Can have + past participle, Please HELP HELP HELP Guys

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by boothling

This was my point. To spell it out: perhaps Google is not an infallible tool for checking grammar.


The second one is incorrect. Unless you add more words to the sentence (eg, "there's no way I can have been there"), it is simply wrong.

The first example is correct as a sentence on its own. I believe that this might mean that "could" can be used as a past tense in situations where "can" cannot. Although I may be wrong - I'm not a linguist.

This discussion is mostly one of definition. Riverkid's definition of tense appears to be different from ours. There are situations in which only a past tense modal can be used in a past situation. It is also true that each of the modals, present and past tense, can be used for present time, but the present time use of the pairs of modals conveys different information. This is enough evidence for me that modal verbs are tensed, but it is evidently not enough evidence for Riverkid. I can live with that.

[riverkid]

boothling: This was my point. To spell it out: perhaps Google is not an infallible tool for checking grammar.

Of course it isn't, Boothling. But it clearly illustrates that all the modals, especially the purported present tense modals can be used to refer to the past.


The second one is incorrect. Unless you add more words to the sentence (eg, "there's no way I can have been there"), it is simply wrong.

That is false. It is perfectly grammatical. It could even make sense in certain scenarios.


A: It was a great party. How come you weren't there?

B: I was there.

A: You can't have been there. I was there all night.

B: Oh but I can have been there. I was told you passed out at 10 and I came right after.


The first example is correct as a sentence on its own. I believe that this might mean that "could" can be used as a past tense in situations where "can" cannot. Although I may be wrong - I'm not a linguist.

Yes, there is no doubt that 'could' can be used in some past time references where 'can' can't be used. But there are situations where 'could' isn't used with a past time reference and 'can' is. This happens when we want to express different modal meanings.

There are also situations where 'could' can be used in the present where 'can' cannot. What's your explanation for this, Boothling?

But surely you see that you can't focus on one sentence to determine the grammaticality of a structure. A slightly modified search reveals thousands of examples of can/can't used when the reference is past time.

Results 1 - 10 of about 593 English pages for "You can have been"

Results 1 - 10 of about 11,700 English pages for "You can't have been".

Now just because there are many more negatives, "can't have been", does that mean that the positive, 'can' cannot be used?

Here are some more; purported present tense modal 'will' and 'may' operating when the reference is past time.

Results 1 - 10 of about 871 English pages for "He will have already ".

Results 1 - 10 of about 31,000 English pages for "He may have already ".

[riverkid]

MikeNewYork: This discussion is mostly one of definition. Riverkid's definition of tense appears to be different from ours. There are situations in which only a past tense modal can be used in a past situation.

People keep on saying this but what in the world does it prove, Mike? As I pointed out in the post to Boothling, repeated here because you have a strong tendency to avoid the crucial issues, there are situations where only a "present" tense modal can be used when the reference is past time and as I pointed out [you avoided that one too], there are present time instances where "present" tense 'can' cannot be used but two purported past tense modals, could and might, can be used.

That shoots that theory all to hell.

It is also true that each of the modals, present and past tense, can be used for present time, but the present time use of the pairs of modals conveys different information.

Precisely what I've been saying all along. The choice of modal has nothing to do with tense but it has everything to do with modal meaning. You keep denying the obvious but then you confirm what I've stated.

This is enough evidence for me that modal verbs are tensed, but it is evidently not enough evidence for Riverkid. I can live with that.

There's no evidence. You've just admitted that "each of the modals, [historical] present and past tense, can be used for present time" and from the Google results, we can clearly see that "each of the modals, [historical] present and past tense, can ALSO be used for past time.

The logical conclusion for verbs that operate freely in all time situations, [not simply for special purposes] is that they are tenseless.

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by riverkid

MikeNewYork: This discussion is mostly one of definition. Riverkid's definition of tense appears to be different from ours. There are situations in which only a past tense modal can be used in a past situation.

People keep on saying this but what in the world does it prove, Mike? As I pointed out in the post to Boothling, repeated here because you have a strong tendency to avoid the crucial issues, there are situations where only a "present" tense modal can be used when the reference is past time and as I pointed out [you avoided that one too], there are present time instances where "present" tense 'can' cannot be used but two purported past tense modals, could and might, can be used.

That shoots that theory all to hell.

