“Can” or “could” in the mentioned sentence?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Could / Can Happiness bring pain?
The above sentence is not meant to mean the past time. "Could", and not "can", is used for past. So, "can" is preferable in the sentence?
On the other hand, the sentence is meant to ask whether there are possible conditions under which happiness bring pain. Or, does it ever happen that happiness brings pain. So, since it is about future possibility, isn't "could" a better choice?
can-could
asked Dec 2 at 15:20
Sasan
565934
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Could / Can Happiness bring pain?
The above sentence is not meant to mean the past time. "Could", and not "can", is used for past. So, "can" is preferable in the sentence?
On the other hand, the sentence is meant to ask whether there are possible conditions under which happiness bring pain. Or, does it ever happen that happiness brings pain. So, since it is about future possibility, isn't "could" a better choice?
can-could
asked Dec 2 at 15:20
Sasan
565934
What is the context? If it is describing something in the past, then you've answered your own question. If you aren't, then either word is possible. But, again, more context would determine that.
– Jason Bassford
Dec 2 at 15:25
@JasonBassford it is mentioned in the question that the sentence is not about the past time.
– Sasan
Dec 2 at 15:45
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Could / Can Happiness bring pain?
The above sentence is not meant to mean the past time. "Could", and not "can", is used for past. So, "can" is preferable in the sentence?
On the other hand, the sentence is meant to ask whether there are possible conditions under which happiness bring pain. Or, does it ever happen that happiness brings pain. So, since it is about future possibility, isn't "could" a better choice?
can-could
asked Dec 2 at 15:20
Sasan
565934
Could / Can Happiness bring pain?
The above sentence is not meant to mean the past time. "Could", and not "can", is used for past. So, "can" is preferable in the sentence?
On the other hand, the sentence is meant to ask whether there are possible conditions under which happiness bring pain. Or, does it ever happen that happiness brings pain. So, since it is about future possibility, isn't "could" a better choice?
can-could
can-could
asked Dec 2 at 15:20
Sasan
565934
asked Dec 2 at 15:20
Sasan
565934
edited Dec 2 at 15:46
asked Dec 2 at 15:20
Sasan
565934
asked Dec 2 at 15:20
Sasan
565934
asked Dec 2 at 15:20
Sasan
565934
565934
What is the context? If it is describing something in the past, then you've answered your own question. If you aren't, then either word is possible. But, again, more context would determine that.
– Jason Bassford
Dec 2 at 15:25
@JasonBassford it is mentioned in the question that the sentence is not about the past time.
– Sasan
Dec 2 at 15:45
add a comment |
What is the context? If it is describing something in the past, then you've answered your own question. If you aren't, then either word is possible. But, again, more context would determine that.
– Jason Bassford
Dec 2 at 15:25
@JasonBassford it is mentioned in the question that the sentence is not about the past time.
– Sasan
Dec 2 at 15:45
What is the context? If it is describing something in the past, then you've answered your own question. If you aren't, then either word is possible. But, again, more context would determine that.
– Jason Bassford
Dec 2 at 15:25
What is the context? If it is describing something in the past, then you've answered your own question. If you aren't, then either word is possible. But, again, more context would determine that.
– Jason Bassford
Dec 2 at 15:25
@JasonBassford it is mentioned in the question that the sentence is not about the past time.
– Sasan
Dec 2 at 15:45
@JasonBassford it is mentioned in the question that the sentence is not about the past time.
– Sasan
Dec 2 at 15:45
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Can and could are both modal auxiliaries and they both refer to possibility and probability.
So do the other modal auxiliaries.
All of the following questions (which are all grammatical) ask
"whether there are possible conditions under which happiness brings pain".
The first verb in each case is a modal auxiliary verb. None of them refer to the past.
Can happiness bring pain?
Could happiness bring pain?
Might happiness bring pain?
Must happiness bring pain?
Should happiness bring pain?
Will happiness bring pain?
Would happiness bring pain?
Forget about "past tense" with modals. Modal auxiliaries are uninflected and have no tense at all.
Could only refers to past time in specialized constructions, which are rare.
It does not usually refer to the past.
The same applies to the other "past" modals: would, might, should, must.
They refer much more often to the future, in fact.
answered Dec 2 at 17:51
John Lawler
83.9k6115327
Though, is there a difference in the meaning of "can happiness ..." and "could happiness ..."?
– Sasan
Dec 2 at 18:06
Yes, but that's to be expected. Modals don't mean "the same thing" -- they refer to different types of possibility, probability, and certainty, mostly in idioms. But possibility, probability, and certainty, as determined by personal judgement, is what they all refer to.
– John Lawler
Dec 2 at 18:40
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Can and could are both fine here, though I would recommend adding ever to clarify the intended meaning (unless other context already makes that clear):
- "Can happiness ever bring pain?"
- "Could happiness ever bring pain?"
The difference between the two is that can seems to be asking about whether it ever really happens, whereas could seems to be asking about whether it could even hypothetically happen. (Neither of these is strict, however; we can say things like, on the one hand, "Is there any possible world where happiness can ever bring pain?", and, on the other hand, "Do you think that, in the average person's life, happiness could ever bring pain?")
[…] the sentence is meant to ask whether there are possible conditions under which happiness bring pain. Or, does it ever happen that happiness brings pain.
But those aren't the same! For the former, I'd recommend could; for the latter, I'd recommend can (or does).
answered Dec 3 at 3:29
ruakh
12k13446
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Can and could are both modal auxiliaries and they both refer to possibility and probability.
So do the other modal auxiliaries.
All of the following questions (which are all grammatical) ask
"whether there are possible conditions under which happiness brings pain".
The first verb in each case is a modal auxiliary verb. None of them refer to the past.
Can happiness bring pain?
Could happiness bring pain?
Might happiness bring pain?
Must happiness bring pain?
Should happiness bring pain?
Will happiness bring pain?
Would happiness bring pain?
Forget about "past tense" with modals. Modal auxiliaries are uninflected and have no tense at all.
Could only refers to past time in specialized constructions, which are rare.
It does not usually refer to the past.
The same applies to the other "past" modals: would, might, should, must.
They refer much more often to the future, in fact.
answered Dec 2 at 17:51
John Lawler
83.9k6115327
Though, is there a difference in the meaning of "can happiness ..." and "could happiness ..."?
– Sasan
Dec 2 at 18:06
Yes, but that's to be expected. Modals don't mean "the same thing" -- they refer to different types of possibility, probability, and certainty, mostly in idioms. But possibility, probability, and certainty, as determined by personal judgement, is what they all refer to.
– John Lawler
Dec 2 at 18:40
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Can and could are both modal auxiliaries and they both refer to possibility and probability.
So do the other modal auxiliaries.
All of the following questions (which are all grammatical) ask
"whether there are possible conditions under which happiness brings pain".
The first verb in each case is a modal auxiliary verb. None of them refer to the past.
Can happiness bring pain?
Could happiness bring pain?
Might happiness bring pain?
Must happiness bring pain?
Should happiness bring pain?
Will happiness bring pain?
Would happiness bring pain?
Forget about "past tense" with modals. Modal auxiliaries are uninflected and have no tense at all.
Could only refers to past time in specialized constructions, which are rare.
It does not usually refer to the past.
The same applies to the other "past" modals: would, might, should, must.
They refer much more often to the future, in fact.
answered Dec 2 at 17:51
John Lawler
83.9k6115327
Though, is there a difference in the meaning of "can happiness ..." and "could happiness ..."?
– Sasan
Dec 2 at 18:06
Yes, but that's to be expected. Modals don't mean "the same thing" -- they refer to different types of possibility, probability, and certainty, mostly in idioms. But possibility, probability, and certainty, as determined by personal judgement, is what they all refer to.
– John Lawler
Dec 2 at 18:40
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Can and could are both modal auxiliaries and they both refer to possibility and probability.
So do the other modal auxiliaries.
All of the following questions (which are all grammatical) ask
"whether there are possible conditions under which happiness brings pain".
The first verb in each case is a modal auxiliary verb. None of them refer to the past.
Can happiness bring pain?
Could happiness bring pain?
Might happiness bring pain?
Must happiness bring pain?
Should happiness bring pain?
Will happiness bring pain?
Would happiness bring pain?
Forget about "past tense" with modals. Modal auxiliaries are uninflected and have no tense at all.
Could only refers to past time in specialized constructions, which are rare.
It does not usually refer to the past.
The same applies to the other "past" modals: would, might, should, must.
They refer much more often to the future, in fact.
answered Dec 2 at 17:51
John Lawler
83.9k6115327
Can and could are both modal auxiliaries and they both refer to possibility and probability.
So do the other modal auxiliaries.
All of the following questions (which are all grammatical) ask
"whether there are possible conditions under which happiness brings pain".
The first verb in each case is a modal auxiliary verb. None of them refer to the past.
Can happiness bring pain?
Could happiness bring pain?
Might happiness bring pain?
Must happiness bring pain?
Should happiness bring pain?
Will happiness bring pain?
Would happiness bring pain?
Forget about "past tense" with modals. Modal auxiliaries are uninflected and have no tense at all.
Could only refers to past time in specialized constructions, which are rare.
It does not usually refer to the past.
The same applies to the other "past" modals: would, might, should, must.
They refer much more often to the future, in fact.
answered Dec 2 at 17:51
John Lawler
83.9k6115327
edited Dec 2 at 19:06
answered Dec 2 at 17:51
John Lawler
83.9k6115327
answered Dec 2 at 17:51
John Lawler
83.9k6115327
answered Dec 2 at 17:51
John Lawler
83.9k6115327
83.9k6115327
Though, is there a difference in the meaning of "can happiness ..." and "could happiness ..."?
– Sasan
Dec 2 at 18:06
Yes, but that's to be expected. Modals don't mean "the same thing" -- they refer to different types of possibility, probability, and certainty, mostly in idioms. But possibility, probability, and certainty, as determined by personal judgement, is what they all refer to.
– John Lawler
Dec 2 at 18:40
add a comment |
Though, is there a difference in the meaning of "can happiness ..." and "could happiness ..."?
– Sasan
Dec 2 at 18:06
Yes, but that's to be expected. Modals don't mean "the same thing" -- they refer to different types of possibility, probability, and certainty, mostly in idioms. But possibility, probability, and certainty, as determined by personal judgement, is what they all refer to.
– John Lawler
Dec 2 at 18:40
Though, is there a difference in the meaning of "can happiness ..." and "could happiness ..."?
– Sasan
Dec 2 at 18:06
Though, is there a difference in the meaning of "can happiness ..." and "could happiness ..."?
– Sasan
Dec 2 at 18:06
Yes, but that's to be expected. Modals don't mean "the same thing" -- they refer to different types of possibility, probability, and certainty, mostly in idioms. But possibility, probability, and certainty, as determined by personal judgement, is what they all refer to.
– John Lawler
Dec 2 at 18:40
Yes, but that's to be expected. Modals don't mean "the same thing" -- they refer to different types of possibility, probability, and certainty, mostly in idioms. But possibility, probability, and certainty, as determined by personal judgement, is what they all refer to.
– John Lawler
Dec 2 at 18:40
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Can and could are both fine here, though I would recommend adding ever to clarify the intended meaning (unless other context already makes that clear):
- "Can happiness ever bring pain?"
- "Could happiness ever bring pain?"
The difference between the two is that can seems to be asking about whether it ever really happens, whereas could seems to be asking about whether it could even hypothetically happen. (Neither of these is strict, however; we can say things like, on the one hand, "Is there any possible world where happiness can ever bring pain?", and, on the other hand, "Do you think that, in the average person's life, happiness could ever bring pain?")
[…] the sentence is meant to ask whether there are possible conditions under which happiness bring pain. Or, does it ever happen that happiness brings pain.
But those aren't the same! For the former, I'd recommend could; for the latter, I'd recommend can (or does).
answered Dec 3 at 3:29
ruakh
12k13446
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Can and could are both fine here, though I would recommend adding ever to clarify the intended meaning (unless other context already makes that clear):
- "Can happiness ever bring pain?"
- "Could happiness ever bring pain?"
The difference between the two is that can seems to be asking about whether it ever really happens, whereas could seems to be asking about whether it could even hypothetically happen. (Neither of these is strict, however; we can say things like, on the one hand, "Is there any possible world where happiness can ever bring pain?", and, on the other hand, "Do you think that, in the average person's life, happiness could ever bring pain?")
[…] the sentence is meant to ask whether there are possible conditions under which happiness bring pain. Or, does it ever happen that happiness brings pain.
But those aren't the same! For the former, I'd recommend could; for the latter, I'd recommend can (or does).
answered Dec 3 at 3:29
ruakh
12k13446
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Can and could are both fine here, though I would recommend adding ever to clarify the intended meaning (unless other context already makes that clear):
- "Can happiness ever bring pain?"
- "Could happiness ever bring pain?"
The difference between the two is that can seems to be asking about whether it ever really happens, whereas could seems to be asking about whether it could even hypothetically happen. (Neither of these is strict, however; we can say things like, on the one hand, "Is there any possible world where happiness can ever bring pain?", and, on the other hand, "Do you think that, in the average person's life, happiness could ever bring pain?")
[…] the sentence is meant to ask whether there are possible conditions under which happiness bring pain. Or, does it ever happen that happiness brings pain.
But those aren't the same! For the former, I'd recommend could; for the latter, I'd recommend can (or does).
answered Dec 3 at 3:29
ruakh
12k13446
Can and could are both fine here, though I would recommend adding ever to clarify the intended meaning (unless other context already makes that clear):
- "Can happiness ever bring pain?"
- "Could happiness ever bring pain?"
The difference between the two is that can seems to be asking about whether it ever really happens, whereas could seems to be asking about whether it could even hypothetically happen. (Neither of these is strict, however; we can say things like, on the one hand, "Is there any possible world where happiness can ever bring pain?", and, on the other hand, "Do you think that, in the average person's life, happiness could ever bring pain?")
[…] the sentence is meant to ask whether there are possible conditions under which happiness bring pain. Or, does it ever happen that happiness brings pain.
But those aren't the same! For the former, I'd recommend could; for the latter, I'd recommend can (or does).
answered Dec 3 at 3:29
ruakh
12k13446
answered Dec 3 at 3:29
ruakh
12k13446
answered Dec 3 at 3:29
ruakh
12k13446
answered Dec 3 at 3:29
ruakh
12k13446
12k13446
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f475335%2fcan-or-could-in-the-mentioned-sentence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
What is the context? If it is describing something in the past, then you've answered your own question. If you aren't, then either word is possible. But, again, more context would determine that.
– Jason Bassford
Dec 2 at 15:25
@JasonBassford it is mentioned in the question that the sentence is not about the past time.
– Sasan
Dec 2 at 15:45