# The past of can ?



## lordblizzard

Hey gusy do you know the past of "CAN" 

is it were able to o could ? 

THANKS A LOT!


----------



## Sharifa345

You can use either, it depends a lot on context.


----------



## chamyto

We´d need context .

A secas , tal y como dice Sharifa , los dos son válidos . ( was/were able to ; could )


----------



## duvija

Es que 'can' es un 'modal verb', por lo que realmente no tiene un pasado fijo. (Erróneamente, se le adjudica a 'could' una situación de pasado que no es clara)


----------



## donbill

duvija said:


> Es que 'can' es un 'modal verb', por lo que realmente no tiene un pasado fijo. (Erróneamente, se le adjudica a 'could' una situación de pasado que no es clara)



Completamente de acuerdo, duvija.

I could help you yesterday, but I can't today.
I could help you tomorrow, but I can't today.
I could help you right now if you'd like.

Si hablamos en términos muy literales, "was able/were able''--como ya ha señalado sharifa--es la mejor opción. Pero el contexto sigue siendo primordial.

Saludos


----------



## weeshus

donbill said:


> Completamente de acuerdo, duvija.
> 
> I could help you yesterday, but I can't today.
> I could help you tomorrow, but I can't today.
> I could help you right now if you'd like.
> 
> Si hablamos en términos muy literales, "was able/were able''--como ya ha señalado sharifa--es la mejor opción. Pero el contexto sigue siendo primordial.
> 
> Saludos


 
Is it not more correct as follows?:


I *could have helped* you yesterday, but I can't today _(I would have been able to help you yesterday, but I am unable to help you today_



I *can* help you tomorrow, but I can't today _(I will be able to help you tomorrow but I am not able to help you today_



I *can* help you right now.... _or conditional  _I *could* help you right now if you would like. [me to] _I am able to help you right now if you would like me to _



Itals are to help show my thought process. Always a muddy situation I am afraid!



regards
weeshus


----------



## donbill

weeshus said:


> Is it not more correct as follows?:
> 
> 
> I *could have helped* you yesterday, but I can't today _(I would have been able to help you yesterday, but I am unable to help you today_
> 
> *I could help you yesterday = I was able to*
> 
> 
> 
> I *can* help you tomorrow, but I can't today _(I will be able to help you tomorrow but I am not able to help you today_
> 
> *I will be able to = can* (tomorrow gives the future context)
> 
> 
> 
> I *can* help you right now.... _or conditional  _I *could* help you right now if you would like. [me to] _I am able to help you right now if you would like me to _
> 
> *could help you now* definitely implies _*if*_ you need the help and want me to assist you
> 
> Itals are to help show my thought process. Always a muddy situation I am afraid!
> 
> regards
> weeshus



Your points are very well made. My intention was just to show that _*could*_ has a wide range of possibilities that are not limited to serving as past of _*can*_. Your sentences are definitely more precise than mine with regard to time.


----------



## weeshus

So, I thought I would check my reply and using the Oxford Libray of English Usage (Book I Grammar) it would appear that the correct Grammar forms are:

*Can & be able*  - Forms
*can *is used here in conjunction with *be* + the adjective *able* which supplies the missing parts of *can* and provide an alternative form for the present and past tense. We therefore have the following forms:
Infinitive           _to be able_
Past participle   _been able_

Affirmative Future:        _  will/shall be able_
Negative Future:                 _will/shall not be able_
Interrogative Future:      _shall/will I be able? _or _will he be able?_ etc


Affirmative Present:       _ can _or_ am able_
Negative Present:              _cannot _or_ am  not able_
Interrogative:                          _shall/will I be able? _or _will he be able?_ etc


Affirmative Past:_ could _or_ was able_
Negative Past: _could not_ or _was not able_
Interrogative Past: _could I?_ or _was I able?_ etc


There is only one future form. *Can* is not used in the future except to express permission. In the conditional we have two forms _could _and _would be able._


All other tenses are formed with *be able* according to the rules for ordinary verbs:
Present perfect = have been able
Past perfect = had been able
Negative interrogative = _could you not?/couldn't you?  were you not/weren't you able? will you not won't you be able_? etc


*Can* is followed by the bare infinitive

*be able *is followed by the full infinitive


Hope this helps
weeshus


----------



## duvija

And most of all, remember not to say that 'can' has an easy past tense. So many people say it, and so many teachers teach it, it became an urban myth.


