# I could have gone to Oxford [ability or possibility?]



## xu xian

Hi,

“I *could* have gone to Oxfold University but I preferred Cambridge.”(finally I went to the Cambridge)

my confusion is whether zhe _could _here refers to an ability (means I was capable of going to Oxfold University then but…) or it refers to a possibility (means it was possible that I had gone to Oxfold University if I hadn’t preferred Cambridge.


Thank you in advance


----------



## Hermione Golightly

It strongly suggests that she was offered a place at Oxford but preferred to accept the offer of a place at Cambridge.
Source and wider context would be helpful.


----------



## xu xian

Hermione Golightly said:


> It strongly suggests that she was offered a place at Oxford but preferred to accept a place at Cambridge.
> Source and wider context would be helpful.


hi,source from an example sentence made by an chinese English teacher who graduated from Cambrige as teaching the usage of _could have done._
and he said the could here meant “past ability”,which I doubt about.


----------



## coiffe

"Could" is both the historical past tense of "can" and a modal indicating a degree of probability. Therefore "could" in your sentence could (LOL) indicate either ability or possibility. There isn't enough information in the sentence itself to determine the answer. The statement, however, claims the speaker could choose one over the other. That suggests she was admitted to both universities.


----------



## xu xian

coiffe said:


> "Could" is both the historical past tense of "can" and a modal indicating a degree of probability. Therefore "could" in your sentence could (LOL) indicate either ability or possibility. There isn't enough information in the sentence itself to determine the answer. The statement, however, claims the speaker could choose one over the other. That suggests she was admitted to both universities.


oh sorry,I had forgotten to say that Oxford also gave him an offer at that time,but he chose to go Cambridge.


----------



## coiffe

It's clear.


----------



## xu xian

but as far as I'm concerned,ability mentioned here is a kind of potential ability,it means you always have this ability only if the oxford give you the offer or in other words，if you pass the entrance examination of Oxford you have the ability to go there,no matter you do go or not,so I think the understanding of ability is illogical,am I get to the point?


----------



## coiffe

No, it's not potential ability "always." Nobody speaking about going to Oxford or Cambridge would make an empty boast. Before making the statement, the person had been accepted by both universities, and had to choose. He could have gone to this one, but instead he went to that one. Everybody uses "could have" in this way when speaking of choosing a college after admission is offered.


----------



## xu xian

coiffe said:


> No, it's not potential ability "always." Nobody speaking about going to Oxford or Cambridge would make an empty boast. Before making the statement, the person had been accepted by both universities, and had to choose. He could have gone to this one, but instead he went to that one. Everybody uses "could have" in this way when speaking of choosing a college after admission is offered.


thank you,then whether we can say “I could go to Oxford many years ago”or not?as we can say “I could play the piano when I was young” mean a kind of past potential ability


----------



## coiffe

"I could have gone to Oxford many years ago"; not "I could go to Oxford many years ago." There are a number of topics already in the system on this ambiguity with "could," some of them quite recent. You might search those for more on this.


----------



## xu xian

coiffe said:


> "I could have gone to Oxford many years ago"; not "I could go to Oxford many years ago." There are a number of topics already in the system on this ambiguity with "could," some of them quite recent. You might search those for more on this.


Ok,thank you for your help i’ll check it


----------



## PaulQ

xu xian said:


> my confusion is whether the _could _here refers to an ability (means I was capable of going to Oxford University then but…) or it refers to a possibility (means there was a possibility of my going to Oxford University if I hadn’t preferred Cambridge.


These are, in fact, the same thing.

Could in both cases represents a past possible ability (one that no longer exists)

The distinction can be seen in 
A: "His exam results are exceptional - He says that he could go to Oxford" -> In fact he said "I can (am able to) go to Oxford."
and the conditional
A: "His exam results are exceptional. He is thinking about the matter - he could [possibly] go to Oxford or Cambridge"


----------



## xu xian

PaulQ said:


> These are, in fact, the same thing.
> 
> Could in both cases represents a past possible ability (one that no longer exists)
> 
> The distinction can be seen in
> A: "His exam results are exceptional - He says that he could go to Oxford" -> In fact he said "I can (am able to) go to Oxford."
> and the conditional
> A: "His exam results are exceptional. He is thinking about the matter - he could [possibly] go to Oxford or Cambridge"


Thank you for correcting my errors,if I say “means it was possible that I went to Oxford University if I hadn’t preferred Cambridge.”is this form also correct?


I have been thinking your answers and it seems I have found a way to figure out whether the could I asked in this question means ability or others modality meanings.I wondered if you could help me check it out.


I wonder if we can say“I could have played the piano when I was young，but I broke my fingers at the time.”in English to express some kind of abilities have lost？and if not ,how can we express the same meaning using could have done?


----------



## PaulQ

The poster SevenDays, who can be described as a grammarian, posted this in response to a similar question:
If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it was Lurk.

It may help you.


----------



## xu xian

PaulQ said:


> The poster SevenDays, who can be described as a grammarian, posted this in response to a similar question:
> If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it was Lurk.
> 
> It may help you.


Thank you I’ll go through this long long floor,if I should have time.


----------



## lingobingo

xu xian said:


> “I *could* have gone to Oxfold University but I preferred Cambridge.”(finally I went to the Cambridge)
> 
> my confusion is whether zhe _could _here refers to an ability (means I was capable of going to Oxfold University then but…) or it refers to a possibility (means it was possible that I had gone to Oxfold University if I hadn’t preferred Cambridge.


For what it’s worth, I read this as relating to possibility (opportunity) rather than ability (skill). All the versions below are correct, but in my view the last two better reflect what’s intended by “could” in this instance.

I could have gone to Oxford but I chose Cambridge 
I was able to go to Oxford but I chose Cambridge 
I was in a position to go to Oxford but I chose Cambridge 
I had the opportunity to go to Oxford but I chose Cambridge 
I had the option of going to Oxford but I chose Cambridge ​


----------



## xu xian

lingobingo said:


> For what it’s worth, I read this as relating to possibility (opportunity) rather than ability (skill). All the versions below are correct, but in my view the last two better reflect what’s intended by “could” in this instance.
> 
> I could have gone to Oxford but I chose Cambridge
> I was able to go to Oxford but I chose Cambridge
> I was in a position to go to Oxford but I chose Cambridge
> I had the opportunity to go to Oxford but I chose Cambridge
> I had the option of going to Oxford but I chose Cambridge ​


Thank your for repaying.I agree with your point.
Because one of my grammar books says ability(I mean general ability)is a kind of  “general  potentiality”,it reflects the skill of man or function of object.It usually lasts a long time.
If the could discussed here means a kind of general abilit，why can’t we say “I could go to Oxfold University but I preferred Cambridge.”not as we can say “I could play the piano when I was young”.Both of them existed in the past as an ability(if it were true)no matter what would happen next.And even if this ability lost later because all kinds of accident,It is also available to use could to refer to this past general ability if it really is AN ability.Just like we can say “I could play piano when I was young, but I broke my fingers five years ago, so I can't play anymore.”So it proves “attending Oxford” is not the same kind of situation as “playing piano”,thus the COULDs before them are also not the same kind of modality meanings.So It can’t be general ability(skill).


----------



## lingobingo

Being *able* to play the piano is a skill, pure and simple. It’s not an option or an opportunity.

Being *able* to go to a particular university (because you’ve been offered a place) is not a skill. It’s a possibility/option.


----------



## london calling

xu xian said:


> oh sorry,I had forgotten to say that Oxford also gave him an offer at that time,but he chose to go Cambridge.


So it isn't past ability. It's past possibility.


----------



## xu xian

london calling said:


> So it isn't past ability. It's past possibility.



I wish I could totally agree with you. But I’m afraid I have to say I’m not sure for the time being whether it is possibility（if you refer to the epistemic possibility in grammar theory which means the speaker’s certain kind of subjective judgement) or other modality meanings(like the “circumstantial potentiality” I mentioned in another thread which perhaps can be called “opportunity” in some contexts) if it isn’t ability. So please allow me to continue to do some more research.


----------



## PaulQ

I could have gone to Oxford but I chose Cambridge.

In order to make that statement, you would have had to have had the *ability *to go to Oxford and to Cambridge, i.e. at a time prior to making the decision.

It is said in the past tense, therefore, we assume that you no longer have the the possibility of going  - for various practical reasons - to Oxford.

If your ability to go were still there, then the sentence would need more context to be a useful example of your concern.

As it stands, the possibility of going to Oxford was lost in the past when you made the decision to go to Cambridge.


----------



## xu xian

PaulQ said:


> In order to make that statement, you would have had to have had the *ability *to go to Oxford and to Cambridge, i.e. at a time prior to making the decision.


so we can say 
“I could go to Oxford before I made the decision to go to Cambridge.”

because->At the time this refers to (prior to making the decision.), it was still possible for me to go to Oxford.

Am I right？
I was thinking about your answers in this thread：
I could/could have
but I am not sure what you mean at #4.


----------



## PaulQ

xu xian said:


> “I could go to Oxford before I made the decision to go to Cambridge.”


Grammatically, "Yes", but probably not in that context:

A - Are you going to choose Oxford or Cambridge?
B - I'm not sure - I have almost decided to go to Cambridge, but I could _[expressing a possibility]_ go to Oxford [to have a look at the colleges] before I made the decision to go to Cambridge.

Compare:
A: "I could _[expressing a past ability] _jump over that wall before I broke my leg."

It is more likely that you would say "I could *have gone* go to Oxford before I made the decision to go to Cambridge,” and that this would be said after you started to study at Cambridge.


----------



## lingobingo

xu xian said:


> so we can say
> “I could go to Oxford before I made the decision to go to Cambridge.”


I don’t agree that this works grammatically. For it to do so, the simple past “made” would have to be put into the present perfect: “have made”. Alternatively, “could go” would have to be backshifted to “could have gone”.

I could go to Oxford, but I have decided to go to Cambridge
— the sentence is in the present tense; *could* therefore expresses current possibility

I could have gone to Oxford, but I decided to Cambriidge
— the sentence is in the past tense; *could have* expresses past possibility​


----------



## PaulQ

lingobingo said:


> I don’t agree that this works grammatically.


There are problems with the example: (i) On a "real life" level, being accepted at Oxford would probably put you in a position to go to Cambridge, and (ii) making a decision to go to Cambridge is not the crucial point at which entry to Oxford is precluded. However, I think that, for the purposes of the grammar, we are being asked to assume that it is.

If this is accepted then we are being asked to look at the time between the decision and actually going to Cambridge:

“I could [do this] before I [did that].”


----------



## lingobingo

I don’t see the point in bending over backwards to justify constructions that are not normally used.


----------



## PaulQ

Given the context





xu xian said:


> so we can say
> “I could go to Oxford before I made the decision to go to Cambridge.”
> 
> because->At the time this refers to (prior to making the decision.), it was still possible for me to go to Oxford.


I'm not sure how much bending over backwards is required.


----------



## xu xian

PaulQ said:


> A - Are you going to choose Oxford or Cambridge?
> B - I'm not sure - I have almost decided to go to Cambridge, but I could _[expressing a possibility]_ go to Oxford [to have a look at the colleges] before I made the decision to go to Cambridge.


Shouldn’t the *made* here be *make*?because the _could_ here expresses a future possibility.


----------



## xu xian

lingobingo said:


> I don’t agree that this works grammatically. For it to do so, the simple past “made” would have to be put into the present perfect: “have made”. Alternatively, “could go” would have to be backshifted to “could have gone”.


So do you think the sentences mentioned in this thread both correct?
I could/could have
1. He could help her, but he didn't do it.
2. He could have helped her, but he didn't.


----------



## xu xian

PaulQ said:


> There are problems with the example: (i) On a "real life" level, being accepted at Oxford would probably put you in a position to go to Cambridge, and (ii) making a decision to go to Cambridge is not the crucial point at which entry to Oxford is precluded. However, I think that, for the purposes of the grammar, we are being asked to assume that it is.


Maybe if we think of the meaning of _could_ here as “opportunity”,there is no problem with the example.The time I made the decision,I gave up the opportunity to go to Oxford actively.In other words，the time when we made the decision and the time after that，the possibility of going to Oxford doesn't exist any more as long as we don’t chang minds.Thinking this way,making a decision to go to Cambridge is the crucial point at which going to Oxford is precluded.


----------



## PaulQ

Given those assumptions, I agree.


----------



## lingobingo

xu xian said:


> So do you think the sentences mentioned in this thread both correct?
> I could/could have
> 1. He could help her, but he didn't do it.
> 2. He could have helped her, but he didn't.


“He *could have* helped her, but he *didn’t*” is fine. It expresses a past possibility (unreal/hypothetical) with a past outcome (real/factual).

But the other version mixes up a present possibility (he could) with the same past outcome. If you made both clauses factual, you would get: I can, if I want to, but I didn’t. 

I can, if I want to, but I don’t. 
I could, if I wanted to, but I don’t.  (wanted is backshifted to express conditionality, not tense)
I could have, if I’d wanted to, but I didn’t. ​


----------



## xu xian

lingobingo said:


> “He *could have* helped her, but he *didn’t*” is fine. It expresses a past possibility (unreal/hypothetical) with a past outcome (real/factual).
> 
> But the other version mixes up a present possibility (he could) with the same past outcome. If you made both clauses factual, you would get: I can, if I want to, but I didn’t.
> 
> I can, if I want to, but I don’t.
> I could, if I wanted to, but I don’t.  (wanted is backshifted to express conditionality, not tense)
> I could have, if I’d wanted to, but I didn’t. ​


Thank you.I agree with you, but I wonder if there are two different usages of could here even both of could express the present possibility.

1、I could go to oxford today, if I wanted to, but I don’t.
It’s second conditional.The could here expresses an unreal possibility. The possibility to go to Oxford doesn’t exist now when we say this sentence. Because there is already a present outcome “but I don’t”.

2、I could go to oxford today, and I have not decided yet whether to go，perhaps I might go to Cambridge instead.
One of my grammar books says _could_ can also refer to theoretical possibility. 
So this sentence =I can go to oxford today, and I have not decided yet whether to go，perhaps I might go to Cambridge instead.
Then the could here expresses neither tense nor unreal. When we say this sentence,the possibility to go to Oxford still exists. It’s a real possibility.

So I’m confused,if my grammar book is right,what is the difference between “I could go to Oxford today” and “I can go to Oxford today”,if they both express theoretical possibility.Why _could_ is backshifed to express the same meaning?


----------



## lingobingo

xu xian said:


> 1、I could go to oxford today, if I wanted to, but I don’t.
> It’s second conditional.The could here expresses an unreal possibility. The possibility to go to Oxford doesn’t exist now when we say this sentence. Because there is already a present outcome “but I don’t”.


You’re maybe allowing yourself to be misled by the word “unreal”. *Could* (like *can*) indicates possibility, not the lack of it. Here, the possibility is that of going to Oxford, which your conditional sentence presents not as unreal in the sense of being impossible, but as counterfactual (that is, not having actually happened; at least, not yet). 

“If I wanted to go to Oxford, I could”, or “I could go to Oxford if I wanted to”, is in the format of a 2nd conditional. But “I don’t” is a separate clause joined to it with the conjunction “but”. It could just as easily be written as a separate sentence, and it does not affect either the grammar or the meaning of what precedes it. 


xu xian said:


> 2、I could go to oxford today, and I have not decided yet whether to go，perhaps I might go to Cambridge instead.
> One of my grammar books says _could_ can also refer to theoretical possibility.


This confirms what I’ve said above. But your example 2 is not a standard conditional. The same if-clause as in example 1 is _implied_ but not included. And again, you’ve used a conjunction (this time “and”) to add a straightforward indicative second clause that’s not part of the conditional.

Also, the word *could* can be about something that’s impossible, for example when (unlike your examples) it’s used in the if-clause of a conditional sentence: 

If the car could fly, I’d soon get us out of this traffic jam.
If we could go back in time, we’d be able to find out what really happened.​


xu xian said:


> So I’m confused,if my grammar book is right,what is the difference between “I could go to Oxford today” and “I can go to Oxford today”,if they both express theoretical possibility.


They don’t. There’s nothing at all theoretical about “I can go to Oxford today”. It’s a simple statement of fact. But if you replace *can* with *could* in the same sentence, you introduce conditionality. Instead of making a blunt statement about the situation, you’re hinting that it’s dependent on something else – in other words, as explained above, there’s now an implied if-clause.


----------



## xu xian

lingobingo said:


> They don’t. There’s nothing at all theoretical about “I can go to Oxford today”. It’s a simple statement of fact. But if you replace *can* with *could* in the same sentence, you introduce conditionality. Instead of making a blunt statement about the situation, you’re hinting that it’s dependent on something else – in other words, as explained above, there’s now an implied if-clause.


Perhaps the example I used here is not much standard.(because maybe different books have different understanding about the extent of which situation belongs to “theoretical possibility”）.So let us talk about some examples we can sure first.

I basically agree  Gustavson’s explanations about the term “theoretical possibility”in this link.What is the meaning of "Theoretical possibility"
And he also gave two examples:
1、It's sunny, but in this tropical weather, it can rain anytime. (This does not mean that there is any probability of raining, but that the possibility of rain always exists).

2、It's cloudy. I think it may rain in the afternoon. (The chances that it will rain are high because it is cloudy.)

3、Even experienced teachers can make mistakes.
This is an example in my grammar book.And it says the can here expresses theoretical possibility. I assume you are supposed to have no doubt about this.

Then it says in another page “could,may and might can also express theoretical possibility”. And gives an example:
4、Don't go there,it could/may/might be dangerous!
And explain:could/may/might here can express actual possibility if we refer to a specific situation at present(the same as example2). But they can express theoretical possibility if we talk generally(the same as example1 and 3).


3、Even experienced teachers can make mistakes.
5、Even experienced teachers could make mistakes.

So I’m confused, if my grammar book is right,both of these two sentences express theoretical possibility. Then what’s the difference between them?Do you still think the sentence5 imply an if-clause？


----------



## lingobingo

You seem to be muddling up different issues now.

Re 1 & 2: In that  link, ‘Gustavson’ – an Argentinian teacher and translator of both Spanish and English – is comparing *can* with *may*, not *could*. He’s using them to illustrate the point that *can* = improbable but not impossible, which is just one of its many nuances. In effect, he’s comparing possibility with probability. 

Re 3 & 5:
Frankly, the *could* version is not idiomatic, so it’s a bad example.
And even the word *can* is not essential to make the same point. It’s quite common to simply say: _Even experienced teachers make mistakes._

Re 4:
This is a better example to explain a particular nuance between *can* and *could*.
_Don’t go there. It *can* be dangerous. _— *can* implies that the speaker is aware of actual/known dangers
_Don’t go there. It *could* be dangerous._ — *could* implies that the speaker holds a strong (but unsubstantiated) belief that the place is dangerous
So the main difference here between *can* and *could* is the level of knowledge/certainty of the speaker.

Re the meaning of theoretical possibility:

A [real] possibility = anything that not only *can* happen or be done, but, in practice, often does happen/is done

A theoretical possibility = something that’s not impossible but is highly improbable (it *could*, in theory, happen or be done – but only in extraordinary circumstances)​
Things that typically get described in academic contexts as theoretical possibilities include a heretical pope, perpetual motion, witchcraft, and life after death. These are, of course, extreme examples, but they illustrate the meaning quite well. In general, I would recommend simply considering the term *theoretical* possibility as meaning a *remote* possibility.


----------



## xu xian

lingobingo said:


> Things that typically get described in academic contexts as theoretical possibilities include a heretical pope, perpetual motion, witchcraft, and life after death. These are, of course, extreme examples, but they illustrate the meaning quite well. In general, I would recommend simply considering the term *theoretical* possibility as meaning a *remote* possibility.


It seems my worry is correct that we have different understanding about the term “theoretical possibility” itself. And in fact it’s my first time to see this explanation about the meaning of theoretical possibility. Most of my grammar books(maybe 90%) define the core meaning of theoretical possibility as “sometimes”.
For example：
Cock tail parties can be boring (sometimes).
He can tell awful lies (at times).
Some elephants can kill crocodiles (sometimes).
Even experienced teachers can make mistakes (sometimes).

And it is also called “existential possibility”in some books ,it means even if the possibility we are talking about doesn’t have any chance to come true while we are saying it,but it always exist (perhaps for a long time).And that is the reason why I mentioned it when I talked about the example of Oxford(maybe I was wrong to tie them together.Actually I also wanted to use term“potential possibility” at that time，but I didn’t feel the point of discussing was at these grammar terms. So I didn’t have a second thought.)

But no matter it is explained as “sometimes” or “existential”,I don’t think these examples are “extreme examples”.And I also understand what ‘Gustavson’ was comparing. It’s just myself that want to compare can with could,because one of my grammar books mentioned could when introducing theoretical possibility. And I don’t know if they are interchangeable when express this meaning.Now I know the example5 is not idiomatic at least.Thank your for your detailed explanations.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

xu xian said:


> 1、I could go to oxford today, if I wanted to, but I don’t.
> It’s second conditional.The could here expresses an unreal possibility. The possibility to go to Oxford doesn’t exist now when we say this sentence. Because there is already a present outcome “but I don’t”.[...]


I think, Xu Xian, that you can make yourself hard to help, because you make these confident but false assertions.

The fact that you don't want to do something isn't to deny yourself the possibility of doing it.  After all, we can be forced to do things against our will.


----------



## xu xian

Thomas Tompion said:


> I think, Xu Xian, that you can make yourself hard to help, because you make these confident but false assertions.


Hi，Thomas Tompion 
Actually I just put what I understand and I don't consider my views as absolutely right.And I think it is very normal to have different opinions while we discussing problems especially for some hard confusing questions，maybe there are all kinds of divisions among linguists，let alone us common language learners.So for other people's opinions，I would only use “I agree” or “I disagree”these kind of terms，why？because for the problem of what is true or what is false，I really can’t judge for sure. 
I think it is right now maybe just because I have never come across a better theory temporarily.I think it is wrong now maybe just because I can’t understand it temporarily.So I would never use “true” or “false” these kind of terms to describe other people's opinions. If you disagree my opinion,I could explain to you why I think this way if you want to know. If I disagree your opinion ,I would also tell you the basis why I disagree if necessary. And I always believe one saying that in the face of knowledge，no one is omnipotence.I think these are the attitude we should have while discussing problems.Do you agree.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

xu xian said:


> Hi，Thomas Tompion
> Actually I just put what I understand and I don't consider my views as absolutely right.And I think it is very normal to have different opinions while we discussing problems especially for some hard confusing questions，maybe there are all kinds of divisions among linguists，let alone us common language learners.So for other people's opinions，I would only use “I agree” or “I disagree”these kind of terms，why？because for the problem of what is true or what is false，I really can’t judge for sure.
> I think it is right now maybe just because I have never come across a better theory temporarily.I think it is wrong now maybe just because I can’t understand it temporarily.So I would never use “true” or “false” these kind of terms to describe other people's opinions. If you disagree my opinion,I could explain to you why I think this way if you want to know. If I disagree your opinion ,I would also tell you the basis why I disagree if necessary. And I always believe one saying that in the face of knowledge，no one is omnipotence.I think these are the attitude we should have while discussing problems.Do you agree.


Fine.  I think you do wonders in our language.

I was simply explaining that you seem at times to be making assertions of fact, when you mean to present an opinion.  This can mean that we don't know what we can treat as axiomatic and what is still under contention.


----------



## xu xian

Thomas Tompion said:


> I was simply explaining that you seem at times to be making assertions of fact, when you mean to present an opinion. This can mean that we don't know what we can treat as axiomatic and what is still under contention.


I’m sorry if I misunderstood what you meant,but I’m still not sure what you want to express. You mean the way I present my opinion doesn't accord with the linguistic habit of English sometimes？Then which way should I use to present my opinion.

I notice that perhaps we have different understanding about the meaning of“but I don't”in“I could go to oxford today, if I wanted to, but I don’t.”

my understanding is“I could go to oxford today, if I wanted to, but I don’t go.”
the same structure as“He could help her, but he didn't do it.”in #32
But I have been wondering if it is not idiomatic understanding this way.
When lingobingo said in #34“your conditional sentence presents not as unreal in the sense of being impossible, but as counterfactual”
I thought the word here“counterfactual” referred to the fact that “I don't go”.
But there is another question，in my grammar book counterfactual=impossible
for example：
If I were you，I would help him.
it says this situation is called counterfactual，the fact is that I am not you，and the possibility that I become you doesn't exist so it is also called impossible.
So I hesitated…

But when you said “The fact that you don't want to do something isn't to deny yourself the possibility of doing it. After all, we can be forced to do things against our will.”
perhaps this sentence can be understanded as“I could go to oxford today, if I wanted to, but I don’t want.”
If understanding this way，maybe it is the type which is called “hypothetical” in grammar books.The situation can be called unlikely but not impossible and not counterfactual.（sorry I am a bit dull about these grammar terms，maybe different books use different terms to refer to the same thing）

But I have been wondering if we have different understanding even in these basic concept like“what is possibility”“what is fact”.
because I saw lingobingo said in #34 “There’s nothing at all theoretical about “I can go to Oxford today”. It’s a simple statement of fact.”
In my opinion，all situations modal verbs refer to express some kind of possibility not fact. In the affirmative-sense context,fact is something that have happened in the real world(or say in the objective world）,so its property is that we can always find a specific happening time in the timeline if it is fact. But the situations modal verbs refer to don’t have this property.This is “what is fact”

anther question“what is possibility”
As I have said above “all situations modal verbs refer to express some kind of possibility”，so it is always right if you refer to the meaning of a modal verb.But the possibility here refer to this word’s semantical meaning not grammatical meaning（maybe sometimes they are the same thing but not always true）.
So that just saying the meaning of a modal verb is possibility is not enough.In grammar we have to distinguish epistemic possibility、deontic possibility、dynamic possibility and their all kinds of subtypes. Generally if you say the meaning of a verb is possibility ,I would assume you mean the “epistemic possibility”,because if you mean its semantical meaning you are always correct，it is meaningless to talk. This is the reason why I didn’t know how to answer it when I saw the question in #19“So it isn't past ability. It's past possibility.” Broadly defined，past ability is a kind of “past possibility”.
Using non-native language to expess one’s opinion is so tiring and time-consuming.I hope I have made myself clear.


----------



## Cagey

I am closing this thread.  It has lost its focus and is drifting from the focus on the original example. 

The more general philosophical questions are interesting, but outside the scope of this forum.

Cagey, 
moderator


----------

