# can / may



## ThomasK

How do you translate this :
-_ he *can *do it _(capacity)
- _she *may *(*might*) do it _(possibility)
-_ he can do it _(permission)

Do you use the same verb, and a personal verb?

In Dutch we don't: 
- *kunnen - hij kan
- kunnen - zij kan *_(though we do not often use the AUX here, it seems to me)
_*- mogen - zij mag *


----------



## Perseas

In Greek:

All three meanings could be rendered with *μπορώ*: (αυτός) *μπορεί* να το κάνει.

However each meaning can be expressed in different ways:
-*είναι ικανός/ή* να το κάνει (capacity) --> he/she is capable of doing it
-*ίσως* να το κάνει (possibility) --- > perhaps/maybe he/she does it
-*επιτρέπεται *να το κάνει (permission) ---> he/she has the permission to do it


----------



## ThomasK

I suppose 'mporo' is kind of a modal verb, whereas the others are more like lexical... Is it also impersonal? BTW: isn't there any ambiguity? _(Hij kan komen _may mean _he is able to _and _he might_-)


----------



## Perseas

Yes, 'bori' sometimes is impersonal. For example: μπορεί να πάω στο θέατρο. --> "bori" is in 3rd person singular (impersonal), whereas the meaning is that I might go to theater. 

Without context there may be ambiguity.


----------



## ThomasK

Can you use it in two ways then, with a personal and an impersonal subject???


----------



## Perseas

ThomasK said:


> Can you use it in two ways then, with a personal and an impersonal subject???


Αυτός μπορεί να βγει έξω --> (He has recovered from his illness and now) he can go out. (μπορεί: personal)
Αυτός μπορεί να βγει έξω --> Perhaps he might go out (or not). (μπορεί: impersonal)

Usually, when possibility is expressed (see post 2 above) _μπορεί_ is impersonal. When capacity or permission is expressed it is personal.


----------



## Encolpius

In *Hungarian *we use the suffix -hat/-het in all cases.


----------



## ThomasK

Pardon? Not an aux., or no aux. even? Could you illustrate that with some examples?


----------



## Encolpius

No, since Hungarian is not an Indo-European language, we use a different structure in that case. 
he *can *do it (capacity) • megteheti
she *may *(*might*) do it (possibility) • megteheti
he can do it (permission) • megteheti
where 
meg- = prefix like German or Dutch to show the verb is perfective
te- < tesz = to do
-heti = he can used in transitive mode


----------



## Rallino

*Turkish* is like Hungarian: we use -ebil in all three cases.

He can do it (capacity): _yapabilir
_She may/might do it:_ yapabilir
_He can do it (permission):_ yapabilir

_Of course we can paraphrase add a couple of more words in case precision is needed, but if there is no ambiguity, then these forms are just fine.


----------



## Encolpius

Of course we Hungarians, too, can paraphrase add a couple of more words in case precision is needed, but if there is no ambiguity, then these forms are just fine


----------



## ThomasK

Interesting, thanks. But do you have any common lexical verbs that might convey the same idea?


----------



## Encolpius

of course, there is a lot, just like in English. But you did not mention the goal of the thread...


----------



## ThomasK

I admit. It might be beyond the scope of the question. I stupidly thought permission/ possibility/ ... are almost necessarily expressed by means of a verb, that is why I went on asking about alternatives.


----------



## Zsanna

ThomasK said:


> Interesting, thanks. But do you have any common lexical verbs that might convey the same idea?


Of course, there are (see below) but I think Encolpius's hesitation comes from the fact that the expression of these are very "rich" in Hungarian and there are also some complications with the use of even those that can be considered as common verbs. 
So knowing this, let me pick the three most common possibilties (*tud* - vb, *lehet* - vb, *szabad* - adj., although -rarely - it has some verbal forms as well):
_ 
- he *can *do it (capacity) - meg tudja csinálni 
(capacity expressed by *tud* meaning "knows" followed by an infinitive)

- she *may *(*might*) do it (possibility) - lehet, hogy megcsinálja (=possible that he does it) 
(an objective possibility - i.e. if the circumstances allow it - can be expressed by *lehet* + infinitive*, here with a different structure but let us not go into the whys.)

- he can do it (permission) - meg szabad csinálnia 
(permission is often expressed by *szabad* - adj. meaning free, allowed,etc. - + infinitive, here conjugated!, again difficult to explain easily why)

_Although if you look at it from the English teacher's point of view, I would have said that may/might is usually (esp. at Level 1) translated as szabad (permission) and can by tud and lehet (capacity + possibility).


----------



## ThomasK

Rich, in the sense of difficult to use? Do you consider them strict synonyms?


----------



## mataripis

ThomasK said:


> How do you translate this :
> -_ he *can *do it _(capacity)
> - _she *may *(*might*) do it _(possibility)
> -_ he can do it _(permission)
> 
> Do you use the same verb, and a personal verb?
> 
> In Dutch we don't:
> - *kunnen - hij kan
> - kunnen - zij kan *_(though we do not often use the AUX here, it seems to me)
> _*- mogen - zij mag *


Tagalog: 1.) He can do it. (magagawa nya iyon)  2.) She may do it.(maaring magawa nya iyon.)   3.) He can do it.(magagampanan nya iyon.)


----------



## Zsanna

ThomasK said:


> Rich, in the sense of difficult to use? Do you consider them strict synonyms?


No, I meant that there are quite a lot of synonyms (e.g. not only _tud_ but _képes_, _bír_ etc.instead of the "simple" _can_) but all the possible words (that, all in all, can be verbs as well as adjectives etc.) would be used in different structures and often even in different shades or register.
I don't really know which words you asked about as synonyms. Those in post 15 are not, but _tud_, _képes_, _bír_ - yes...


----------



## bibax

Czech:

on to *umí* udělat (he knows the way how to do it);
on to *může* udělat (he has a possibility/opportunity/choice...);
on to *smí* udělat (he has a permission ...);
on to *musí* udělat (he is obliged ...);

There are other possibilities like in English (must = to be obliged = to have to = ...), but the verbs *uměti, moci, směti, museti* (from German müssen) are basic modal verbs.


----------



## Tamar

In Hebrew there's no verb for _may _/ _mogen _(Isrealis who learn Dutch always have a problem with _mogen_, even if they speak English).
In Hebrew I would say it all with להיות יכול  - [lihiyot yakhol] - to be able to/can

_he *can *do it _(capacity)                     -   הוא יכול לעשות את זה [hu yakhol la'asot et ze]
- _she *may *(*might*) do it _(possibility) -  היא יכולה לעשות את זה [hi yekhola la'asot et ze]
-_ he can do it _(permission)                -  הוא יכול לעשות את זה  [hu yakhol la'asot et ze]

Of course, it is possible to change the sentence a bit, but then the structure is totaly different and it's not a pronoun + its verb (I don't really know how to explain this construction, sorry...).
For permission, for example, you can say : מותר לו לעשות את זה [mutar lo la'asot et ze] 

And of course, context always solves the problem


----------



## learnerr

ThomasK said:


> _she *may *(*might*) do it _(possibility)
> -_ he can do it _(permission)


I had encountered an opposition, and I think this opposition is a better description for these two words... It is _objective_ vs. _subjective_ possibility. So, _can_ expresses objective possibility (one that affects the things and depends on them), _may_ expresses subjective possibility (one that we think of when thinking and might depend on us).
And yes, answering the question, in Russian both meanings are generally delivered by the same verb, "мочь" (cognate with "могущество", power/mightiness, "мощный", powerful/mighty).


----------



## arielipi

Tamar said:


> In Hebrew there's no verb for _may _/ _mogen _(Isrealis who learn Dutch always have a problem with _mogen_, even if they speak English).
> In Hebrew I would say it all with להיות יכול  - [lihiyot yakhol] - to be able to/can
> 
> _he *can *do it _(capacity)                     -   הוא יכול לעשות את זה [hu yakhol la'asot et ze]
> - _she *may *(*might*) do it _(possibility) -  היא יכולה לעשות את זה [hi yekhola la'asot et ze]
> -_ he can do it _(permission)                -  הוא יכול לעשות את זה  [hu yakhol la'asot et ze]
> 
> Of course, it is possible to change the sentence a bit, but then the structure is totaly different and it's not a pronoun + its verb (I don't really know how to explain this construction, sorry...).
> For permission, for example, you can say : מותר לו לעשות את זה [mutar lo la'asot et ze]
> 
> And of course, context always solves the problem



I disagree with you; Hebrew suffers from some redundancy and difficulties with present progressive verbs and what you gave is the most common and fit to anything solution.
_he *can *do it (capacity) - הוא מסוגל לעשות את זה [hu mesugal la'asot et ze]
- she *may *(*might*) do it (possibility) - היא אולי תעשה את זה [hi ulay taase et ze]
- he can do it (permission) - הוא יכול לעשות את זה [hu yachol la'asot et ze]

_also for the second, if its strictly may, as in 'it may happen' then עלול alul should be used.
also for the second one could say ייתכן והיא תעשה זאת yitachen vehi ta'ase zot


----------



## ThomasK

I am surprised that the distinction is not considered necessary, is not made 'per se'. But I suppose it has to do with some kind of semantic similarity between capacity, permission, possibility.


