[Grammar] It can be dangerous to cycle in the city.

[jutfrank]

But what if we try to generalize from a single observation in the past? Would that be a valid generalization?

I'd have to say no. By definition, that wouldn't be a generalisation.

In my last post, I tried to generalize from a single observation when I said, " an event that has happened only once, and there's a good chance that it will/may happen again", and then I went on to discuss a case under it, where I said,

"In the past, John has attempted to rob the bank five times. He was successful four times and got into trouble once: Robbing the bank can get John into trouble."

Here the speaker takes into account five different occurrences of bank-robbing by John, of which one was unsuccessful. Then based on this single unsuccessful occurrence, he makes the general observation: Robbing the bank can get John into trouble.

Yes, I agree with that but my explanation is to say that there is not one single observation here but many, because all occurrences of bank-robbing, both successful and unsuccessful, must be considered for the generalisation to be made. In other words, the single case only makes sense in relation to the other cases. There just needs to be a minimum of one unsuccessful attempt for the generalisation to be valid.

Now, lets discuss something I'm still confused about.

So far we've talked about generalizations. Now, suppose the speaker is completely unaware of John/one/people having robbed the bank/banks in the past. Thus, no past observations imply no induction, which implies no generalization.

Q): Now if there is no generalization, can we use "can" in the following sentences? If so, what does using "can" mean in those sentences? Do they all refer to the future?

1) Robbing the bank can get John/people into trouble.

2) Robbing a bank/banks can get John/people into trouble.

Well, no. If they aren't meant as generalisations, then what are they? I'm not sure I properly understand your question.

Perhaps what you mean should be expressed with other modal verbs. Look:

Robbing the bank could get John into trouble.

The speaker here is probably thinking about a specific future event. That's what could does, in contrast to can—it places the action in a specific point in space/time. Depending on context, we'd either interpret the future event as a 'real' event where we imagine John really doing it, or as a purely theoretical one, where the whole thing is considered as kind of potentiality that can't be ruled out.

If the future event is imagined clearly to be 'real' in the sense I've outlined above, it would be better to use might in this case instead. Very generally speaking, I'd say the best way to differentiate between could and might is by using this real/theoretical distinction of possibility.

Robbing the bank might get John into trouble.

This is clearly not a generalisation and not a theory. There's a real person, a real bank, and probably a real plan in John's mind.

 

[Rover_KE]

See also this thread.

 

[NAL123]

I'd have to say no. By definition, that wouldn't be a generalisation.

Yes, I agree with that but my explanation is to say that there is not one single observation here but many, because all occurrences of bank-robbing, both successful and unsuccessful, must be considered for the generalisation to be made. In other words, the single case only makes sense in relation to the other cases. There just needs to be a minimum of one unsuccessful attempt for the generalisation to be valid.

Actually that's what I really wanted to mean. Now "can" for possibility is completely clear to me!

Well, no. If they aren't meant as generalisations, then what are they? I'm not sure I properly understand your question.

Perhaps what you mean should be expressed with other modal verbs. Look:

Robbing the bank could get John into trouble.

The speaker here is probably thinking about a specific future event. That's what could does, in contrast to can—it places the action in a specific point in space/time. Depending on context, we'd either interpret the future event as a 'real' event where we imagine John really doing it, or as a purely theoretical one, where the whole thing is considered as kind of potentiality that can't be ruled out.

If the future event is imagined clearly to be 'real' in the sense I've outlined above, it would be better to use might in this case instead. Very generally speaking, I'd say the best way to differentiate between could and might is by using this real/theoretical distinction of possibility.

Robbing the bank might get John into trouble.

This is clearly not a generalisation and not a theory. There's a real person, a real bank, and probably a real plan in John's mind.

This is how I've always known and used "could" and "might" after I learned about them from you and other teachers here and elsewhere. The reason for the confusion was that I had seen people use "can" instead of "could" in the above sense and I would get really confused because I never understood whether they meant "can" for general or "can" for a specific future event, and if they meant "can" for specific, then why not "could". I'm not sure whether they were native speakers or not.

Anyway, a great great great explanation! Thanks for your time and helping me out of the confused state! I really appreciate it. Later tonight I will pose a question on the "ability" sense of "can". I hope you'll help me there. Thank you.

 

[NAL123]

See also this thread.

Yes I've asked there too, because I just want to know about these modal verbs. And the important things is: Not everyone can explain the same thing the right way it should be explained. People have different opinions and different ways of understanding/explaining things. I try to understand things in the best way.

 

[jutfrank]

The reason for the confusion was that I had seen people use "can" instead of "could" in the above sense and I would get really confused because I never understood whether they meant "can" for general or "can" for a specific future event, and if they meant "can" for specific, then why not "could". I'm not sure whether they were native speakers or not.

I see. Well, it's possible that they were just wrong. I obviously can't comment further without seeing some real examples.

One piece of advice I would give you to help you understand the very difficult topic of modality expressed by modal verbs is this: Remember that what modal verbs do is help express what's in the speaker's mind. So you really need to have a very clear idea of speaker meaning as your starting point. Speaker meaning is what the speaker means, as opposed to sentence meaning, which is what the sentence, as a composite of the individual words, means. This is a very important distinction.

Because of this, I don't think it's very productive to make up your own, may I say often unnatural sentences, and then attempt to work out what they could mean; in fact, I think that's getting things somewhat backwards. I suggest you work only with completely authentic examples of actual use, with sufficient context to show how the speaker wishes to use the utterance to express what he means.

 

[NAL123]

Because of this, I don't think it's very productive to make up your own, may I say often unnatural sentences, and then attempt to work out what they could mean; in fact, I think that's getting things somewhat backwards. I suggest you work only with completely authentic examples of actual use, with sufficient context to show how the speaker wishes to use the utterance to express what he means.

Since we have discussed the possibility sense of "can" here, I think it would be a good idea to discuss its ability sense here as well. But I no longer want to learn from example sentences. So I'm going to directly ask one or two questions on the ability sense of "can".

1) Since there is "general possibility", is there anything like "general ability", for which we only use "can"?

2) Since there is "specific possibility", is there anything like "specific ability", for which we only use "could"?

3) In other words, does "can" function the same way or differently in an "ability sentence" and "possibility sentence"?

I wrote about my opinion on it in post #6 of this thread, but I would like to know your point of view.

 

[jutfrank]

First of all, remember that all modal verbs are in some extrinsic way about possibility, so to differentiate them you need to understand there to be different kinds of possibility. The notion of ability is just one of these kinds of possibility. If you're able to do something, then of course it's possible for you to do it.

Similar to how we thought about general and specific possibility in the discussion above, we can also think about general and specific ability. The easiest way to see this difference is when we're talking about the past. Normally, when we want to talk about past ability we use could, but in cases where the ability relates to a specific event (i.e., located at one point in space/time), we use was able to. I think this shows that there is an important difference in how we think about what can be called general and specific ability, though it's by no means very clear, and you need some good examples to reveal it.

 

[NAL123]

Last question:

First of all, remember that all modal verbs are in some extrinsic way about possibility, so to differentiate them you need to understand there to be different kinds of possibility. The notion of ability is just one of these kinds of possibility. If you're able to do something, then of course it's possible for you to do it.

Similar to how we thought about general and specific possibility in the discussion above, we can also think about general and specific ability. The easiest way to see this difference is when we're talking about the past. Normally, when we want to talk about past ability we use could, but in cases where the ability relates to a specific event (i.e., located at one point in space/time), we use was able to. I think this shows that there is an important difference in how we think about what can be called general and specific ability, though it's by no means very clear, and you need some good examples to reveal it.

I know a little bit about the similarity and difference between "could" and "was able to" when referring to past ability. Here I'm more concerned about abilities in the future.
As we have discussed, we don't usually use "can" for specific future possibilities, we use "could" instead. Is it the same with "ability" as well? For example:

1) Boris Johnson can win the coming UK election.

Is this ability sentence correct with "can"?

 

[GoesStation]

Is it the same with "ability" as well? For example:

1) Boris Johnson can win the coming UK election.

Is this ability sentence correct with "can"?

It's grammatical but unlikely. Anyone who knows how British elections work knows it's possible for Johnson to win. Why would you need to say that?

With "could", you're expressing some level of probability: you wouldn't be tremendously surprised if he won.

 

[jutfrank]

As we have discussed, we don't usually use "can" for specific future possibilities, we use "could" instead. Is it the same with "ability" as well?

No. Ability is different. When you want to focus on the idea that the ability applies to the future event, the it's better to use (will) be able to.

For example:

1) Boris Johnson can win the coming UK election.

Is this ability sentence correct with "can"?

Yes, it's correct. But there's a sense in which the ability in this case is more general than specific, even though the future event (winning the election) is very clearly a specific event. The way I understand this is hard to explain, but I'll try with the following two sentences:

1) I can't help you now but I can help you tomorrow.
2) I can't help you now, but I will be able to help you tomorrow.

These two sentences are not exactly the same. I want to suggest that all three cases of can/can't convey that the possibility of helping exists in what I'd call general time, not future time. In sentence 1, the difference between the blue and green parts is that the blue verb phrase relates to the present time and the green verb phrase relates to a future time. The blue helping is now and the green helping is in the future, but the possibility lies separately, as some abstracted idea that doesn't really exist in time at all. Another way of saying that is that it exists in all of time, all at once. It's similar to how we think of mathematical facts as being timeless; when we say two plus two equals four, we're not really saying anything about the present, past or future because two plus two equalled four a billion years ago, equals four right now, and will equal four in a billion years in the future. Generalisations similarly exist in this 'timeless' general time.

What sentence 2 does differently is place the focus of ability clearly in the future. It's truly a statement of future ability in a way that sentence 1 is not.

We could rephrase the sentences to get something like this:

1a) Helping you now is not possible now but helping you tomorrow is possible now.
2a) Helping you now is not possible now but helping you tomorrow will be possible tomorrow.

To apply this to context of use, you could imagine sentence 1 uttered by someone consulting their diary and seeing that tomorrow's page is blank. With sentence 2, the speaker is possibly seeing an image of himself in the future as he utters it, and seeing that the possibility exists there, at that particular future time, in his imagination.

I've no idea if that makes any sense to you. Let me know how much. It makes sense to me.

 

[NAL123]

I've no idea if that makes any sense to you. Let me know how much. It makes sense to me.

It completely makes sense. So they are like:

1) I'm always not able (=unable) to help you now, but I'm always able to help you tomorrow.
= I'm not in a state to help you now, but I'm in a state to help you tomorrow.

2) I'm always not able (=unable) to help you now, but I will always be able to help you tomorrow.
= I'm not in a state to help you now, but I'll be in a state to help you tomorrow.

In other words, the adverbs of time, "now" and "tomorrow", apply only to the main verb (help), and not to modal verb (can). I think it may be true for any other modal verb.

Thank you very much for helping this non-native speaker learn and understand English and thank you for your time, effort, and above all, your patience!

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, that's basically right. You've understood what I meant to say, anyway.

You're welcome. I'm always happy to help, of course.

 

[Tarheel]

I might say:

I can't help you today, but I can help you tomorrow.

I would not say:
.
I'm always not able ....

 

[NAL123]

Yes, that's basically right. You've understood what I meant to say, anyway.

You're welcome. I'm always happy to help, of course.

Sorry to bother you one more time. I was going to start a new thread for this question but then I thought if it was so related to the topic of this thread, I should ask here. The question is about a third, and I think last, use of "can" in the sense of "ability". We have already talked about the first two: "general ability" and "specific ability". Here I would like to discuss the "ability right now" sense, as you mentioned here: https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/282698-I-can-imagine-going-to-Canada. I may be wrong, but I think this sense of "can" depends more on the main verb used in the sentence. In other words, we cannot use "can" with just any verb to get this meaning. For example,

1) I can hear you. (= am able to hear right now)

2) I can see her coming down the road now.


3) Can you smell something burning?


4) I can guess why you’re angry.

The act of hearing, seeing, smelling or guessing is happening right at the moment the speaker utters those words. Similarly, for past single events, we'd have:

5) The food was terrible. I could taste nothing but salt. (= was able to taste then)

6) We knew they were in there. We could hear voices inside.


7) He came and spoke to me, but I couldn’t remember his name.

Q1: Am I right till here?

If that's all correct, now I'd like to focus on the verb "imagine". I think it falls into the above category of verbs. For example:

8) I can imagine a few situations where these words could be used. (https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/282698-I-can-imagine-going-to-Canada)

Sentence (8) could be thought of as a response to the question: Can you imagine some situations where..., because I can't think of any?

And as you said in that thread, the speaker of (8) is imagining those things as they speak. Now consider this:

9) I could imagine a few situations where these words could be used.

Q2: Does "could" in sentence (9) necessarily imply "was able to", as in sentences (5), (6) and (7), or depending on context, can it act like a theoretical/hypothetical "could" implying uncertainty, modesty, timidity etc ?

 

[NAL123]

Here are a few more examples:

10) We soaked up the local culture. I learned the history of Santa Maria Del Fiore Duomo, designed by Brunelleschi and built over generations with pure faith that its unprecedented scale would remain structurally sound -- a daring belief at a time when the Black Plague had wiped out the city's population and the ruler of Milan threatened the Florentine republic. I stood on the floor of the church and looked up in awe because I couldn't imagine that much faith.(https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mens-movements_b_836213)

11) “Drill Baby Drill” Isn’t that what you said? I remember the chill that ran up my spine the first time I heard it. Then came the chanting. Louder...Louder...Frightening. I couldn’t imagine that anything more painful would ever fall on my ears. I was wrong. (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cries-from-the-gulf---vid_b_616037)

12) After enduring Hurricane Harvey in Houston this August, I couldn’t imagine that anything worse could possibly happen. I remember crying once it was safe to walk outside of my apartment and silently praying that nothing like that would impact the Gulf Coast again in the foreseeable future. (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hurr...long-before-it-hit_b_59b0a4b6e4b0d0c16bb52a00)

13) For a moment, I wished I’d said yes to the tea and stopped, not to talk about anything in particular but to keep company with the man for a while. I couldn’t imagine that his Christmas would be that festive, with just him and the animals. (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/10/29/the-cold-outside)

Q3: Does "I couldn't imagine" mean "I wasn't able to imagine at the time" in all of them?

 

[jutfrank]

Q1: Am I right till here?

Yes. The examples that you've used show that you've correctly identified what I think of as a certain group of verbs which contains two distinct but similar classes: sense verbs (see/hear/smell, etc.) and mental/attitude verbs (guess/imagine/understand, etc.) This group of verbs work very well with can, in the sense of 'ability right now'.

A good way to test this meaning is simply to remove the can from the sentence altogether and keep the sentence in the present simple tense, in which case get essentially the same meaning:

I can see what you mean = I see what you mean
I can imagine it must have been difficult =I imagine it must have been difficult
I can't believe she said that! = I don't believe she said that!
I can appreciate that you're upset but ... = I appreciate you're upset but ...
Can you smell gas? = Do you smell gas?
I can't remember locking the door this morning = I don't remember locking the door this morning

If that's all correct, now I'd like to focus on the verb "imagine". I think it falls into the above category of verbs. For example:

8) I can imagine a few situations where these words could be used. (https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/282698-I-can-imagine-going-to-Canada)

I can't stress heavily enough how important it is to work with examples where the speaker meaning is perfectly clear. I think the problem with this example, and even more so with your other examples in the other thread (notably the one about Canada) is that the meaning is not completely clear.

Where did you see this sentence? Or did you make it up? Can you see how it's apparently quite different from my sentence above? (I can imagine it must have been difficult for you.) Until we ascertain how it was used in context, I'd rather not work with it, if you don't mind.

Here are some better examples, which show various meanings/uses of the phrase I can imagine. I've added in brackets what the use is in each case.

I can imagine you're hungry, right? [supposition/prediction]
I can't imagine living in Canada. I hate the cold. [expression of preference]
Can you imagine how angry I was when he said that? [request for empathy]
I can imagine it must have been difficult for you. [expression of sympathy]
I can't imagine she would have arrived yet. [speculation]

My examples are good because in none of them is the speaker really saying anything about his imagination. They're really just idiomatic ways to perform the various illocutionary acts noted in the brackets. It doesn't make a great deal of sense, I think, to try to understand them as saying something about 'ability to imagine'.

And as you said in that thread, the speaker of (8) is imagining those things as they speak.

I did say that, yes, because that's the best interpretation I could make, but as I've said above, I'd really rather not work with examples that are not completely clear. I don't think that's going to help understand this very well. If you want some really good examples of can for what I meant by 'ability right now', stick with sense verbs, which do the job very well:

Look! I can see your house from up here!
I can hear somebody coming! Let's hide.

And mental/attitude verbs:

I can't understand what you're saying.
Can you remember where you left it?

And then also of course, obvious examples such as:

Help! I can't swim!
I can't breathe!

Q2: Does "could" in sentence (9) necessarily imply "was able to", as in sentences (5), (6) and (7), or depending on context, can it act like a theoretical/hypothetical "could" implying uncertainty, modesty, timidity etc ?

Again, let's stick with clearly contextualised examples.

 

[jutfrank]

The examples in post #35 are good ones because they're all authentic and sufficiently contextualised. We can definitely discuss those, but please tell me if everything I've said in post #36 makes sense first.

By the way, I've just noticed a good authentic example of use of I can imagine, used by my good self in fact, in post #3 here:

https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/287690-The-universe-has-expanded-and-cooled-ever-since

The illocution there is speculation.

 

[NAL123]

And then also of course, obvious examples such as:

Help! I can't swim!
I can't breathe!

But I think verbs like swim, breathe etc. combine only with "can't", and not "can", to produce "ability right now" meaning. Am I right?

I can swim

I can breathe

I think these do not suggest "ability right now". Am I rihgt?

 

[NAL123]

The examples in post #35 are good ones because they're all authentic and sufficiently contextualised. We can definitely discuss those, but please tell me if everything I've said in post #36 makes sense first.

All of that makes perfect sense. Thank you very much for the effort!

My third question was: Does "I couldn't imagine" mean "I wasn't able to imagine at the time" in all of them? Or does it imply theoretical/hypothetical possibility in some of them? Can we use "I could/couldn't imagine" with the theoretical possibility meaning in some contexts?

 

[jutfrank]

But I think verbs like swim, breathe etc. combine only with "can't", and not "can", to produce "ability right now" meaning. Am I right?

It really depends on the context. Imagine somebody who has been blind all his life who wakes up after an eye operation, to exclaim: I can see!