It cannot rain tomorrow

Question

Regarding the following two pairs of sentences:

(1a) There is no possibility that it rained yesterday.
(1b) It cannot have rained yesterday.

(2a) There is no possibility that it will rain tomorrow.
(2b) It cannot rain tomorrow.

I am sure that (1b) is pretty much the same as (1a) in meaning. Then, what about (2b)? Can we say it is close to (2a) in meaning?

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

seagullpretty much the same ... in meaning

What in the world does "pretty much the same in meaning" actually mean? Probably "similar in meaning"?

With phrasing as vague as that, you can say that quite a few pairs of sentences are "close in meaning", i.e., "similar in meaning".

"possibility" has so many shades of meaning in itself that it's hard to know exactly what you want to know here. Even though all those shades of meaning are different, they are also all similar just by being meanings of the same word.

I'd say that 1a and 1b "have pretty much the same meaning", but I would not say that they have the same meaning.
The same applies to 2a and 2b, but these seem farther apart in meaning than the first pair. In fact, there is at least one interpretation of 2b that makes it false.

CJ

Seagull · Answer

Thank you very much for your answer, CalifJim.

It seems that I have some serious misunderstanding about a couple of words and expressions. I'm sorry that it led to this poor question.

I think I'll consider my points more carefully and post a better version of this question in a few days.

CalifJim · Answer

seagullI think I'll consider my points more carefully and post a better version of this question in a few days.

Good idea. In the meantime, here are a few points to consider.

(1a) There is no possibility that it rained yesterday.
(1b) It cannot have rained yesterday.

(2a) There is no possibility that it will rain tomorrow.
(2b) It cannot rain tomorrow.

Rain anywhere in the world? Surely there is a possibility of rain any day of the year from the certainty that it is raining somewhere in the world all the time. We have to suppose you mean rain in your neighborhood, but that's easy to assume, so it's not a big problem.

"can" is a physical or mental ability. The weather has neither of these.
"can" is not often used to say that an event is logically likely to occur.
"cannot", however, can be used as the opposite of "must" when it means "The only reasonable conclusion is that ...".

Does your expression "no possibility (of rain)" refer to physical or logical impossibility? It seems to me that it is always physically possible that it rained or that it will rain. For example, there might be a sudden unexpected shower even though skies were clear just a few hours ago. So "no possibility" must be a logical possibility. But if we know that it's physically possible, it must necessarily be logically possible. This argument seems to me to lead us to say that 1a and 2a are false to begin with. But then the question is whether 1b and 2b are equally false in the same way and for the same reason. If so, then we have some reason to think each pair represents two ways of saying "the same thing" even if we have not reached the level of proof.

Without further explanations, I'd say that the meanings are as follows:

1a There existed no state of the atmosphere previously that could have led to rain yesterday.
1b Thinking logically about what I observe now, I deduce that it did not rain yesterday.
2a There exists no state of the atmosphere now that can lead to rain tomorrow.
2b - 1 It is physically impossible that it will rain tomorrow. (like 2a)
2b - 2 It is legally impossible that it will rain tomorrow. (There is a law against it.)
2b - 3 It is logically impossible that it will rain tomorrow. (Rain tomorrow is equivalent to a four-sided triangle.)
2b - 4 It is "impossible" that it will rain tomorrow because I will it not to rain. I have very important things to do tomorrow which I cannot do while it is raining. The rain will spoil my plans.

Of the various interpretations of 2b, I think only the first one makes sense, and that one is just another way of saying 2a.

So I think I have to change my mind about what I may have said earlier. Maybe 1a is more different from 1b than 2a is different from 2b.

Note that I may well change my mind again tomorrow. It should be no surprise if these seem difficult for non-natives. They are confusing even for natives.

CJ

Seagull · Answer

Thank you so much, CalifJim, for your answer and very detailed and informative explanation. I really appreciate it.

I'm sorry that it took so long before I reply.

After reading your explanation carefully, I realize that I didn't know well about the strict definition of "possibility" and how wide range of meanings the modal verb "can" has.

Now I know that what I wanted to know in the first place was something like as follows:

(A) Since the ground is completely, dry, it cannot have rained yesterday.
(B) Since the sky is perfectly clear, it cannot rain tomorrow.

I was pretty sure that there's no problem with (A), but I didn't know if (B) sounds natural to native speakers. (What I'd like to mean by (B) is close to "Because there is not a cloud in the sky, I'm 100% sure that it won't rain tomorrow.)

Besides, I wanted to know if we could use the main clause of (B) independently. But I know the answer now, thanks to your explanation. Such an expression is very confusing, and we should avoid using it. Am I right?

It cannot rain tomorrow

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions