Can / could

Question

"With just a touch of exaggeration, one can/could say that Hitler was a blood-sucking monster."What difference does it make whether I use can or could here?Thank you.

Canadian45 · Accepted Answer

I don't see any difference.

SuperESL · Answer

Would 'could' sound but circumspect and less certain?

Canadian45 · Answer

SuperESLWould 'could' sound but circumspect and less certain?

Your sentence is not quite right, but I think I know what you are asking.

I don't think we can say that "can" and "could" have different meanings or other differences. We are not talking about "can" and "could" in relation to future possibilities. The sentence relates to something in the past, and "can" and "could" have identical meanings as related to the "blood-sucking monster" comment.

SuperESL · Answer

Sorry, I meant that would 'could' sound more circumspect and less certain.

CalifJim · Answer

SuperESL"With just a touch of exaggeration, one can/could say that Hitler was a blood-sucking monster."What difference does it make whether I use can or could here?

In your place I would write, "... one can say that Hitler is a ...." if Hitler were still alive and in power.

That not being the case, I would write, "... one could say that Hitler was a ...".

But that's not all. I read "With just a touch of exaggeration" as "If one were to add just a touch of exaggeration", so I hear a sort of hypothetical conditional there. That makes me want to hear "could" instead of "can" in the next part of the sentence.

CJ

SuperESL · Answer

Good point. Thank you. But then I also think that any statement that begins with "one could......" is necessarily and implicitly hedged. For otherwise one would've just come right out: "Hitler was a blood-sucking monster." So perhaps this means that "one could say......" is always preferable to "one can say......"?

That said, I agree with Canadian45 'can' is not wrong. Thank you.

Canadian45 · Answer

The reason I say "can" and "could" have exactly the same meaning is that they both mean 'With.......exaggeration, it is possible to say .....'.
That "possible" means 'justifiable', 'not unreasonable'.

CalifJim · Answer

canadian45they both mean 'With.......exaggeration, it is possible to say .....'.

I'd say it differently. That both involve possibility is without question.

Nevertheless, can say means 'it is possible to say'; could say means 'it would be possible to say'.

CJ

Canadian45 · Answer

But what difference does it make in that sentence? I don't see any.

SuperESL · Answer

Allow me to go back to a previous point made:

CJ says: [In your place I would write, "... one can say that Hitler is a ...." if Hitler were still alive and in power.]

I don't see the necessity for making 'can' agree with 'is' even if Hitler were still alive and in power.

What is wrong with:

"One could say that Hitler is a blood-sucking monster."?

For me, the difference between could and can is simply that 'could' sounds somewhat less certain. I don't see the choice between 'could' / 'can' being a matter of choosing between the past tense / the present tense. Regardless of whether you say "one can" or "one could," it is clear that the author is suggesting something that he thinks is not immediately clear to the reader or something that he thinks is not 100% certain. One actually has to make a case for it, as opposed to a situation where one feels the point is self-explanatory.

Can / could

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions