. - a prediction referring to a future part of this year
gets us nearer the answer..

I have pointed out before, we have often confused TENSE with SENTENCE. A similarity happens here, unfortunately. Modal verb denotes merely a possibility. If the sentence implies a meaning, then it is the possibility of the meaning. As I exemplified, the SENTENCE "You talk about my wife again and I must kill you" implies a threat, and the modal verb helps express the possibility of the threat.

Your explanation to the MODAL VERB can be word for word said again to the same SENTENCE without one:
It rains at this time of year. -- a general statement referring to previous, present and future years
What does it mean to you? It is the Sentence, not the Modal Verb, that does the implication. What happens in a court if we know that A did it, but we testify that B did it? How many times shall we repeat this again? As I have noted before, very often, as we think we are talking about TENSE, we are actually discussing about the SENTENCE.
==============

Stephen Jones wrote:I would accept It can rain at this time of year
but not
It can rain tonight.Wrong

I would say only It could rain tonight is correct.

We can say "It can rain any time" as a warning, why can't I say:
"Take an umbrella, it can rain tonight."
== Usually we say It could rain tonight as a mild warning. But if I want to emphasize the possibility, I use CAN.

By the way, To Emil32, the modal verb in "Driving drunk can be dangerous" sounds more of an ability than a possibility, but it is rather subjective, I guess.

Shun

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:54 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:I would accept It can rain at this time of year
but not
It can rain tonight.Wrong

If you agree It can rain at this time of year can happen, I wonder why this time of year doesn't include tonight: "It can rain tonight".

Does your "this time of year" not include the nights? I really don't think so, unless you say it obviously: It can rain at this time of year only in the day time.

But if It can rain at this time of year includes nights, and in one of these night if I say "It can rain tonight", do I say anything contradictory to your acceptance. I really don't think so.

Just because It can rain at this time of year, then it can rain tonight.

Shun

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:40 pm

Metamorfose wrote:It could rain tonight.

Couldn't one also interprete this like I wish it would rain tonight?

José

But in this thread we are discussing COULD and CAN.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:38 pm

I've been lurking here for a while, not really sure how to comment. I was never happy with,
"It can rain," for potential;
but I was happy with,
"Driving drunk can be dangerous."

I think the reason is that you have to use a link verb - one that is followed by a compliment rather than an object so that you are talking about a quality of the subject rather than what the subject does.

Here's a list of link verbs that you might want to try out:
appear, be, feel, lie, look, remain, seem, smell, sound, stay, taste, become, get, grow, fall, prove, run, turn.

I think that this also sugests that modal potentiality has to have a dynamic component, as dynamic modality is subject-referential. That said it also seems to be epistemic because you have to form a belief that the potential exists.

It doesn't appear to be deontic because the speaker is not trying to achieve something by a speach act.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:29 am

Go for it! You're the discourse analyst!

What a delightfully impolite person you can be, Stephen.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:32 am

Consider also
She can still be working at nine 0'clock. ----general statement
it's nine o'clock. She could still be working. --- possiblity now.

[/quote]

Nice to see you're back to being polite.