0
Sun 94 Posted 15 years ago
Grammar
Can vs could
In the following sentence, to talk about the present possibility can I use ' can' ? If so, what is the differnce between can and could?
Who stole the money?
It can be John.
It could be John.
It can't be John.
It couldn't be John.
Who stole the money?
It can be John.
It could be John.
It can't be John.
It couldn't be John.
Top answer
In my opinion 'It could be John' is contextually correct. 'Can' is present and 'could' is past. John's act is based on the possibility in the past
- In my opinion 'It could be John' is contextually correct.
- 'Can' is present and 'could' is past.
- John's act is based on the possibility in the past
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
8 Answers
0
In my opinion 'It could be John' is contextually correct.
'Can' is present and 'could' is past.
John's act is based on the possibility in the past
'Can' is present and 'could' is past.
John's act is based on the possibility in the past
00
Who stole the money?
It can be John. << not used
It could be John. << = It may/might be John = It is possible that John is the one (who stole the money).
It can't be John. << = It is not possible that John is the one (who stole the money).
It couldn't b
It can be John. << not used
It could be John. << = It may/might be John = It is possible that John is the one (who stole the money).
It can't be John. << = It is not possible that John is the one (who stole the money).
It couldn't b
00
Hi CalifJim
Can we use "It can't be John" to refer to something in the past.
Can we use "It can't be John" to refer to something in the past.
00
vsureshCan we use "It can't be John" to refer to something in the past.No, not in the general case. Use "It couldn't have been John" for the past. It means "It is not possible that it was John".
Oh, I see what you mean. "It can't be John" is not really a reference to the past in the case we discussed above. It's a matter of the current (pr
00
Your explanation is very clear. I am on the ball.
Thank you, CalifJim.
Thank you, CalifJim.
00
I am still confused between the following two sentences.
It couldn't be John.
It can't be John.
When I say ' It couldn't be John', does it imply that there is still possibility it is John who stole the money? but
If I say, It can't be John, does it mean that there is no possibility for him to have stolen the money?
It couldn't be John.
It can't be John.
When I say ' It couldn't be John', does it imply that there is still possibility it is John who stole the money? but
If I say, It can't be John, does it mean that there is no possibility for him to have stolen the money?
00
0
sun 94When I say ' It couldn't be John', does it imply that there is still possibility it is John who stole the money? butNo matter what you say, there's always the possibility that you could be wrong.
If I say, It can't be John, does it mean that there is no possibility for him to have stolen the money?
For all practical purposes, the two mean t
0
Related Questions