Is could the past tense of can?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:38 am

. 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.

The threat is a threat, not the possibility of one. You mean that the whole sentence, and not just the modal, expresses the possibility of the threat being CARRIED OUT.

Metamorfose · Post by **Metamorfose** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:44 am

But in this thread we are discussing COULD and CAN.

What's your point here?

[/quote]

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:48 am

Stephen Jones"]The figure of 95% is part of the 88.58% of statistics that are made up.

Obviously. You seem to have faith in the seeming nature of the majority use and the rest are exeptions. I prefer to find a general use for the verb form and then see in which way it is used, Remoteness/distance, for want of better words, does seems to be a guiding characteristic of the first from of the English verb. Remoteness in time is obvously the largest of those uses because there's a lot more history behind us than there are pesents and futures. other uses are remoteness of likelihood and of relationships.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:57 am

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".

"This time of year" refers to a generalised time and the "it can rain" cobines with that thime adverbial to talk about what is repeatable. Tonight is factual, one-off and soon.

It can rain at this time of year. = it has the propensity to do so. Propensity talk about generic or habitual capacity. The statement talks about a repeated action.

It can rain tonight. = a one-off event. The can rain + this time of year forces us to read the modal in a different way.

Observe:

The pound can be devalued. (I declare that it is possible for the pound to be devalued because it has happened a few times before).

The pound can be devalued. (I declare that I will allow for the pound to be devalued).

The pound can be tonight (I declare that I will allow for the pound to be devalued this evening).

*The pound can be devalued tonight. (I declare that it is possible for the pound to be devalued tonight because it has happened a few times before).

It can rain at this time of year. (I declare that it is possible us to have rain when not expected because it has happened a few times before).

*It can rain tonight. (I declare that it is possible us to have rain when not expected because it has happened a few times before).

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:12 am

Metamorfose wrote:
But in this thread we are discussing COULD and CAN.

What's your point here?

Someone recommended WOULD, which would be a better choice, but I suggest we shall take a look at the title of this thread.

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:48 am

metal56 wrote:
Shun wrote: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.
The threat is a threat, not the possibility of one. You mean that the whole sentence, and not just the modal, expresses the possibility of the threat being CARRIED OUT.

Are you telling me that just because I said that when I was very angry, I will certainty do it? Think about the possibility that I may not do it. I may move away with the family if you talk about my wife again. There may be also other possibilities.

The sentence without the modal verb also denotes a threat:
Ex: "You talk about my wife again and I kill you."
What does it mean to you? Does it lead you to conclude again that it is the modal verb, not the sentence, that denotes a threat?

But I bet anything that, if you can write a rule in grammar, you will emphasize your own precious find that the modal verb also denotes a threat:
"You talk about my wife again and I must kill you."
This is the reason why we can see endless uses of modal verbs, from different grammar writers, with different examples. Both teachers and learners will think these verbs are so difficult that they just can't follow.

Shun

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:01 am

Are you telling me that just because I said that when I was very angry, I will certainty do it? Think about the possibility that I may not do it. I may move away with the family if you talk about my wife again. There may be also other possibilities.

A threat is a declaration of something you may do to someone or something. The verb "kill" is the possible action, the "I must" is the threat. Once the threat has been made it cannot be withdrawn, only the carrying out of that threat can be stopped, postponed etc.

The sentence without the modal verb also denotes a threat:
Ex: "You talk about my wife again and I kill you."

What does it mean to you? Does it lead you to conclude again that it is the modal verb, not the sentence, that denotes a threat?

I said it is the modal verb that assists (auxiliary) in defining the action of the threat. Again, whether you carry out the threat or not the threat has been made once uttered.

He threatened me! (past)

And has he carried out that threat?

Not yet.

But I bet anything that, if you can write a rule in grammar, you will emphasize your own precious find that the modal verb also denotes a threat:
"You talk about my wife again and I must kill you."
This is the reason why we can see endless uses of modal verbs, from different grammar writers, with different examples. Both teachers and learners will think these verbs are so difficult that they just can't follow.

Shun[/quote]

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:24 am

metal56 wrote:
Shun wrote:Are you telling me that just because I said that when I was very angry, I will certainty do it? Think about the possibility that I may not do it. I may move away with the family if you talk about my wife again. There may be also other possibilities.
A threat is a declaration of something you may do to someone or something. The verb "kill" is the possible action, the "I must" is the threat. Once the threat has been made it cannot be withdrawn, only the carrying out of that threat can be stopped, postponed etc.

> The verb "kill" is the possible action, the "I must" is the threat.
>
My reply: So far, in the world there have been no killings at all. They were only possibilities.

"I MUST go now." Am I threatening anyone?

Shun

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:42 am

I wrote:The sentence without the modal verb also denotes a threat:
Ex: "You talk about my wife again and I kill you."
What does it mean to you? Does it lead you to conclude again that it is the modal verb, not the sentence, that denotes a threat?

Metal56 concluded: I said it is the modal verb that assists (auxiliary) in defining the action of the threat.

My reply: In other words, Metal56 cannot see it is a threat if without the help of the modal verb.

Shun

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:42 am

Shun, "must" is only threatening when used with a verb that has an aggressive meaning. The only modal that is inherently threatening is "had better".

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:52 am

Andrew Patterson wrote:Shun, "must" is only threatening when used with a verb that has an aggressive meaning.

Don't you think you should have posted to Metal56?

Shun

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 10:32 am

Sorry Shun,

But no, I don't.

A modal verb can assist in making an aggressive verb into a threat to carry out that violence, if the verb it acts on isn't violent then of course it isn't a threat. I think you may have misinterpreted what Metal said.

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:32 am

Andrew Patterson wrote:Sorry Shun,

But no, I don't.

A modal verb can assist in making an aggressive verb into a threat to carry out that violence, if the verb it acts on isn't violent then of course it isn't a threat. I think you may have misinterpreted what Metal said.

I understand it is very hard to find examples for supporting your words. This is really a problem.

Shun

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:50 am

Perhaps we should wait for Metal to answer for himself.

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 12:40 pm

The sentence without the modal verb denotes a threat:
Ex: "You talk about my wife again and I kill you."
Therefore, how can we say, by adding modal verb, it helps the sentence to "carry out" a threat? It doesn't make any sense.

A man can walk alone. Then his wife joins in and walks with him. Now, shall we conclude that the wife helps the man to walk? It doesn't any sense at all. You may guess his wife may do anything. But it is the last thing on earth we can say she helps the man walk.

Now the sentence "You talk about my wife again and I kill you" alone can express a threat, as no one has objected. If we may add a modal verb here, it is the last thing on earth it helps the sentence to express a threat.

It is usual for people to cut sentence into pieces, into Verb, and suggest that "A modal verb can assist in making an aggressive verb into a threat to carry out that violence". Now we can even collect a lot of meanings related to the modal verbs: aggression, threat, and violence. Then the modal verb is getting more and more functions. Didn't I explain how these terms have come from? We may even skip examples to prove our words.

Shun Tang