----------



## inib

I *do* teach that "could" is the past of "can" and also the conditional. I also point out that in past affirmative "could" means that you had the opportunity to do something but we don't know if you got round to it or not, or even that in spite of having the opportunity you never did it, whereas "was/were able to" makes it very clear that you could and you *DID.* Is there something important missing in my explanation?


----------



## duvija

inib said:


> I *do* teach that "could" is the past of "can" and also the conditional. I also point out that in past affirmative "could" means that you had the opportunity to do something but we don't know if you got round to it or not, or even that in spite of having the opportunity you never did it, whereas "was/were able to" makes it very clear that you could and you *DID.* Is there something important missing in this explanation?


 

I think what's missing is 'I could do it tomorrow', 'I could start next year'. I try not to forget that 'could' can also be a future (as a conditional, but no reason has to be added).


----------



## inib

duvija said:


> I think what's missing is 'I could do it tomorrow', 'I could start next year'. I try not to forget that 'could' can also be a future (as a conditional, but no reason has to be added).


 Thanks, Duvija, but I think that that is still a conditional verb* tense* even if it refers to a future *time*. Just like in Spanish. You can say "*podría* empezar mañana". You are referring to the future, but there's an implicit condition, ie: if you accept me, if the weather conditions are right etc. Right?


----------



## duvija

inib said:


> Thanks, Duvija, but I think that that is still a conditional verb* tense* even if it refers to a future *time*. Just like in Spanish. You can say "*podría* empezar mañana". You are referring to the future, but there's an implicit condition, ie: if you accept me, if the weather conditions are right etc. Right?


 
Yes, 100% yes. I was only insisting in 'could is *not* the past tense of can'.


----------



## inib

duvija said:


> Yes, 100% yes. I was only insisting in 'could is *not* the past tense of can'.


 Thanks, Duvija. I'm glad to see that we agree when it comes to the uses. For simplicity's sake, I will still refer to "could" as the past of "can", but it is clearly not only the past and not the only past.


----------



## Irma2011

duvija said:


> And most of all, remember not to say that 'can' has an easy past tense. So many people say it, and so many teachers teach it, it became an urban myth.


 
This is my opinion, which agrees, I think, with inib's (not that I dare compare my knowedge of English with hers, I just have in mind Spanish students of English):

The fact that _'could'_ is more than just the 'past tense' of ‘_can’_ does not mean that saying so it's a mistake. It *is* the past tense of 'can', and more. If you make it clear what that 'more' implies, you needn’t fear you are misleading your students.

Past of 'can':
1. (existence of a _continuing possibility_ or having a certain _potential_): 
Affirmative (could):
‘I can’t do it now but I *could* when I was a child’
‘_In the state she was in she *could* actually kill_(She didn't kill)

Negative (couldn’t): 
‘I can do it now but I *couldn’t* when I was a child’

2. (realisation of a ‘momentary’ activity)
Affirmative (*was able to*, managed to, succeeded in): 
‘Despite my exhaustion after a hectic day, *I was able to/I managed to* finish the report in time.” 
Negative (*couldn’t* / *‘wasn’t able to* / didn’t manage to, etc.): 
‘I was exhausted and *couldn’t* finish the report’

Saludos.

Note: Reported speech: ‘I *can* do it’ > ‘She said she *could* do it’


----------



## Magnalp

Bueno, si lo vemos así, el mismo _can_ no es el presente de _can_, ¿cierto? 

Propongo lo siguiente:
_can_ - forma neutra (basic form of the modal)
_could _- forma alterada (altered form of the modal)

¿Qué opinan?, ¿usted, Duvija?


----------



## inib

Yes, Irma, you and I are on exactly the same lines (right or wrong, may I add).
Magnalp, _¿Can no es el presente de can?_ *Sí* que es el* presente*. Lo que no es es el presente que corresponde al *infinitivo* can/to can, porque el infinitivo no existe. (Así lo entiendo yo, por lo menos). 
Pero en el fondo, creo que todos estamos diciendo lo mismo, y ya que está_ raining cats and dogs (_and elephants and the whole of Noah's Ark (menos los _men!!!_)), nos entretenemos aquí discutiendo una vez más terminologías.


