[Grammar] It can be dangerous to cycle in the city.

[NAL123]

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/can-could-or-may has to say this about "can":

1) "Can" expresses what the speaker believes is a general truth or known fact, or a strong possibility:

a) It can be dangerous to cycle in the city.

2) "Could" in the present only expresses weak possibility. "Can" expresses strong possibility:

b) I can travel in July because my exams will definitely be finished at the beginning of that month. (strong possibility)

3) We don’t normally use "could" to talk about general truths which refer to the present time. We use "can" instead:

c) Not everyone can afford to buy organic food.

4) We use "could", not "can", to express future possibility. "Can" expresses that we are certain of something:

d) Working in London next summer could be a great experience.

I'm really confused about the "general truth or known fact" meaning and "strong possibility" meaning of "can". In (1a), the dictionary says, "can" suggests both of these meanings, while in (2b), "can" only suggests "strong possibility" meaning, and in (4d), we cannot use "can" because it would suggest we are certain of something.

Could you please explain with examples when to use "can" properly with the "strong possibility" meaning?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Actually, I think Cambridge explains it very well there. As you can see, the words are used differently to talk about past, present, and future. I can't imagine how confusing that must be, but that's English!

Okay, here are some examples of using can to show strong possibility:

- Lightning can strike anywhere.
- Robbing banks can get you into a lot of trouble.
- Reading the newspaper every day can keep you informed.
- Riding a bicycle can be fun.

 

[NAL123]

Actually, I think Cambridge explains it very well there. As you can see, the words are used differently to talk about past, present, and future. I can't imagine how confusing that must be, but that's English!

Okay, here are some examples of using can to show strong possibility:

- Lightning can strike anywhere.
- Robbing banks can get you into a lot of trouble.
- Reading the newspaper every day can keep you informed.
- Riding a bicycle can be fun.

Basically the reason for the confusion is sentences (2b) and (4d). Both of them refer to the future. Now if "can" expresses "strong possibility", and sounds good in sentence (2b), why can't we use it in sentence (4d)?

 

[jutfrank]

I'm really confused about the "general truth or known fact" meaning and "strong possibility" meaning of "can". In (1a), the dictionary says, "can" suggests both of these meanings

No, not really. There aren't two different meanings there. The dictionary is just giving you different ways to understand the same basic thing. There is a way in which you can understand all uses of modal verbs as being in some extrinsic way about possibility.

while in (2b), "can" only suggests "strong possibility" meaning

I don't think it's a good idea to try to understand this use in terms of possibility.

and in (4d), we cannot use "can" because it would suggest we are certain of something.

I don't think that's a very clear, or very good, explanation.

Could you please explain with examples when to use "can" properly with the "strong possibility" meaning?

See post #2 for some good examples.

I'm not surprised this dictionary entry has you confused. As a general rule, dictionaries are not the best sources to refer to for help understand the intricacies of modal verbs. Besides, I'm sure we've discussed this use of can for 'strong possibility' before in at least one of your former threads. For reference, it's what I would have called 'general possibility'.

 

[jutfrank]

Basically the reason for the confusion is sentences (2b) and (4d). Both of them refer to the future. Now if "can" expresses "strong possibility", and sounds good in sentence (2b), why can't we use it in sentence (4d)?

These are really quite different in use and meaning. It isn't going to help you by thinking of them in terms of the strength of possibility, and it isn't going to help you by trying to compare them.

4d is about a specific event in the future. You can't use can because that would sound like a general possibility. Look at Charlie Bernstein's examples in post #2: Each sentence is meant as a generalisation. They're not about any particular person, and they don't relate to any particular point in time. This is what I mean when I say 'general possibility'.

 

[NAL123]

Besides, I'm sure we've discussed this use of can for 'strong possibility' before in at least one of your former threads. For reference, it's what I would have called 'general possibility'.

Actually no. This is the first time we're discussing this topic. In my earlier threads, we have talked about "could", "might", "would", "can vs could vs might vs may", "will vs would" etc.

Anyway, this is my understanding now:

1) Case (1): When "can" implies "general ability/possibility", (here "ability" implies "possibility", assuming I have the "permission"= I'm able to do implies it is possible for me to do):

a) You can get to the city center on the Number 4 bus. (= Anyone, at any time, is able to get to the city center on the Number 4 bus)

b) I can swim. (= At any time, I am able to swim; but I don't know about others)


Case (2): When "can" implies "specific ability/possibility", (here "ability" implies "possibility"= I'm able to do implies it is possible for me to do):

c) John, you/your brother can get to the city center on the Number 4 bus. (John or his brother is looking for some form of public transport to get to the city center, and the speaker's letting them know that they can do this)

d) Don't worry mom! I can get to the city center on the Number 4 bus.

Sentences (c) and (d) depend on sentence (a). If anyone can get to the city center at any time, then in a specific context, I/we/you/he/they can get to the city center.

e) I can swim across this river. (because sentence (b) says I can swim)


2) Case (3): When "can" implies "general permissibility/possibility", (here "permissibility" implies "possibility", assuming I have the "ability"= I'm allowed to do implies it is possible for me to do)

f) You can travel to most places if you are fully vaccinated. (= Anyone, at any time, is allowed to travel to most places if they are fully vaccinated)


Case (4): When "can" implies "specific permissibility/possibility", (here "permissibility" implies "possibility", assuming I have the "ability"= I'm allowed to do implies it is possible for me to do)

g) John, you/your brother can travel to most places if you/he is fully vaccinated. (John/his brother is going on vacation)

h) Thank God the lockdown is over! Now I can travel to most places if I'm fully vaccinated. (the speaker is planning to go on vacation)

Sentences (g) and (h) depend on sentence (f).


3) Case (5): When "can" implies "general possibility", (neither "ability" nor "permissibility" is implied, ONLY it is possible for me to do):

i) Robbing banks can get you into a lot of trouble. (= it is possible for robbing any bank at any time to get anyone into a lot of trouble)


Case (6): When "can" implies "specific possibility", (neither "ability" nor "permissibility" is implied, ONLY it is possible for me to do):

j) Be careful, John! Robbing the bank can get you into a lot of trouble. (John is going to rob a bank)

"Can" is usually avoided in sentences like (j), and is usually replaced with "will". Note, however, that you CANNOT replace the "can" with "will" in an "ability/permissibility" sentence.


Q: IS MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT?

 

[Tarheel]

NAL123, I wouldn't use "implies" the way you did.

Also, that post is overloaded and should have been pared (edited).

 

[jutfrank]

It looks okay to me, yes. It's very close to my own way of understanding things. Good.

 

[GoesStation]

j) Be careful, John! Robbing the bank [STRIKE]can[/STRIKE] could get you into a lot of trouble.

You could say "Robbing a bank can get you into trouble". The definite article calls for could.

 

[jutfrank]

You could say "Robbing a bank can get you into trouble". The definite article calls for could.

Right. That shows well the distinction between general (can) and specific (could). I seemed to have missed that one. Well spotted.

 

[NAL123]

You could say "Robbing a bank can get you into trouble". The definite article calls for could.

I think "Your robbing a bank can get you/someone else into trouble" or "Your robbing banks can get you/someone else into trouble" is the most general type of "possibility" sentence, because they mean:

Anyone's robbing any bankat any time can get them/anyone else into trouble.

Now we can make a more specific statement of it just by making definite any one or more than one of the four variables (underlined). For example:

a) John's robbing any bank at any time can get Sam into trouble. (This often happens with John and Sam)

b) John's robbing any bank at any time can get him into trouble. (This only happens with John)

c) Anyone's robbing the bank at any time can get them/anyone else into trouble. (This often happens with the bank, or rather with anyone who has robbed the bank)

And so on.

The sentence:

d) Robbing the bank can get you into a lot of trouble.

can mean:

John's robbing the bank at any time can get him into trouble.(This often happens with John and the bank)

But if we make the time definite, it would then be a completely "specific" sentence, and we wouldn't be able to use "can" any more. Instead, we'd have to use "will" or "could", depending on the context.

1) John's robbing the bank tomorrow could get him into trouble. (The speaker thinks that John's an expert robber or that the bank does not have tight security or both)

2) John's robbing the bank tomorrow will get him into trouble. (The speaker thinks that John's not an expert robber or that the bank does have tight security or both)

3) John's robbing the bank tomorrow might get him into trouble. (This sentence speculates on sentence (2))

 

[jutfrank]

I see the distinction that you're trying to make between can for general/specific possibility, but I don't think it's really there. I suggest you stick with the picture of can = general and could = specific. Remember that even when you talk about one specific person as opposed to people in general, you can still make generalisations about that specific person.

1) Robbing banks can get people into trouble.
2) Robbing banks can get him into trouble.
3) Robbing the bank could get you into trouble.

Sentences 1 and 2 are both generalisations. 3 isn't, as long as it's talking about a specific event of bank-robbing.

 

[NAL123]

I see the distinction that you're trying to make between can for general/specific possibility, but I don't think it's really there. I suggest you stick with the picture of can = general and could = specific. Remember that even when you talk about one specific person as opposed to people in general, you can still make generalisations about that specific person.

1) Robbing banks can get people into trouble.
2) Robbing banks can get him into trouble.
3) Robbing the bank could get you into trouble.

Sentences 1 and 2 are both generalisations. 3 isn't, as long as it's talking about a specific event of bank-robbing.

Your (2) is actually my (b) in post 11. Even sentence (d) in that post is a generalisation, in my opinion.

 

[NAL123]

One last question here:

As you said, the sentence below refers to a specific event in the future:

1) Be careful, John! Robbing the bank tomorrow could get you into trouble. (John is planning to rob the bank tomorrow)

Here the subject/object both refer to John.

Can I say the above sentence for people in general?

2) (People's) Robbing the bank tomorrow could get people into trouble. (The speaker believes this for some reason, maybe the bank security will be a bit more tight/loose tomorrow)

Here the subject/object both refer to people in general.

 

[jutfrank]

The short answer is yes.

When I've used the word 'specific' in this post to talk about possibility, I really mean it in the sense that the event is specific rather than any person or place involved. That means that in the speaker's mind there is imagined to be a one-off event taking place at a single point in space/time. This is in contrast to generalisations, which are not about specific one-off events at specific points in space/time.

Now usually, if an event is specific, it does invariably also mean that the person and place and everything else is also meant specifically. However, your example shows a case where the speaker is talking generally about people but specifically about an event. You could even take it one step further and make a sentence that is talking generally about people and generally about banks, but specifically about an event:

Robbing banks tomorrow could get people in trouble.

It's only the use of the modal could in conjunction with the future time marker tomorrow that gives us a clear idea that the speaker is thinking about a specific event.

Does that make sense?

 

[jutfrank]

Can I say the above sentence for people in general?

You did mean to say the below sentence, right?

 

[NAL123]

Does that make sense?

That makes perfect sense! Thank you very much for your help! And, yes, I meant "below".

 

[NAL123]

The short answer is yes.

When I've used the word 'specific' in this post to talk about possibility, I really mean it in the sense that the event is specific rather than any person or place involved. That means that in the speaker's mind there is imagined to be a one-off event taking place at a single point in space/time. This is in contrast to generalisations, which are not about specific one-off events at specific points in space/time.

Sorry for bothering you again. I was revisiting this thread and I thought I needed a little clarification on what a general/specific event is. I hope you don't mind.

As you described, a specific event is a one-off event taking place at a single point in space/time. So can I call each of the following a general event, for which "can" is appropriate?

a) An event that has happened only once, and there's a good chance that it will/may happen again, (implying the event is not one-off, and hence general):

Case (1): assuming place is fixed, but not time:

In the past, John has attempted to rob the bank five times. He was successful four times and got into trouble once: Robbing the bank can get John/people into trouble.

Case (2): assuming time is fixed, but not place:

In the past, John has attempted to rob multiple banks five times, all at 3pm. He was successful four times and got into trouble once: Robbing banks at 3pm can get John/people into trouble.

Case (3): assuming both time and place are fixed: Robbing the bank at 3pm can get John/people into trouble.

Case (4): assuming neither is fixed: Robbing banks can get John/people into trouble.

b) An event that has happened more than once, and there's a good chance that it will/may happen again, (implying the event is not one-off, and hence general): the same as above.

c) An event that has not happened yet, but that may happen in the future:

Now do you call such an event a general event, and use "can" for it? For example, are these sentences correct with "can"?

1) Robbing banks can get John into trouble. (John has never tried to rob a bank before, but he may do so in the future; this is not a specific event as described by you, because here the event may be one-off, but it's neither fixed in time or place)

2) Robbing the bank can get John into trouble. (John has never tried to rob that bank before, but he may do so in the future; this is not a specific event as described by you, because the speaker thinks it may happen more than once)

3) Robbing banks at 3pm can get John into trouble. (John has never tried to rob a bank at 3pm before, but he may do so in the future; this is not a specific event as described by you, because the speaker thinks it may happen more than once)

4) Robbing banks/the bank (at 3pm) can get you/one/people into trouble. (No one has ever tried to rob a bank/the bank before, but they may do so in the future)

 

[jutfrank]

I think you may be overcomplicating matters, and I think you may have misunderstood the language I was using. I think I should try to clarify.

Look at the first sentence of this motorway sign:



The verb kill signifies an action. The sentence is a generalisation in that it isn't about any one specific event. It's essentially a statement of statistical probability where all past events of ever driving when tired are correlated to all of those events that have ever resulted in death. It's not in any way 'about' any one of those events. And although pragmatically it is in reference to a specific possible future event (i.e. the reader's particular death, which its purpose is to prevent), it's still essentially a generalisation based only on evidence of past events, because all generalisations of this kind are inductions from observations.

I wouldn't use the phrase 'general event' at all because an event is by my definition something that either happens, or is imagined to happen, at one particular location in space/time. That's what I mean by a 'one-off' specific event, in contrast to a generalisation of multiple events.

Does that help at all?

 

[NAL123]

I think you may be overcomplicating matters, and I think you may have misunderstood the language I was using. I think I should try to clarify.

The verb kill signifies an action. The sentence is a generalisation in that it isn't about any one specific event. It's essentially a statement of statistical probability where all past events of ever driving when tired are correlated to all of those events that have ever resulted in death. It's not in any way 'about' any one of those events. And although pragmatically it is in reference to a specific possible future event (i.e. the reader's particular death, which its purpose is to prevent), it's still essentially a generalisation based only on evidence of past events, because all generalisations of this kind are inductions from observations.

I completely understand what you're trying to explain here. And I think that's exactly how we understand the same thing in our native language, too. As you said, generalisations are inductions from past observations. But what if we try to generalize from a single observation in the past? Would that be a valid generalization? In my last post, I tried to generalize from a single observation when I said, " an event that has happened only once, and there's a good chance that it will/may happen again", and then I went on to discuss a case under it, where I said,

"In the past, John has attempted to rob the bank five times. He was successful four times and got into trouble once: Robbing the bank can get John into trouble."

Here the speaker takes into account five different occurrences of bank-robbing by John, of which one was unsuccessful. Then based on this single unsuccessful occurrence, he makes the general observation: Robbing the bank can get John into trouble.

But I also mentioned a point (b), where I said, "an event that has happened more than once, and there's a good chance that it will/may happen again."

Here the speaker generalizes from more than one unsuccessful occurrences. It's basically the same generalization as above, but based on multiple events.

Now, lets discuss something I'm still confused about.

So far we've talked about generalizations. Now, suppose the speaker is completely unaware of John/one/people having robbed the bank/banks in the past. Thus, no past observations imply no induction, which implies no generalization.

Q): Now if there is no generalization, can we use "can" in the following sentences? If so, what does using "can" mean in those sentences? Do they all refer to the future?

1) Robbing the bank can get John/people into trouble.

2) Robbing a bank/banks can get John/people into trouble.