0
Vcolts Posted 12 years ago
Grammar

Tense Consistency

Ex.

A. The perestroika, which can be seen as the catalyst for the downfall of the Soviet Union, was Gorbachev's idea.

B. The perestroika, which could be seen as the catalyst for the downfall of the Soviet Union, was Gorbachev's idea.

Q: Should the aux verb (can) be in the past tense to keep the sentence consistent?

Or can we keep it in the present because the information may still be debatable/arguable in the present times (or because the information is believed to be still true until today?)?

Thanks!
  

Top answer

"can" is correct for the reason you give: the fact is still debatable/arguable today. "could" makes the statement sound more hypothetical. To impart a clear past sense one would need to say "could have been seen".

— GPY

  • "can" is correct for the reason you give: the fact is still debatable/arguable today.
  • "could" makes the statement sound more hypothetical.
  • To impart a clear past sense one would need to say "could have been seen".
  • "perestroika" usually does not take an article in English.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

1 Answers
0
"can" is correct for the reason you give: the fact is still debatable/arguable today. "could" makes the statement sound more hypothetical. To impart a clear past sense one would need to say "could have been seen".

"perestroika" usually does not take an article in English.
0

Related Questions