----------



## Magnalp

> _I *can* help you tomorrow, but not today._


En la oración anterior, ¿_can_ se refiere al presente?


----------



## Irma2011

Magnalp said:


> En la oración anterior, ¿_can_ se refiere al presente?


El tiempo verbal es presente, igual que lo es "te puedo ayudar mañana". Un presente referido al futuro, pero eso no impide decir que 'podía' es el pasado de 'puedo'.


----------



## Magnalp

> I *could* help you tomorrow, but not today.


Entonces, en la oración anterior, ¿_could_ es un pasado referido al futuro? (Aquí sería condicional, pero según esto _could_ es el pretérito de _can_...)


----------



## weeshus

Sorry to qoute from my previous post 



weeshus said:


> There is only one future form. *Can* is not used in the future except to express permission. In the conditional we have two forms _could _and _would be able._
> 
> 
> All other tenses are formed with *be able* according to the rules for ordinary verbs:
> Present perfect = have been able
> Past perfect = had been able
> Negative interrogative = _could you not?/couldn't you?  were you not/weren't you able? will you not won't you be able_? etc
> 
> 
> *Can* is followed by the bare infinitive
> 
> *be able *is followed by the full infinitive
> 
> 
> Hope this helps
> weeshus


 


Irma2011 said:


> This is my opinion, which agrees, I think, with inib's (not that I dare compare my knowedge of English with hers, I just have in mind Spanish students of English):
> 
> The fact that _'could'_ is more than just the 'past tense' of ‘_can’_ does not mean that saying so it's a mistake. It *is* the past tense of 'can', and more. If you make it clear what that 'more' implies, you needn’t fear you are misleading your students.
> 
> Past of 'can':
> 1. (existence of a _continuing possibility_ or having a certain _potential_):
> Affirmative (could):
> ‘I can’t do it now but I *could* have done it when I was a child’
> ‘_In the state she was in she *could* have actually kill_ed (She didn't kill)
> 
> Negative (couldn’t):
> ‘I can do it now but I *couldn’t* have done it when I was a child’
> 
> 2. (realisation of a ‘momentary’ activity)
> Affirmative (*was able to*, managed to, succeeded in):
> ‘Despite my exhaustion after a hectic day, *I was able to/I managed to I was able to *can never* = I managed to/I succeeded in. *OK the sense is more or less the same (not the same though) but the fact is clear the verb "To be able" is not the same meaning as "To manage"*/ *to be successful/succeed" Not being picky biut if we are discussing grammar then we should not (I don't think) cloud the issue with differing perceptions of what is being meant*! * finish the report in time.”
> 
> Negative (*couldn’t* / *‘wasn’t able to* / didn’t manage  to, etc.):
> ‘I was exhausted and *couldn’t* finish the report’
> 
> Saludos.
> 
> Note: Reported speech: ‘I *can* do it’ > ‘She said she *could* do it’


 
I hope that this helps, 

regards
weeshus


----------



## inib

No quiero meterme en más líos, pero una cosa son los tiempos y otra sus aplicaciones, creo. (Respondo, sobre todo, a Magnalp).


----------



## Magnalp

En ese caso, no hay problema en que _could_ sea el pasado y _can_ el presente del modal; estoy de acuerdo con usted, Inib.


----------



## inib

Magnalp said:


> En ese caso, no hay problema en que _could_ sea el pasado y _can_ el presente del modal; estoy de acuerdo con usted, Inib.


 Magnalp, sé que son costumbres geográficas, pero tu aprobación me sabría más dulce si me tutearas. Ya ves que lo hago contigo, y que me perdones si no estás de acuerdo.


----------



## duvija

I could answer right now, but I don't have the energy. I just woke up (c'mon, it's Sunday!)

(presente usando could)

El problema es que 'could' no es presente, ni pasado, ni condicional, ni futuro, sino cualquiera de esos según contexto. Pero los alumnos parecen recordar solamente 'could is the past tense of can' y lo repiten y repiten...

 Por eso no conviene enseñarlo como 'past', y lo aprendí de un excelente profesor de morfología y sintaxis, que nos metía esto en la cabeza a los golpes. Es mejor no confundir a los estudiantes de español.


----------



## Magnalp

¿Y usted cree que el presente (_can_) no es presente?


----------



## duvija

Magnalp said:


> ¿Y usted cree que el presente (_can_) no es presente?


