Can/could

[Tara2]

Hi,
Should I use 'can' or 'could' in the blank space?
"Look at those dark clouds. It .... start raining any minute."

 

[emsr2d2]

As always, please tell us which one you think you should use and why.

 

[Tara2]

As always, please tell us which one you think you should use and why.

I think I should use 'can'. 'can' expresses strong possibility but 'could' expresses weak possibility.
Here with respect to 'those dark clouds', we should use strong possibility that is 'can'. No?

 

[Tarheel]

Yes, can indicates possibility. However, could here is much more likely.

Look at those clouds. It could start raining at any moment.

You could also use might there.

(Maybe the term you are looking for is strong probability.)

 

[GoesStation]

I think I should use 'can'. 'can' expresses strong possibility but 'could' expresses weak possibility.
Here with respect to 'those dark clouds', we should use strong possibility that is 'can'. No?

Can is not natural there, though your logic is reasonable. It would mean "Raining, in general, is possible," without regard to current conditions.

 

[Tara2]

Can is not natural there, though your logic is reasonable. It would mean "Raining, in general, is possible," without regard to current conditions.

'Can' and 'could' express only a possibility:
"We can/could have a party"

Why is 'can' natural here but not in the former sentence?

 

[Tarheel]

Yes, they both express possibility, but they are used differently.

 

[Tara2]

Yes, they both express possibility, but they are used differently.

If they both express possibility, why are they different?

 

[GoesStation]

'Can' and 'could' express only a possibility:
"We can/could have a party"

Why is 'can' natural here but not in the former sentence?

Here, too, can is not very likely. We can have a party means that having a party is not impossible; that's a rather obvious statement that few occasions would call for.

We could have a party adds desirability to the statement: not only is having a party possible, it's a good idea.

 

[Tara2]

Here, too, can is not very likely. We can have a party means that having a party is not impossible; that's a rather obvious statement that few occasions would call for.

We could have a party adds desirability to the statement: not only is having a party possible, it's a good idea.

I got that sentence from the book, it said that 'can' and 'could' only express a possibility. They do not mean that something is likely to happen.

 

[Tarheel]

I got that sentence from the book, it said that 'can' and 'could' only express a possibility. They do not mean that something is likely to happen.

I don't know why you use "only" there. However, GS is right. Look at the following brief dialogue.

Ann: Beth, what do you want to do?
Beth: We could have a party.

Why does Beth use "could" and not "can"? It's not because she thinks having a party is possible. It's because she thinks it might be a good idea.

 

[Tara2]

I don't know why you use "only" there. However, GS is right. Look at the following brief dialogue.

Ann: Beth, what do you want to do?
Beth: We could have a party.

Why does Beth use "could" and not "can"? It's not because she thinks having a party is possible. It's because she thinks it might be a good idea.

I wrote what was in the book.

 

[Tarheel]

I think you will find that while "can" and "could" both indicate possibility, they are used quite differently. Here is a brief conversation using can.

Abe: Bob, can it be done?
Bob: No, it can't. We don't have the money.

I am sure that neither Abe nor Bob would dream of using could there.