Is could the past tense of can?

Metamorfose · Post by **Metamorfose** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:32 pm

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

Oh yeah, so you mean that can and could has no other meanings and cannot be related to other modals and then no-one can talk about anything else but can and could?

And what about the "must" issue in here?

José

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:48 pm

Metamorfose wrote:

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

Oh yeah, so you mean that can and could has no other meanings and cannot be related to other modals and then no-one can talk about anything else but can and could?

And what about the "must" issue in here?

José

Why didn't you give an example? Or shall we use the old one?

Shun

Metamorfose · Post by **Metamorfose** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:53 pm

The choice is yours shun

José

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:06 pm

See above, the old one.

If you have new ideas, I will follow.

Shun

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:02 pm

Metamorfose wrote:
Shun wrote:Someone recommended WOULD, which would be a better choice, but I suggest we shall take a look at the title of this thread.
Oh yeah, so you mean that can and could has no other meanings and cannot be related to other modals and then no-one can talk about anything else but can and could?

And what about the "must" issue in here?

I want to explain that I didn't prohibit anyone from talking about any modal verb. To tell the truth, your proposal of using would there, about the raining, may be a better choice, as I have admitted here. My answer above was to point out that other persons could think of the same proposal as yours, but we were kind of restricted to talk about could and can. Your proposal was good and I didn't object.

I talk about "must" is because in another thread I have compared a sentence with it and one without it, as can be understood here. Really I didn't prohibit to talk about any modal verb. Please feel free to talk about any explanations of modal verbs.

Shun

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:22 pm

Actually, Stephen, there's something I've been meaning to ask you (or anyone else here who may know):

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

Can you define for me exactly what is meant by "general statement?" How is it distinguished from a...I guess you'd call it a specific statement? Is there some particular quality that general statements have that other kinds of statements don't have?

Larry Latham

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:43 pm

The examplss are clear enough here surely larry.

She can be working after nine o-'clock. means that some days she works after nine o'clock.
She could be working after nine o'clock tonight. is referring to one specific occasion.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:56 pm

So...your definition is that general statements do not contain a time adverbial with a restricted time frame, like tonight. Is that a correct reading, Stephen?

Stephen's definition: A general statement is any statement which does not have a time-limiting adverbial.

Right?

Larry Latham

Just to assure you, Stephen, this is not a trick question nor do I have some particular agenda. But I do note that the term general statement seems to pop up in textbooks and in these discussions often, and I don't know what it means, exactly.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:24 pm

Might not be a trick question Larry but I suspect some shifty methods in your arguing here

I obviously do not subscribe to the definition you put in my mouth.

It's one in the morning so my brain is not working clearly, but you may be on to something when you suggest the Present Simple is not normally used within a clearly limited time frame.

And you are not going to push me off the cliff to fall into the Unmarked Sea below

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 10:35 pm

Might not be a trick question Larry but I suspect some shifty methods in your arguing here

Can't say that I blame you, Stephen, owing to our history together.

But honestly, I'm just trying to improve the level of scholarship here in these discussions. Sometimes particular terms are used as if everybody understands them in the same way (I suppose because they appear to be so innocuous and easy to understand). However, it seems to me that some arguments could be settled quickly and easily if people just worked with the same set of definitions.

Larry Latham

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:03 pm

She can be working after nine o-'clock. means that some days she works after nine o'clock.
She could be working after nine o'clock tonight. is referring to one specific occasion.

Isn't the ellipsis there "can be <found> working after..."?

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 2:02 am

It does seem possible to stick "found" into the sentence, but why bother? The sentence makes perfect sense without it.

Larry Latham

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 4:14 am

She can be working after nine o-'clock. means that some days she works after nine o'clock.
She could be working after nine o'clock tonight. is referring to one specific occasion.

Seeing this only, no one can tell we are discussing modal verbs. But we think we do. Most usually, as we are talking tenses, we don't know what we are talking about. I think here we compare the time adverbs only. Tell me if I have misunderstood. But it seems way out of the theme.

Shun

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:13 am

LarryLatham wrote:It does seem possible to stick "found" into the sentence, but why bother? The sentence makes perfect sense without it.

It makes sense, yes. "Perfect sense" might be pushing it a bit.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:17 am

Shun wrote:

Tell me if I have misunderstood. But it seems way out of the theme.

It clearly showed the use of can for possibilty as referring to general actions, states or generic qualities. I felt it to be a useful contribution.

Anyway, what is the theme you see here?