Modals: How could the thief gain access to the safe?

Question

Hello,I continue my love affair with modals (probably not reciprocated ) and am analyzing this sentence:1) How could the thief gain access to the safe?a) Might this sentence pertain to the present/future? I can imagine that the speaker is speculating about how somebody else would be able to gain access to the safe.b) Might this sentence pertain to the past? I can imagine that the speaker is commenting on the theft and is wondering how somebody was able to gain access to the safe.c) In what situation can we say the sentence below?2) How could the thief have gained access to the safe?

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

Reegisa) Might this sentence pertain to the present/future? I can imagine that the speaker is speculating about how somebody else would be able to gain access to the safe.

Yes. Designers of security systems ask themselves this question (or similar ones) every time they are designing something new.

Reegis2) How could the thief have gained access to the safe?

The safe is empty.

Englishmaven · Answer

We are fairly certain that the thief did gain access to the safe, but we wonder how it was possible.

CalifJim · Answer

1) How could the thief gain access to the safe?

Reegisa) Might this sentence pertain to the present/future? I can imagine that the speaker is speculating about how somebody else would be able to gain access to the safe.

Yes. How would the (hypothetical) thief be able to gain access to the safe?

could = would be able

Because it's hypothetical, How could a thief gain access ...would be better.

Reegisb) Might this sentence pertain to the past? I can imagine that the speaker is commenting on the theft and is wondering how somebody was able to gain access to the safe.

Yes. How was the (actual) thief able to gain access to the safe?

could = was able

My instinctive reaction is that the sentence below (2) is usually preferred if this is the intended meaning.
______________________

Reegisc) In what situation can we say the sentence below?

2) How could the thief have gained access to the safe?

How would the thief have been able to gain access to the safe?

could have = would have been able

This can be taken as either hypothetical or actual.

Hypothetical: There was a thief, but the thief did not gain access to the safe. The speculation is about how he could have gained access if he had wanted to. Again, "a thief" might have been better in the hypothetical case.
Actual: There was a thief, and the thief did gain access to the safe. The speculation is about how he did gain access.

Reegisprobably not reciprocated

Almost certainly not.

CJ

Reegis · Answer

Thank you all for the help and let me sum up the conclusions:

Future:
1a) How could a thief gain access to the safe?
- No theft, just the speculation about a range of possibilities.

Past:
1b) How could the thief gain access to the safe?
- Theft, the speculation about how the thief did gain access.

2a) How could a thief have gained access to the safe?
- No theft, just the speculation about how a thief could have gained access if he had wanted to.

2b) How could the thief have gained access to the safe?
- Theft, the speculation about how the thief did gain access.

CalifJimMy instinctive reaction is that the sentence below (2) is usually preferred if this is the intended meaning.

Here I think you touched the root of my confusion and why I couldn't figure this out. If what I stated above is correct, then 1b and 2b are very similar... Could you please elaborate upon this topic?

I studied other sentences discussed on this forum, for example:
a) During the Middle Ages people could be accused of the "crime" of witchcraft. (It certainly was a possibility. It often happened.)
b) Historians don't know what happened to the medieval philosopher Jankovitius. For all they know, he could have been accused of witchcraft and sent to prison. (Maybe he was accused and imprisoned; maybe not. It was possible, but nobody knows.)
And I must say that I do understand them (at least I think so), yet I somehow fail to apply this knowledge to some other sentences, for example like originally the ones in this topic.
I suspect that it is somehow related to the fact that in some cases could might be interpreted as to be able to, but this relation is not clear to me.

CalifJimAlmost certainly not.

CalifJim · Answer

ReegisAnd I must say that I do understand them (at least I think so), yet I somehow fail to apply this knowledge to some other sentences, for example like originally the ones in this topic.

It's a perennial problem for students, so don't feel like the Lone Ranger. Factors such as the presence of negation (or not), or interrogation (or not), subordination (or not), and preceding context can clarify or obfuscate the intended meaning of the more complex modal constructions.

CJ

Reegis · Answer

I see, good to know:)

Then I think it is best for me to continue to learn this way, I mean to analyse each questionable sentence on a case by case basis and let's hope I will become more familiar with this topic after several dozen sentences

Could you please explain why in this case your instinctive reaction is that the sentence 2) is usually preferred?

CalifJim · Answer

Reegisplease explain ... instinctive reaction

I wish I could. The reason for posting the words "instinctive reaction" is to alert you that I have no explanation.

CJ

Fivejedjon · Answer

I'll just add a note to cheer you up - or depress you.

Most grammars, course books and responders in this forum attempt to give general information about how words are used in situations that learners can reasonably be expected to encounter. In order to do this, they often examine single sentences without a great deal of context. This is inevitable - If we examined every possible shade of meaning that a single sentence containing a modal perfect construction could convey, we'd end up with a small book.

In real life, particularly if two speakers know each other, context is very often at least as important as the actual words used. Indeed, one or both of the people conversing might well make what a prescriptive grammarian would call serious mistakes. The people involved will not even notice the mistakes. They 'hear' the intended message, not the actual words.

Much non-standard English is perfectly comprehensible to native speakers. I would never say 'Nobody ain't never done nuffink to 'elp me', but I understand completely the message - 'Nobody has ever done anything to help me'. When I was teaching in comprehensive schools in England, a number of my pupils continued to believe until the day they left school , that How could the thief of broke into the safe? was correct. They were, for examination purposes, wrong, but I have to admit that the message would be understood clearly by all native speakers of BrE.

Reegis · Answer

It is far from depressing

When I started to take learning English seriously (especially English grammar) I also decided to be more aware of how I and other people in my country use my native language, and I came to the same conclusions as you say - daily verbal conversations might be far from correct and stlll understandable and acceptable. What makes some people more difficult to understand is their pronounciation rather than used words.
On the other hand we have the written language, at least we should have... I say 'should' because on the Internet I can sometimes read such constructions that my eyes hurt when looking at them. They might have so many glaring errors that it makes you start thinking what a given person actually has in their head... Of course I am still speaking about my native language. English sentences are sometimes difficult for me to say if they are correct or not.

I work in a multinational company and almost every day I talk with other people in English. These people extremely rarely are from England or US - 90% is from Sweden, Spain, Italy, China, India and also from my country. What is interesting is that what you call non-standard English might differ a lot between all these people and I must say that it might be very difficult to understand if you are not used to this. I think that when a native English speaker starts creating fancy or sloppy sentences he does so naturally and his sentences are more or less understandable to his countrymen. On the other hand, when somebody from another country starts doing so he often translates it word for word from his own language and unless it is also your own language you might get into trouble trying to understand him...

All of these made me ask myself - am I also doing this? Well, of course I did, I translated some sentences literally (which might lead to quite severe mistakes because my language is definitely different) and as long as it is verbal English I think it might be partially excusable, but I dislike it when it is written - for example in an email or on forums. This was when my perfectionist nature woke up and I decided that I not only want to be able to communicate but also to do so in a way that sounds natural. This is when I started to read books in original to increase input, and now as you can see I am also learning complete English sentences.
With your help it is definitely going in the right direction

Btw. it is interesting how many people reached this point of my post

CalifJim · Answer

ReegisI started to read books in the original

So did I. Great way to learn. I've read Treasure Island in four languages, but I've never read it in the original English. I thought the pirates sounded best in Italian!

CJ

Modals: How could the thief gain access to the safe?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions