ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

just the truth — Sat, 15 Jan 2005 06:43:44 GMT

CJ: Nevertheless, "The doesn't have anything to do with past time or past tense" simply doesn't ring true to me. At the time of his speaking (past time) he didn't want to go.
Any basic grammar book will tell you "didn't" is the past tense of "doesn't".

JT: But what those grammar books don't tell you, Jim, is that past tense FORMS are used for purposes other than past time/tense.

It doesn't really matter when the speech reaches your ears. Reports of speech are usually made because they still have some significance to now. The reported event most often has not taken place yet. Proof of that is that we can choose to relate the words as a direct quote.

Why should the direct quote be taken as NOT a past tense/time but the reported, of the same event, I must remind you, be determined to be a past tense/time event? Strange, isn't it?

Here's but one example:

JT: I'm going to Jim's to have a chat with him.

Paco: [phones immediately and reports this speech to Mr P & Mr M]

JT said that he was going to Jim's to have a chat with him.

How can the indicate any past sense? It doesn't indicate that I've been to your place, does it, Jim?

All it indicates is that Paco has chosen to mark his speech as reported. He is telling Mr P & Mr M that he isn't quoting me directly.

The only thing that is actually finished is what I said and that is marked appropriately by Paco making use of the past tense for , ie. . Up to this point, I remain, sitting here at my computer.

{This has important implications wrt the modal verbs. Reported speech has long been offered as the only proof that modal verbs have tense. But from what I've shown you here, the backshifting that takes place in reported speech has nothing to do with tense in its normal accepted idea of denoting a finished action.}

CJ: Also, I don't think "to do" is a modal.

JT: I don't recall where I said it was, Jim.

CJ: Moreover, I'm not inclined to agree that modals only introduce the personal, emotive feelings of speakers. "One must breathe oxygen to remain alive" seems to me a rather unemotional fact (unless one is drowning, I suppose!).

JT: That's your opinion, stated strongly by the use of . In actual fact, we breathe nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and some other trace gases. But it matters not at all if you're right or wrong about your statements

An unemotional fact would be,

One breathes oxygen to remain alive.

By adding you've added an emotional quality to the verb . Another person, not so well informed might say,

One might have to breathe oxygen to remain alive. {or "probably has to" or "may have to"}

["probably" is a periphrastic modal]

Even in my statement above, I added the emotive modal, . I could have have said,

An unemotional fact is,

softened my offering.

CJ: "You can't add 2 and 2 and get 5" is another rather impersonal utterance.

JT: As I said, it doesn't matter about the veracity of your statement. You've expressed your opinion on this issue by using . You could have chosen to use
So in the initial example,

"He said he didn't want to go."

and with the opportunity to go still available, the meaning would be glossed as, "He doesn't want to go."

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

CalifJim — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:36:09 GMT

Interesting thread. Nevertheless, "The doesn't have anything to do with past time or past tense" simply doesn't ring true to me. At the time of his speaking (past time) he didn't want to go.
Any basic grammar book will tell you "didn't" is the past tense of "doesn't". Also, I don't think "to do" is a modal. Moreover, I'm not inclined to agree that modals only introduce the personal, emotive feelings of speakers. "One must breathe oxygen to remain alive" seems to me a rather unemotional fact (unless one is drowning, I suppose!). "You can't add 2 and 2 and get 5" is another rather impersonal utterance.

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

Guest — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:25:17 GMT

Hello, just an outside opinion...

I just found out that I can't renew my lease

I believe this sentence is more correct due to the presence of 'just'. It implies that the person is still reacting to the news.

I found out that I could renew my lease

This would be the appropriate reply if he was over the initial shock

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

MrPedantic — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:58:23 GMT

Interesting thread.

To my (BrE) ears, 'I just found out I can't...' has a distinct AmE sound to it. I would take it for an elided version of 'I've just...', i.e.

1. 'I've just found out I can't renew my lease' – in the disbelieving tone of the would-be leaser of whatever-it-is who walks back into the lobby where her boyfriend has been flicking through the women's magazines.

'I just found out I couldn't...', on the other hand, seems to require something more:

2. 'I just found out (why) I couldn't renew my lease.'

or

3. 'I just found out I couldn't renew my lease (if I wanted to).'

Just my BrE 2 cents.

MrP

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

NON CONFORMER — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:00:35 GMT

I agree with you JTT, in that quite a lot of English is not adequately analysed, and as a result, rather than simplifying it, a lot of modern approaches tend to plague it with grammatical vocabulary, sometimes harder to unravel than the issue at hand. I have been doing some research work on the English structure, partly concerned with the relative time assignation for the tenses, which has led me to a different interpretation of the concept of tense, although my references respect the standard opinion, in order not to confuse anyone unnecessarily. What is called the truth varies with each dawn, and, we must take steps to adapt to what the future brings. Never thought a forum of this kind could be so stimulating. Glad to be here. By the way: A happy new year to everybody.

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

taiwandave — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 17:49:59 GMT

JTT: I was just kidding about criticizing Mr M. Critical analysis is indeed what the website is all about.

If I'm wrong - or you think I might be - I want to know about it. I'm sure we all feel the same way.

Even Mr M has got to be fallible - assuming, of course, that he is indeed human. Sometimes I wonder.

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

just the truth — Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:21:48 GMT

We must distinguish between the grammatical definition of verb tense and the semantic sense of reference in time. For example:

1. I wish school started tomorrow.
2. You said that school started tomorrow.
3. School started yesterday.

In all of the above, “started” is a past-tense (preterite) verb-form. But only in [3] does it actually refer to past time.

What we must learn from this is that the past-tense form of the verb does not always refer to past time.

JTT: That's so true, TD, how so true. But the modal verbs are a whole nother ballgame. In modern English, they are tenseless. That's why Mr M can't explain the inconsistencies. No one, Mr M, there's not a soul on earth who can make modern English follow this errant belief. It just can't be done.

Another lesson: woe to those who criticize the mighty Mr. Macabre.

JTT: I wasn't criticising Mr M. I was pointing out what I believe to be errors in the traditional analysis of language. That has got to be what this site is all about; wouldn't you agree?

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

just the truth — Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:11:52 GMT

NC:
Let me point out, JTT, that the issue at hand was whether "can't" could be used instead of "couldn't", so I have simply gone through the tenses, to identify where it was or not permissible, as well as stressing the varying functions of "just" with respect to the tenses, which teachers often fail to explain.

JJT: I appreciate that this is what you"ve tried to do, NC.

Nonetheless, it is not common, at least in standard English, to say:

"I've just found out I can't have renewed my lease."

The use of "can't# doesn't quite hold here. It is better to say:

"I've just found out I couldn't have renewed my lease."

Thus, my stating that the use of "couldn't", here, as obligatory.

JTT: How common something is has nothing to do with its grammaticality or its acceptability, NC. The structure under discussion, is common enough in standard English that we know it is standard English.

Googling the phrase, "He can't have been" versus "He couldn't have been" yields an 854 to 38,200 usage ratio, respectively. All this points out is that most language situations do not need the "extreme" emotional aspects that a "can't have + PP" engenders. This is akin to the use of for asking permission versus . That is used much more often doesn't preclude the possibility of using .

The reason your sentence sounds rather strange is because it doesn't match up semantically to the situation. There aren't any grammatical reasons to exclude it and that was the issue. Here is a situation where it does work.

A: He renewed his lease with me yesterday.

B: I've just come across some info that tells me that he can't have renewed his lease as you say he did because he died five days ago.."

NC: As to my use of the perfect tense:

"I've just found out..."

Was to pinpoint that, there being no definite time association intended, it should be used in prference to:

"I just found out..."

That, being a past simple construction, should be associated with, or, complemented by a definite time in the past. Thank you for your comment, anyway, food for thought is food for a better understanding, which, I expect, is the objective of this forum.

JTT: That might be an excellent bit of theory, NC, but that's not one of the reasons that the present perfect is chosen by ENLs. I'm afraid that studies of actual language use just doesn't provide support for this theory. Nor do language sources unless you have some that I'm not aware of. If you do I'd love to see them.

I'd like to thank you for your comments too. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with disagreeing. How else can you get to the truth?

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

taiwandave — Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:37:29 GMT

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

NON CONFORMER — Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:22:39 GMT

Let me point out, JTT, that the issue at hand was whether "can't" could be used instead of "couldn't", so I have simply gone through the tenses, to identify where it was or not permissible, as well as stressing the varying functions of "just" with respect to the tenses, which teachers often fail to explain. Nonetheless, it is not common, at least in standard English, to say:

"I've just found out I can't have renewed my lease."

The use of "can't# doesn't quite hold here. It is better to say:

"I've just found out I couldn't have renewed my lease."

Thus, my stating that the use of "couldn't", here, as obligatory. As to my use of the perfect tense:

"I've just found out..."

Was to pinpoint that, there being no definite time association intended, it should be used in prference to:

"I just found out..."

That, being a past simple construction, should be associated with, or, complemented by a definite time in the past. Thank you for your comment, anyway, food for thought is food for a better understanding, which, I expect, is the objective of this forum.

NON C

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

jeff_999 — Wed, 29 Dec 2004 05:00:25 GMT

Thank you JTT.

But I will be happier if you accept Mr. M's great offer joining the Mods (he is really a great teacher,
I can't help slipping that in), and helping us, the eager-to-learn students.