It is also true that each of the modals, present and past tense, can be used for present time, but the present time use of the pairs of modals conveys different information.

Precisely what I've been saying all along. The choice of modal has nothing to do with tense but it has everything to do with modal meaning. You keep denying the obvious but then you confirm what I've stated.

This is enough evidence for me that modal verbs are tensed, but it is evidently not enough evidence for Riverkid. I can live with that.

There's no evidence. You've just admitted that "each of the modals, [historical] present and past tense, can be used for present time" and from the Google results, we can clearly see that "each of the modals, [historical] present and past tense, can ALSO be used for past time.

The logical conclusion for verbs that operate freely in all time situations, [not simply for special purposes] is that they are tenseless.

There is no evidence that you accept. That is because you begin with "modals have no tenses" and you use that to "prove" that "modals have no tense". Tenses are constructions and those constructions have a variety of uses. It is no more complicated than that, and all the major dictionaries agree.

[riverkid]

MikeNewYork: There is no evidence that you accept. That is because you begin with "modals have no tenses" and you use that to "prove" that "modals have no tense".

There is tons of evidence that I've placed right in front of you, Mike but you are the one who heads off on these tangents to studiously avoid it.

Tenses are constructions and those constructions have a variety of uses.

What on Earth is that supposed to mean?

It is no more complicated than that, and all the major dictionaries agree.

The dictionaries have been wrong on a large number of language issues. That blows that bit of conjecture out of the water.

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by riverkid

MikeNewYork: There is no evidence that you accept. That is because you begin with "modals have no tenses" and you use that to "prove" that "modals have no tense".

There is tons of evidence that I've placed right in front of you, Mike but you are the one who heads off on these tangents to studiously avoid it.

Tenses are constructions and those constructions have a variety of uses.

What on Earth is that supposed to mean?

It is no more complicated than that, and all the major dictionaries agree.

The dictionaries have been wrong on a large number of language issues. That blows that bit of conjecture out of the water.

I think that the track records of the dictionaries speak for themselves. I suspect yours does as well.

[riverkid]

There is tons of evidence that I've placed right in front of you, Mike but you are the one who heads off on these tangents to studiously avoid it.

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by riverkid

There is tons of evidence that I've placed right in front of you, Mike but you are the one who heads off on these tangents to studiously avoid it.

The best evidence presented so far is the listings from prestigious dictionaries. You dispense with them with "dictionaries have made language mistakes". That is hardly an argument and it is most assuredly not evidence.

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by MikeNewYork

The best evidence presented so far is the listings from prestigious dictionaries. You dispense with them with "dictionaries have made language mistakes". That is hardly an argument and it is most assuredly not evidence.

That is a clear indication that there could be a major problem. Those dictionaries offer no examples or when they have they've been examples of reported speech which is NOT an example of a past tense.

I've asked you, time and again, to offer examples and you've been unable to and I might add, extremely reluctant to even try.

And you have the temerity to talk of proof and evidence.

[MikeNewYork]

Originally Posted by riverkid

That is a clear indication that there could be a major problem. Those dictionaries offer no examples or when they have they've been examples of reported speech which is NOT an example of a past tense.

I've asked you, time and again, to offer examples and you've been unable to and I might add, extremely reluctant to even try.

And you have the temerity to talk of proof and evidence.

This may come as a shock to you, but all of the examples that follow "would is the past tense of will" are examples of would used as a past tense verb. I'm surprised you haven't thought of that.

I have given you independent examples and so have others. You just simply say that isn't past tense; that's not past tense, and that can't be past tense. Why would anyone bother doing that again?

Here, once again is the AHD's list of uses and examples of the past tense verb "would".

would (wʊd)
aux.v., Past tense of will2.

1. Used to express desire or intent: She said she would meet us at the corner.
2. Used to express a wish: Would that we had gone with you!
3. Used after a statement of desire, request, or advice: I wish you would stay.
4. Used to make a polite request: Would you go with me?
5. Used in the main clause of a conditional statement to express a possibility or likelihood: If I had enough money, I would buy a car. We would have gone to the beach, had the weather been good. See Usage Note at if.
6. Used to express presumption or expectation: That would be Steve at the door.
7. Used to indicate uncertainty: He would seem to be getting better.
8. Used to express repeated or habitual action in the past: Every morning we would walk in the garden.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2004, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.