----------



## Gavril

ThomasK said:


> How do you translate this :
> -_ he *can *do it _(capacity)
> - _she *may *(*might*) do it _(possibility)
> -_ he can do it _(permission)



Permission is expressed by "may" or "can" in English. "may" sounds a bit formal, but it is considered to be the less ambiguous verb for expressing permission, since (unlike "can") it does not also refer to capability.


----------



## ThomasK

You're right, but then that does imply that the distinction is considered important, I guess. I recognize a tendency in Dutch to replace 'mogen' (expressing permission) by 'kunnen', which is based, I think, on the fact that we avoid a hierarchical framework and replace it by some kind of conditionality based on objective grounds, like : "Does/ Do this situation/ context/these circumstances allow for this or that action?" So I think we avoid permission and refer to possibility, feasibility, even if strictly speaking everything has to do with authority...


----------



## L'irlandais

Irish 
can (to be able) = *is féidir le*
may = *féad*
may* (asking permission) = an bhfuil *cead *agam tobac a caitheamh anseo? (may I smoke here?)

*I agree wth Gavril, asking permission is with the word "may" ;  just because the majority incorrectly use "can" doesn't make it acceptable usage.


----------



## ThomasK

I am sorry about my mistake! Do these three have a root (like /ad/ - but that might be an ending only, or /fe-d/)? 

I'll dig into these three concepts myself to see whether they have a common (semantic) root concept? One would be inclined to believe  that...


----------



## Sempervirens

ThomasK said:


> How do you translate this :
> -_ he *can *do it _(capacity)
> - _she *may *(*might*) do it _(possibility)
> -_ he can do it _(permission)
> 
> Do you use the same verb, and a personal verb?
> 
> In Dutch we don't:
> - *kunnen - hij kan
> - kunnen - zij kan *_(though we do not often use the AUX here, it seems to me)
> _*- mogen - zij mag *



Salve! Le frasi , con la lettera minuscola, sono subordinate? Oppure sono (frasi) principali?

Ad ogni modo, dipende molto dal contesto. In linea di massima le tre frasi in questione le potremmo rendere in italiano con i verbi *potere *e *riuscire *e il verbo procomplementare _*farcela*, _ma non escludo, a seconda della frase, l'uso del verbo *sapere *seguito da un infinito verbale, es. "*sa farlo*".   Come anzidetto, dipende dalla  frase e dal contesto.

Tieni conto che l'italiano consiste di sette modi verbali e 21 tempi verbali, e che pure i verbi servili sono ripartiti in modi e coniugazioni, tempi finiti e infiniti. 

P.S Per quanto riguarda  le traduzioni di italiano e inglese, se la cosa interessa e se si vuole indagare approfonditamente, sempre in merito alle frasi che hai posto ad esempio, allora sarebbe meglio cercare nella sezione dedicata alle traduzioni tra queste due lingue.

S.V


----------



## ThomasK

Thy're main clauses, frasi principali? I'd say, but I'm not sure what sentences you are referring to. 

I can imagine _sapere _in clause #1, but in #2? _Potere _in all three: OK. I'd associate _riuscire _with capacity only, or am I mistaken?


----------



## L'irlandais

ThomasK said:


> I am sorry about my mistake! Do these three have a root (like /ad/ - but that might be an ending only, or /fe-d/)?
> 
> I'll dig into these three concepts myself to see whether they have a common (semantic) root concept? One would be inclined to believe  that...


Cannot be much help about the Irish, as far from fluent in the language of my homeland.  Most folks mix up can and may in English in that context, so no need to apologise.  Indeed in Irish the distinction between the first 2 points, isn't there.  féad means both can & may as far as I know.


----------



## ger4

In German, you can use the verb _kann < können _in all three cases. Sometimes another verb, _mag < mögen_, appears in set phrases like_ Es mag schwierig sein, aber unmöglich ist es nicht_ ('It may be difficult but it's not impossible'). With regard to permission, there are two options: either _kann <_ _können _or _darf <_ _dürfen_. The latter may sound a bit more formal.
_- Er kann schwimmen_ - He can swim (capacity)
_- Es kann schwierig sein_ - It can/may be difficult (possibility)
_- Kann/Darf ich etwas fragen?_ - Can/May I ask something? (permission)

Estonian distinguishes between _oskab < oskama _(1) (2) for capacity and _võib (võin) < võima_ (3) (4) for possibility and permission. Perhaps native speakers could add some more details.
- _Ta oskab ujuda_ - He can swim (capacity)
- _See võib olla* raske_ - It/This can/may be difficult (possibility)
- _Kas ma võin midagi küsida?_ - Can/May I ask something? (permission)

* _olla_ = to be; _võib olla_ ~ it can/may be; _võib-olla_ = maybe, perhaps


----------



## Armas

Finnish

Capacity:
*Osaan* tehdä sen = I can do it (skill)
*Pystyn* tekemään sen = I can do it
*Kykenen* tekemään sen = I can do it

Possibility:
*Saatan* tehdä sen = I may do it
*Voin* tehdä sen = I may do it

Permission:
*Saan* tehdä sen = I can do it
*Voin* tehdä sen = I can do it


----------



## ThomasK

Do you really have two verbs for each of these meanings? Of course English has _ought to/ should_, but still... Do they have deviant morphological characteristics, like some forms lacking? Can you combine them with an nominal object _(*I can English_)?


----------



## ilocas2

In Czech *smět* (may, be allowed) became old-fashioned - thread in the Czech subforum


----------



## Armas

ThomasK said:


> Do you really have two verbs for each of these meanings? Of course English has _ought to/ should_, but still... Do they have deviant morphological characteristics, like some forms lacking? Can you combine them with an nominal object _(*I can English_)?



No, they don't have any deviant morphological characteristics. Some of them can combine with nouns; osata can have a direct noun object whereas pystyä combines with a noun in illative case, kyetä combines with a noun in some locative case or translative case.

*Osaan* englantia = *I can* speak English
*Pystyn* parempaan =* I can* do better (parempaan is illative of parempi "better")
*Kykenen* julmuuteen = *I am capable* of cruelty (julmuuteen is illative of julmuus "cruelty")


----------



## 810senior

Generally in Japanese:

_


ThomasK said:



			How do you translate this :
- he *can *do it (capacity) - kare nara *yareru *(if it comes down to him, he *can do* it) : yar-er-u, inf. yar-u(to do) + potential suffix -er-u(be able to)
- she *may *(*might*) do it (possibility) - kanozyo nara yatte kureru *kamo shirenai* (if it comes down to her, we know that she would do it) an expression like kamo shirenai(lit. uncertain whether or not) actually means may or might be that.
- he can do it (permission) - I'm not certain if I could translate it properly but my attempt says yattemo ii (it's fine if he does it) or kare ni yarasete kudasai(let him do with that).

Click to expand...

_


----------



## ThomasK

Armas said:


> No, they don't have any deviant morphological characteristics.
> 
> *Osaan* englantia = *I can* speak English
> *Pystyn* parempaan =* I can* do better (parempaan is illative of parempi "better")
> *Kykenen* julmuuteen = *I am capable* of cruelty (julmuuteen is illative of julmuus "cruelty")


 Could I conclude from that they are not real auxiliaries, more like lexical verbs (which might account for why they can take objects)?

Can you do anything like that with the permission and possibility verbs?

Japanese  :
-_ he *can *do it _(capacity) - kare nara *yareru *(if it comes down to him, he *can do* it) : yar-er-u, inf. yar-u(to do) + potential suffix -er-u(be able to)
_- she *may *(*might*) do it _(possibility) - kanozyo nara yatte kureru *kamo shirenai* (if it comes down to her, we know that she would do it) an expression like kamo shirenai(lit. uncertain whether or not) actually means may or might be that.
-_ he can do it _(permission) - I'm not certain if I could translate it properly but my attempt says yattemo ii (it's fine if he does it) or kare ni yarasete kudasai(let him do with that).​
So ability is expressed by means of a suffix? That is new...
Possibility and permission are expressed by means of a lexical paraphrase, aren't they? So you have no [auxiliary] verb meaning 'may (might)' or 'may (can)'?


----------



## Gavril

ThomasK said:


> Could I conclude from that they are not real auxiliaries, more like lexical verbs (which might account for why they can take objects)?



If you could, then this kind of logic would seem to disqualify Spanish _poder_ from being a real auxiliary verb as well:

_El perro le puede al gato. _"The dog beats [i.e., overcomes] the cat." [indirect object with _a _"to"]

_Ya no puedo con esto. _"I can't take this anymore!" [indirect obj. involving _con _"with"]


----------



## ThomasK

You might be right, but I think the term "auxiliaries" implies supporting (helping, AUX) another verb. Maybe some words are not always used as AUX, or they have developed various meanings in the course of history???_ (I am not that well informed about the definition of an AUX, I must admit...)_


----------



## 810senior

@ThomasK, Japanese language has as well auxiliary verbs like may and can in English as you have expected them.
We conjugates the verb adhered on an auxiliary verb in a diverse way, unlike most of the languages that would have verbs conjugated in infinitive. (I guess they work more similarly to affixes in others)

られる_rareru _or れる_reru _(ability) : yume-wo mir-u(have a dream) → yume-wo mir-*a*-reru(can have a dream)
う_u _or よう_you _(possibility, will) : kare-nara wakar-u(he know this) → kare-nara waka-r*o*-u(he will know this)

As for possibility and permission, you're partly right; possibility can be expressed by either lexical phrase(koto-ga dekir-u; lit. can do the thing like -ing) or auxiliary verb(-rareru, -reru).
But the permission is only conveyed by lexical phrase like _shitemo yoi_(it's fine if you do).


----------



## Medune

_Portuguese falls short in terms of modal verbs: most of them would be translated to *poder.* 
he *can *do it _(capacity)
- _she *may *(*might*) do it _(possibility)
-_ he can do it _(permission)

Ele *pode* fazê-lo.                 Unambiguously:  Ele *consegue* fazê-lo. Ele *é capaz de* fazê-lo
Ela *pode* (*poderia*) fazê-lo. Unambiguously: Talvez ela o faça. Quiçá ela o faça    *_maybe        _
Ele *pode* fazê-lo.                 Unambiguously:    A ele *lhe é permitido* fazê-lo. Ele *tem permissão* para fazê-lo


----------



## Dymn

Medune said:


> Ele *pode* fazê-lo. Unambiguously: Ele *consegue* fazê-lo. Ele *é capaz de* fazê-lo


How about _sabe_?

In *Catalan*:
1) _Pot fer-ho _(perhaps better to use "to know": _sap fer-ho_)
2) _Deu fer-ho _(if it's probable), _Potser ho fa _(if it's possible, _potser _"maybe")
3) _Pot fer-ho
_
In *Spanish*:
1) _Puede hacerlo _(or "to know": _sabe hacerlo_)
2) _Debe de hacerlo _(probability, but it could sound like an obligation), _Quizá lo hace _(possibility, _quizá _"perhaps")
3) _Puede hacerlo
_
Placing _ho_ or _lo _"it" before the auxiliary verb (_ho pot fer _or _lo puede hacer_) is as correct and natural as the order above.


----------



## Messquito

In Chinese, both concept can be introduced by a single word 可, while it often occurs with suffixes 以(-->can) and 能(-->may)
-_ he *can *do it _(capacity) 他*可以*做。He can do it./他能(夠)做。He is able to do it. (夠＝enough)/他有能力做。He has the ability to do it.
- _she *may *(*might*) do it _(possibility) 她*可能*會做。She may do it./她有可能會做。It is of possibility that she will do it.
-_ he can do it _(permission) 他可以做。He can do it./他能(夠)做。He is able to do it (because he is allowed to)(夠＝enough-->satisfied)./他有權做。 He has the right/power to do it.
Both uses of can can be denoted by 可以 and 能(夠), so I get confused all the time. Most of the time you have to elaborate with those two sentences with, which are not confusing but usually not how people put it in the first place.

Etymology of 可：the original word for 歌(song)-->to sing a song as a means of courtship-->pleasant; appropriate-->appreciate; accept; acknowledge; approve; agree-->able


----------



## Medune

Diamant7 said:


> How about _sabe_?.



You can use "sabe" as well; but it does not sound so natural if it does not refer to a possible physical, technical or mental skill.
At least, to me,  _"ele sabe voar"  _as _he can fly (about a human) _sounds odd

And _dever_, similarly to _deber_, also works for possibility - usually implying more assurance from the speaker.


----------