I think Mr. Micawber is a little too busy. You see, most of my questions are answered by Mr. Micawber and CJ, some by taiwandave, casi, Mr. Pedentic, Nona the Brit...What's more, here we have tons of tons of questions.

You know what, in the first place, I thought they might divide their jobs, for example, some Mods manage Vocabulary and Idioms board, some Mods moderate Grammar Qestions board, some Writing World board...But I even found Mr. Micawber was answering the questions on writing World board...

So, I really hope you join them.

(Incidentally, I noticed something interesting that both Mods and professors (like Dave and Casi... ) are easy to identify. Beneath their usernames, there always is a little box with A big tick. hehe)

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

just the truth — Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:24:13 GMT

But...Mr. Micawber and JTT, why are you two keeping talking about 'future'? Obviously, renewing the lease is happening in the future. And we're just stating the possiblity.

JTT: That's the whole point, Jeff. People get themselves confused by thinking that are acting as past tense or are satisfying some rule that mandates a past tense when this is NOT the case.

I"m not saying that this is an easy thing to get your mind around; it's exceedingly difficult. Don't stop because of that. Work through with more examples. When you continually come up against a wall, you'll know something is amiss.

I think I have to throw that in, though your comments are frankly, too complex TO ME. I better not know all of them. Thinking that much will drive me crazy. hehe.

JTT: Remember this then. The rules governing the choices made for reported or direct speech do not have direct connections to tense. The FORMS chosen are meant as signals indicating either reported or direct speech.

In "He said that he didn't want to go." the interpretation is that he doesn't want to go. The doesn't have anything to do with past time or past tense. The rules governing reported speech don't change just because modals verbs are introduced; modals only inroduce the personal, emotive feelings of speakers.

But I will keep this in mind that THEY both are fine in both formal and informal ways (Do I get it right this time, JTT?

JTT: No doubt about it, Jeff.

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

just the truth — Tue, 28 Dec 2004 19:02:18 GMT

Non C wrote:
Being both sentences in the present perfect, to imply both action and consequence as taking place at an indefinite time, prior to the present, then the use of "couldn't" is obligatory:

1) "I have just found out I couldn't have renewed my lease."

2) "I have just found out I couldn't renew my lease yesterday."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

JTT: No, most certainly is not obligatory, NC.

Further, you have introduced the modal perfect in 1), , which changes the meaning for the situation quite dramatically.

Using the present perfect, makes little overall difference to the original examples. But your use in 2) also changes the meaning so dramatically that it has little connection to the originals.

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

jeff_999 — Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:19:54 GMT
Whao...It definitely 'freaks' me out. I've never ever thought the little tiny 'can' and 'could' would bring that complex...thing. No wonder the grammar world is so interesting. Anyhow, Thank you so sooo much.

But...Mr. Micawber and JTT, why are you two keeping talking about 'future'? Obviously, renewing the lease is happening in the future. And we're just stating the possiblity. :-s -- I think I have to throw that in, though your comments are frankly, too complex TO ME. I better not know all of them. Thinking that much will drive me crazy. hehe. But I will keep this in mind that THEY both are fine in both formal and informal ways (Do I get it right this time, JTT? ).

Re: Can't have to be replaced by couldn't?

NON CONFORMER — Tue, 28 Dec 2004 14:06:20 GMT
Given your example:

"I just found out I can't renew my lease for school next year."

Given that the subordinating sentence is in the simple past, it should be complemented by a a finite time clause, thus expressing an action in the past with consequences upon the immediate present:

" Yesterday, I just found out I can't renew my lease for school next year (at the present)."

Where the use of "just" has the following implications:

" Yesterday, I only foud out I can't renew my lease for school next year

The use of "couldn't", would imply both the action and its consequences as coincident with the given time:

" Yesterday, I just found out I couldn't renew my lease (supposedly also yesterday)..."

Being both sentences in the present perfect, then an action at an indefinite point prior to the present,with consequences upon the present or a definite past can be implied:

" I have just found out a can't renew my lease(now)."

"I have just fouund out I couldn't renew my lease yesterday."

Where the use of "just" implies:

"I have very recently foud out..."

Being both sentences in the present perfect, to imply both action and consequence as taking place at an indefinite time,prior to the present, then the use of "couldn't" is obligatory:

"I have just foud out I couldn't have renewed my lease."

To imply both as taking place at a time prior to a point in the past then the past perfect should be used. However the corresponding tense for "be able to" must be be used intead of "could" or "couldn't":

"I had just found out I hadn't been able to renew my lease."

Hope this is not too confusing, but you must respect the time related parameters of the tenses, as well as the functions of "just" according to these.