 

Yo trabajo con una teoría (Autolexical Syntax) que mantiene los módulos independientes. Un verbo puede ser morfológicamente presente, pero semánticamente otra cosa. No todos los módulos coinciden siempre (pero por lo general lo hacen) y el más superficial 'le gana' al más profundo.
Semántica, sintaxis, morfología, fonología, fonética, desde el fondo para afuera. Y por ahí anda la pragmática que descompagina todo ese elegante esqueleto.


----------



## inib

Hale y dale. Perdona, Duvija, sabes que te tengo mucho respeto y admiración, pero me parece que estamos complicando la cosa demás. Hablamos de la morfología  y de la semántica, pero pasamos de los usos prácticos.  Can/ could (para mí) proceden del mismo verbo defectuoso que requiere sustitutos (be able, por ejemplo), pero que en los pocos tiempos que existe (presente, pasado y condicional) es muy válido. Luego, los usos que le asignamos ya son otra cosa.


----------



## weeshus

duvija said:


> El problema es que 'could' no es presente, ni pasado, ni condicional, ni futuro, sino cualquiera de esos según contexto. ........  Es mejor no confundir a los estudiantes de español.




Well you have just confused me duvija! I truly do not understand. I am told in the Oxford Library of English Usage that could = past tense of can - viz:
Affirmative Past:_ could _or_ was able_
Negative Past: _could not_ or _was not able_
Interrogative Past: _could I?_ or _was I able?_ etc


Dice usted que "could" .... no es pasado. No entiendo! ¿Puede usted explicarme por favor?


Tambien           prefiero "to be able" a  "can" cuando estoy discutiendo la gramática - creo que es mas facil pero ayudarme si puede



gracias
weeshus


----------



## duvija

Para inib: por eso mencioné la pragmática, que es específicamente el uso que le damos a lo que parece ser morfológicamente algo distinto.
Y la morfología del inglés es bastante pobre en los verbos. La pena es enchufarle la del latín por encima de la propia.

Para weeshus: una cosa es lo que se enseña y otra cosa es lo que es. En este foro podemos diferenciar los usos diferentes, ¿no? porque todos los que participan aquí tienen interés en entender esos usos. Por eso es que no alcanza con decir "'could' es pasado" y después seguir tan contentos ....  Más bien 'could' puede usarse como pasado, pero también como... etc. No quise decir más que eso. Acá, en lingüística, nunca lo estudié como 'pasado'. Mas bien, nos hacían pensar en frases concretas y no generalizar.


----------



## weeshus

Gracias duvija, entiendo su logico. Convengo, él no es siempre bueno aceptar simplemente la definición de diccionario. Para entender nosotros tenemos que mirar más profundo. Pero ahora mismo (pienso) prefiero los libros gramaticas etc.

Necesito pensarlo

Saludos
Please correct my mistakes


----------



## inib

(QUOTE DUVIJA)Y la morfología del inglés es bastante pobre en los verbos (QUOTE)
En eso tienes mucha razón, Duvija. Pero agradezcámosle su simpleza, en vez de liarla más. ¿No?


----------



## duvija

inib said:


> (QUOTE DUVIJA)Y la morfología del inglés es bastante pobre en los verbos (QUOTE)
> En eso tienes mucha razón, Duvija. Pero agradezcámosle su simpleza, en vez de liarla más. ¿No?


 

Por supuesto benditos sean los verbos en inglés, pero también pueden ser tramposos.


----------



## donbill

duvija said:


> Por supuesto benditos sean los verbos en inglés, pero también pueden ser tramposos.



¿Tramposos? Surely you jest, duvija!


----------



## duvija

donbill said:


> ¿Tramposos? Surely you jest, duvija!


 
Yea, I'm a natural jester...
El problema es que no estoy muy segura si simplificar las cosas, para hacerlas fáciles de entender, no enreda más porque se encuentran las palabras en situaciones diferentes a las fáciles... Al menos hay que saber las alternativas, no?


----------



## Irma2011

duvija said:


> Por supuesto benditos sean los verbos en inglés, pero también pueden ser tramposos.


Exactamente igual que los españoles. El lenguaje siempre es tramposo, siempre se miente un poco cuando se habla. La mente es demasiado compleja para ponerla en palabras.


----------

