Can't lose

Question

Which of these is correct:
1-We are on a team that can't lose.
2-We are on a team that couldn't lose.

3-Last year, we were on a team that couldn't lose.

4-The year before that, we were on a team that can lose.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

Both parts of the sentence must be present, or both parts must be past.

Present: are, can
Past: were, could

Can you work it out now? It seems to me that there are two correct answers.

Mister Micawber · Answer

However, there is another, if less likely, possibility: 'We are on a team that couldn't lose (last year, but is much weaker this year).

Mask · Answer

This is a team that couldn't lose, even if they were one man short.

This is a team that can't lose, even if they are one man short.

Do these sentences also follow the "same tense"-principle suggested by califjim? (I.e, is the first sentence not correct?)

CalifJim · Answer

Guest, Mister Micawber, Mask,

Whenever I see a question of the form seen here - essentially a multiple choice question - I usually judge it to be a "test question" which was encountered in an English course, usually with one right answer. I am not always correct in this

, but usually.

In these cases, I restrict what I say to the essential concepts required to answer the question. Learners can easily be confused by too many complicated details about subtle possibilities not part of the original question.

I did not mean to imply that the oversimplified sequence-of-tense rule I gave was the whole story where this subject is concerned! I did, however, feel is was enough to answer the question posed.

As for
"This is a team that couldn't lose, even if they were one man short.",

I would say that there's nothing wrong with it. It has a typical

"IF past subjunctive, (THEN) conditional"
i.e., "IF ... WERE, ... WOULD ..."

tense structure within a relative clause modifying a noun in the main clause (in the present tense). The relative clause can be considered present in meaning (unreal condition and consequence in the present) even though not present in form.

Hope I've not muddied the waters even more!

Mister Micawber · Answer

I believe that one advantage of this kind of forum, Jim, is that questions are open to a variety of responses, from which the questioner can sort out his understanding... or not.

Different advisors make different judgments on the completeness of the answer required. In this case, I thought that if I were to let your remark, 'both parts of the sentence must be present, or both parts must be past' stand, I would be doing the student poor service. 'Must', unqualified as it is, is a rather strong simplification.

Can't lose

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions