# If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it was Lurk.



## thetazuo

She found me. I'm not surprised, only grateful. If anyone in the Isles *could have found* me, it was Lurk.
Source: Dishonored: Death of the Outsider
Hi. In this sentence, "she" refers to "Lurk". I am wondering what is the usage of "could have found" here. I've never encountered "could have pp" used in this way. I only know "could have pp" can express counterfactuality in if-clause, as in "If I could have helped you, I would have". But in this case it doesn't express counterfactuality. So what is this usage of "could have pp"?
Thank you.


----------



## london calling

It means 'if anyone was *capable of *finding me'.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you. I knew the meaning. But why not just say "could" in this sentence?


----------



## london calling

thetazuo said:


> Thank you. I knew the meaning. But why not just say "could" in this sentence?


Because it refers back to the first sentence, 'She found me.', which is in the past.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you. But "could" is past enough in the sense that "could" is past form of "can". So "could" can also express "was capable of/able to", right?


----------



## london calling

thetazuo said:


> So "could" can also express "was capable of/able to", right?


What did I say above.?


----------



## thetazuo

Do you mean in this sentence "could have" refers to the past while "could" doesn't? But I don't think so. I think "could" can also refer back to the first sentence, 'She found me.', which is in the past.


----------



## london calling

I said:



london calling said:


> It means 'if anyone was *capable of *finding me'.


----------



## thetazuo

Yes, I already know that and I think I understand what you said above. But this doesn't answer my question in #7. I meant to say 'why do you think "could" can't refer back to the first sentence, 'She found me.', which is in the past.'?


----------



## lingobingo

_*If* anyone_ in the Isles _could_ have found me, _it _(= that anyone)_ was Lurk_.

_Paraphrase:_
Of all the people in the Isles who could have found (= might have been able to find) me, the most likely was Lurk.


----------



## thetazuo

lingobingo said:


> _*If* anyone_ in the Isles _could_ have found me, _it _(= that anyone)_ was Lurk_.
> 
> _Paraphrase:_
> Of all the people in the Isles who could have found (= might have been able to find) me, the most likely was Lurk.


Thank you. But the use of "could have found" sounds like "no one in the Isles did find me". as in "If I could have helped you, I would have" (this suggest I didn't help you because of lack of capability).But Lurk already found him. So I still think "could" is better.


----------



## lingobingo

It doesn't sound like that to English-speakers, who are familiar with this widely used set expression.

To us it clearly means:  _I'm not surprised that it was Lurk who found me, because Lurk was the only person in the Isles who was in a position to find me_.

In your example the statement is made from a past perspective, but the construction also works in the present tense:

*If anyone can find me, it's Lurk* 
= Lurk is the only person capable of finding me = Assuming there is someone who can find me, Lurk is that person

Looking back on the same thing later:
*If anyone could find me, it was Lurk / If anyone could have found me, it was Lurk*


----------



## thetazuo

lingobingo said:


> Looking back on the same thing later:
> *If anyone could find me, it was Lurk / If anyone could have found me, it was Lurk*


Thank you again! So in this sentence "could have found" and "could find" are the same, right?


----------



## london calling

thetazuo said:


> Thank you again! So in this sentence "could have found" and "could find" are the same, right?


No.


----------



## lingobingo

lingobingo said:


> Looking back on the same thing later:
> *If anyone could find me, it was Lurk / If anyone could have found me, it was Lurk*





thetazuo said:


> So in this sentence "could have found" and "could find" are the same, right?



Both could be used when relating the situation in the past tense, but which was more appropriate would depend on the exact context:

*If anyone could find me* — implies that the speaker had not yet been found when this was said.

*If anyone could have found me* — implies that the situation had been resolved (one way or the other) when it was said.


----------



## london calling

lingobingo said:


> *If anyone could have found me* — implies that the situation had been resolved (one way or the other) when it was said.


Which is precisely why _could find me_ doesn't fit here, as I said above:



london calling said:


> Because it refers back to the first sentence, 'She found me.', which is in the past.


----------



## thetazuo

lingobingo said:


> *If anyone could find me* — implies that the speaker had not yet been found when this was said.
> 
> *If anyone could have found me* — implies that the situation had been resolved (one way or the other) when it was said.


Thank you. This makes good sense to me.
Can I ask about another similar sentence? I found this when I googled "if anyone could have": If anybody could have saved me it would have been you.
This comes from *Virginia Woolf's Suicide Note.  *
Does this sentence mean "actually you had saved me when it was said"?

*


london calling said:



			Which is precisely why could find me doesn't fit here, as I said above:
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't understand your meaning.*


----------



## london calling

thetazuo said:


> *Sorry, I didn't understand your meaning.*


_Could find me _is incorrect. _Could have found me_ is correct because the character says She *found* me'. The situation has been resolved.


----------



## thetazuo

london calling said:


> _Could find me _is incorrect. _Could have found me_ is correct because the character says She *found* me'. The situation has been resolved.


Sorry, I meant to say "I didn't understand you at that time". Is it clear?


----------



## london calling

thetazuo said:


> Sorry, I meant to say "I didn't understand you at that time". Is it clear?


Yes, perfectly. No worries.


----------



## lingobingo

thetazuo said:


> If anybody could have saved me it would have been you.
> This comes from *Virginia Woolf's Suicide Note.  *
> Does this sentence mean "actually you had saved me"?



Er… in a suicide note? I don't think anyone saved her! 

But to be serious… No, quite the opposite. 
Here, "it *would have been* you" (rather than "it was you") heavily implies a negative outcome.

_Had anyone been able to save me, that person *would have been* you — but in fact no one could._


----------



## SevenDays

thetazuo said:


> She found me. I'm not surprised, only grateful. If anyone in the Isles *could have found* me, it was Lurk.
> Source: Dishonored: Death of the Outsider
> Hi. In this sentence, "she" refers to "Lurk". I am wondering what is the usage of "could have found" here. I've never encountered "could have pp" used in this way. I only know "could have pp" can express counterfactuality in if-clause, as in "If I could have helped you, I would have". But in this case it doesn't express counterfactuality. So what is this usage of "could have pp"?
> Thank you.



We know that the speaker _was _found, and we know that it was Lurk who _found _him. As a result, you can use "could find me" or "could have found me;" it makes no practical difference, given that we _know_ the outcome.

If you believe that "could" is the past of "can," then there's no grammatical reason that prevents the use of "If anyone in the Isles could find me, it was Lurk." 

To be sure, "could" was the past tense of "can" is Old English, but they then evolved independently as modal verbs; in modern English, "could" and "can" are not tenses, and they have different syntax and uses. More importantly, like all modal verbs, _can_ and _could_ can refer to "time" (but let's be mindful that _tense_ is linguistics and _time_ is physics). Basically, _could _can appear in any time context (past, present, future), but _can _can't appear in a past context (and in present contexts, there are some restrictions on the use of "can"). That's why, if you are talking about the past (as in your example), where deduction is involved, you can say _If anyone in the Isles could find me_ and _If anyone in the Isles could have found me_ but not "If anyone in the isles can find me/If anyone in the Isles can have found me." Because "can" can't appear in a past time context, and "could" can, there's a tendency to call "could" the past tense of "can," but _tense_ and_ time _are not the same thing. 

So, what explains the difference between "could" and "could have found me" in your example? The difference is in terms of _aspect_, a grammatical category that is independent of tense and time. In essence, aspect is a matter of speaker perspective; with _could find_, we view the action as a whole, in its totality; with _could have found me_, we view the action as a complete act, so the focus is on the end-point. This difference in perspective in semantic, not grammatical (not grammatical in the sense that grammar doesn't require one or the other; it accepts both). Being semantic, the choice for the writer is a matter of style, not grammar. 

The advantage of "could have found me" (if you want to look at it in terms of "advantage") is that this completed act refers to past time, just like a past tense would. However, don't evaluate "could find me" and "could have found me" in isolation. Remember that, in each case, the verb phrase is followed by "it *was* Lurk." That "*was*" clearly establishes a past context, so that we know that the "could" of "could find me" refers to the past as well. As isolated sentences, "If anyone could have found me" clearly refers to past _time _in a way that "If anyone could find me" does not. 

 By the way, this use of "could" refers to _possibility_, not _counterfactuality_.


----------



## lingobingo

SevenDays said: 
*To be sure, "could" was the past tense of "can" is *[= in]* Old English … in modern English, "could" and "can" are not tenses*
————————————————
Whilst I agree with much of the above post, in the midst of it all you seem to be saying that *could* is only the past tense of *can* in "Old" English — which implies that it has no past tense in 21st-century English. Surely not?
————————————————
Having said that… in the process of checking the "accepted wisdom" of all this, I was (what can I say?) flabbergasted, to come across these:
English verb 'can' conjugated
Conjugate can | Practice, test yourself and learn.


----------



## london calling

Good grief. There should be a law against it. _I am canning _sounds like you're making preserves.


----------



## lingobingo

But I have could calmed down now.


----------



## SevenDays

lingobingo said:


> SevenDays said:
> *To be sure, "could" was the past tense of "can" is *[= in]* Old English … in modern English, "could" and "can" are not tenses*
> ————————————————
> Whilst I agree with much of the above post, in the midst of it all you seem to be saying that *could* is only the past tense of *can* in "Old" English — which implies that it has no past tense in 21st-century English. Surely not?
> ————————————————
> Having said that… in the process of checking the "accepted wisdom" of all this, I was (what can I say?) flabbergasted, to come across these:
> English verb 'can' conjugated
> Conjugate can | Practice, test yourself and learn.



Yikes; honestly, would anyone recommend those two sites to a learner? It looks like conjugation by software, where you put in "can" and the software goes ahead and conjugates it like any other verb. I mean, I hope it's that; I can't imagine any speaker (native or non-native) _speaking/writing _that way. Modal verbs are defective; they don't have inflected forms, and they don't have a bare form. They have _uses_, and peculiar ones at that. We don't use "can" in present time to signal a positive judgment based on deduction; instead of saying "Oh, this *can* be the house," we need to find another modal verb: _Oh, this *must* be the house_. But in a negative context/judgment (linguistics call it "negative polarity") "can" is fine in its negative form: _Wait, this *can't* be the house._ 

Like I said previously, we use "could" in any temporal context, and we use "can" in present contexts only (with the exception noted above). It is in that sense that traditional grammar calls "could" the past tense of "can." But tense is morphology. There are no morphological endings to signal that a modal verb is in either "present" or "past" tense, the way that* -s* and *-ed* show tense in lexical verbs (_sing*s*, walk*ed*_).


----------



## thetazuo

lingobingo said:


> Er… in a suicide note? I don't think anyone saved her!
> 
> But to be serious… No, quite the opposite.
> Here, "it *would have been* you" (rather than "it was you") heavily implies a negative outcome.
> 
> _Had anyone been able to save me, that person *would have been* you — but in fact no one could._


Thank you. I see. So can I think if the main clause's predicate is "was/were", then "could have pp" in the if clause means something had already happened when it was said, as in the example in the op (you had already found me when it was said); while if the main clause's predicate is "would/could/might/should, etc have pp", then "could have pp" in the if clause means something didn't happen when it was said, as in the death note example and "If I could have built a partnership around me, things could have been different" (I didn't build a partnership around me when it was said)?
So if change the example in op into "If anyone in the Isles *could have found* me, it would have been Lurk", then it means "no one in the Isles could find me" (including Lurk)?


----------



## thetazuo

lingobingo said:


> Had anyone been able to save me, that person *would have been* you — but in fact no one could.


And you when said "but in fact no one could", did you include "you"?


----------



## se16teddy

thetazuo said:


> If anyone in the Isles *could have found* me, it was Lurk.


I feel the bottom line here is that even native speakers sometimes get into a horrible muddle when using modal verbs in conditional contexts, because the underlying grammar is complex.

Here various interpretations are possible regarding the kind of transformation the speaker tried to make to the statement _If anyone was capable, it it was Lurk. _Normally we can express _was capable _as _could_; but in this position _could _would confusingly point to a type 2 conditional. I suspect the speaker has (not very happily) tried to negate the "type 2 conditional" interpretation, and to emphasize that the reference is to the past, by using "could *have found*", even though that form is normally only used in epistemic senses, or in the context or reported speech/thought.


----------



## lingobingo

thetazuo said:


> Had anyone been able to save me, that person would have been you — but in fact no one could.
> 
> And you when said "but in fact no one could", did you include "you"?



Yes, of course. No one means nobody, not anyone at all. If you want to say nobody except some particular person, you have to state that. Here the point is that whether or not "you" could have saved "me" is conjecture, not fact.

*FACT* (what is or was)
_Can anyone save me? No. Nobody can. It's impossible. / Could anyone have saved me? No. Nobody could. It was impossible.

*CONJECTURE* (what might still be) — in the present
If anyone can save me, it is you
_
*CONJECTURE* (what might have been) — in the past
_If anyone could have saved me, it would have been you
= If anyone could have saved me, it was you — you are/were the person who might have been able to save me back then_


----------



## thetazuo

lingobingo said:


> *CONJECTURE* (what might have been) — in the past
> _If anyone could have saved me, it would have been you
> = If anyone could have saved me, it was you — you are/were the person who might have been able to save me back then_


Thank you. But I don't understand why for this example "_If anyone could have saved me, it would have been you" _equals "_If anyone could have saved me, it was you". _
It appears to me that the former means "no one was able to save me" while the latter means "you have already saved me when it was said" because the latter is the same structure as "if anyone in the Isles could have found me, it was lurk". So you seem to have contradicted what you said in #21.


----------



## lingobingo

thetazuo said:


> I don't understand why for this example "_If anyone could have saved me, it would have been you" _equals "_If anyone could have saved me, it was you"._



They mean the same in one of the two contexts you've provided with your examples:

Virginia Woolf is NOT saved:
_If anyone could have saved me, it was you _
_If anyone could have saved me, it would have been you _

Lurk DOES find her (and she's talking about it afterwards):
_If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it was Lurk _
_If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it would have been Lurk  — What do you mean, would have been? He did find you!_


----------



## thetazuo

lingobingo said:


> They mean the same in one of the two contexts you've provided with your examples:
> 
> Virginia Woolf is NOT saved:
> _If anyone could have saved me, it was you _
> _If anyone could have saved me, it would have been you _
> 
> Lurk DOES find her (and she's talking about it afterwards):
> _If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it was Lurk _
> _If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it would have been Lurk  — What do you mean, would have been? He did find you!_


Thank you. So whether the situation had been resolved or not when it was said depends on the context rather than the structure? It seems there are more combinations than we already covered.
For example, if there is no context, how do we interpret the following variants (in the light of whether the situation had been resolved or not when it was said)?
1. _If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it was Lurk. (this can mean either Lurk did find me or hadn't find me yet when this was said, depending on the context?)_
_2. If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it would have been Lurk. (Does this always mean the speaker had not yet been found when this was said, regardless of context?)_
_3. If anyone in the Isles could find me, it was Lurk. (Does this have only one meaning, namely, the speaker had not yet been found when this was said?)_
_4. If anyone in the Isles could find me, it would have been Lurk. (If this version makes sense, how many meanings does it have?)_


----------



## e2efour

SevenDays said:


> To be sure, "could" was the past tense of "can" is Old English, but they then evolved independently as modal verbs; in modern English, "could" and "can" are not tenses, and they have different syntax and uses.



I find this somewhat misleading. In modern grammar _can_ is also described as a present tense and _could_ as a preterite.
And what is a preterite? "A past tense that is marked by inflection is called a preterite." (Huddleston and Pullum, A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, 2005)

Example of a past-tense modal: _She couldn't swim.
_
What you are saying is that _could_ does not always refer to the past and is often used in a hypothetical sense. This I do not disagree with.


----------



## boozer

thetazuo said:


> But the use of "could have found" sounds like "no one in the Isles did find me". as in "If I could have helped you, I would have"


I suppose you believe that because in a recent thread another forum member 'confirmed' to you that with constructions like 'could/might/would have pp' there is always an implied type 3 conditional.

I expressly told you this was not the case. And now you have found an example where even the presence of 'if' does not involve a type 3 conditional. A type 3 conditional is normally closed, hypothetical and counterfactual. What you have here is not counterfactual.


----------



## wandle

e2efour said:


> _could_ does not always refer to the past and is often used in a hypothetical sense.


Yes, of course. The two meanings exist and have long done so. Being a modal verb does not exclude tense.

'Could' sometimes means 'was able to' and sometimes means 'would be able to'.
'Might' sometimes means that something 'was allowed' or 'was possible' and sometimes means that it 'would be allowed' or 'would be possible'.


----------



## lingobingo

thetazuo said:


> So whether the situation had been resolved or not when it was said depends on the context rather than the structure? It seems there are more combinations than we already covered.



Whether or not the situation has been resolved IS the context, and that context governs or influences not only the syntax of anything written about the situation but also how the reader/listener interprets it. 

Also, in most instances there are more ways than one to say the same thing. This particular turn of phrase (_if anyone …… it is/was you_) is no different, and you clearly understand it quite well now, so there's no point in going round in circles nitpicking it any further. 

But it is perhaps worth observing that Virginia Woolf's sentence (which you brought into the discussion as an afterthought) is unnecessarily complex. She could easily have said, more succinctly: _If anybody could have saved me, it was you._


----------



## wandle

boozer said:


> in a recent thread another forum member 'confirmed' to you that with constructions like 'could/might/would have pp' there is always an implied type 3 conditional.


Where was that?


----------



## thetazuo

lingobingo said:


> Also, in most instances there are more ways than one to say the same thing. This particular turn of phrase (_if anyone …… it is/was you_) is no different, and you clearly understand it quite well now, so there's no point in going round in circles nitpicking it any further.


Thank you. I know there are more than one way to mean the same thing. It may seem hairsplitting, but I am still wondering whether the structure "if any one could have pp ... ,it was ..." has two opposite meanings, depending on context?


----------



## wandle

thetazuo said:


> If anyone in the Isles *could have found* me, it was Lurk.


This is an open past conditional (type A in this table). In this case, 'could' means 'was able to'.
The sentence is equivalent to: 'If anyone in the Isles was able to have found me, it was Lurk'.

In other words, 'have' in this case belongs with 'found', not 'could'. '(To) have found' is the perfect infinitive corresponding to the present infinitive '(to) find'.
The perfect infinitive expresses the completed action, while the present infinitive expresses the incomplete action.

Thus both options are grammatically and semantically correct in this context, but 'have found' is the normal idiomatic preference, just because it expresses completion (which is what matters, in psychological terms, in the issue of finding someone).


----------



## thetazuo

wandle said:


> Thus both options are grammatically and semantically correct in this context, but 'have found' is the normal idiomatic preference, just because it expresses completion (which is what matters, in psychological terms, in the issue of finding someone).


Thank you. I see. But I thought since present infinitive expresses the incomplete action, then "could find" is not correct here, as has been explained by londoncalling and lingobingo, right?


thetazuo said:


> 1. _If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it was Lurk. (this can mean either Lurk did find me or hadn't find me yet when this was said, depending on the context?)_
> _2. If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it would have been Lurk. (Does this always mean the speaker had not yet been found when this was said, regardless of context?)_
> _3. If anyone in the Isles could find me, it was Lurk. (Does this have only one meaning, namely, the speaker had not yet been found when this was said?)_
> _4. If anyone in the Isles could find me, it would have been Lurk. (If this version makes sense, how many meanings does it have?)_


And I am more interested in the main clause. What about the questions I asked in #33?


----------



## wandle

thetazuo said:


> I thought since present infinitive expresses the incomplete action, then "could find" is not correct here,


If someone is capable of the completed action, then he or she is also capable of the incomplete action.

The sentence means that Lurk completed the action of finding. It follows that he, she or it must first have started the action.
Therefore it is just as true to say 'could find', meaning 'was able to find', as to say  'could have found', meaning 'was able to have found'.

When the finding has been completed, that fact is what is important to the people involved and that explains the choice of the perfect infinitive.


thetazuo said:


> What about the questions I asked in #33?


Those seem to me to be going away from the topic.


----------



## wandle

boozer said:


> I suppose you believe that because in a recent thread another forum member 'confirmed' to you that with constructions like 'could/might/would have pp' there is always an implied type 3 conditional.
> 
> I expressly told you this was not the case. And now you have found an example where even the presence of 'if' does not involve a type 3 conditional. A type 3 conditional is normally closed, hypothetical and counterfactual. What you have here is not counterfactual.


I suppose that is a reference to this thread:


boozer said:


> Thetazuo, with enough imagination you could attach an implied condition to any 'could/might/would + perfect infinitive' phrase and thus turn the example into a type 3 conditional....
> The question is: "Is there really an implied condition to/for/in any such example?"
> No.





boozer said:


> What I really mean is that a condition may be implied, but this is not necessarily the case.





wandle said:


> It seems to me that a condition is always logically implied, even if not consciously registered by the speaker or writer.





boozer said:


> "What the Minoan visitor to the site would have seen at any one moment in the Late Bronze Age would have been quite different"
> Architecture of Minoan Crete
> 
> This is a book about Minoan architecture of that time and they talk about some building so, obviously, Minoan visitors surely saw what they saw. The "would have" is used by the author to make an educated guess as to what actually they did see. I see no condition implied.


I did say 'It seems to me that a condition is always logically implied' (not 'a type 3 conditional'), but it was in the context of that thread. Admittedly, I ought to have been a bit more careful and said: 'It seems to me that in that kind of context (unrealised possibility) a condition is always logically implied'.

In fact, as I indicated in another thread, there is a problem in using expressions such as 'constructions like 'could/might/would have pp'. It is misleading to focus merely on a particular combination of words and parts of speech. Such a pattern could involve more than one construction, and that is just what we see with the word 'could', because of its different meanings (indicative or subjunctive, factual or potential).

In the present thread, the sentence 'If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it was Lurk' is an open past conditional and 'could' means 'was able to'. The sentence is in the indicative. It implies the speaker was in fact found.

Let us adapt the Minoan example by using 'could': 'What the Minoan visitor to the site could have seen at any one moment in the Late Bronze Age would have been quite different'. In this case, 'could' means 'would be able to' and that makes the sentence an implied closed conditional. The same is true with 'would have seen': the writer is recognising that he cannot express the point as a fact. Otherwise, the indicative would have been used: 'what the visitor saw was quite different'.

Thus although both sentences use the phrase 'could have', the two constructions are different.


----------



## SevenDays

e2efour said:


> I find this somewhat misleading. In modern grammar _can_ is also described as a present tense and _could_ as a preterite.
> And what is a preterite? "A past tense that is marked by inflection is called a preterite." (Huddleston and Pullum, A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, 2005)
> 
> Example of a past-tense modal: _She couldn't swim.
> _
> What you are saying is that _could_ does not always refer to the past and is often used in a hypothetical sense. This I do not disagree with.



Well, that's just it; tense _is_ inflection; tense _is _morphology.

Present tense is marked morphologically by the morpheme -s; past tense by the morpheme -ed. "Swim" is an irregular verb; the present tense 
becomes _She swim*s*_, and the past tense becomes _She *swam*_, where "swam" is a variant of -ed, lexically conditioned by the nature of the verb to denote past tense. In other words, you don't need any context to differentiate present tense _She swims_ from past tense _She swam_ because tense is encoded in the verb inflection.

By contrast, you can't tell the "tense" of _She could swim; _is it present tense? past tense? In reality, this is a _tenseless_ clause. (Of course, "She could swim" can refer to present or past "time;" again, "time" is not the same as "tense"). _She could*n't* swim_ is simply the negative form of "She could swim." There's no "tense" involved either; "not" is a negator, not a tense marker. We might be drawn to think of "She couldn't swim" as a "past event" because we tend to see "unrealized" actions that way, but that doesn't make "couldn't" a past "tense." _Could_ and its negative variant _couldn't _mark "modality" (thus, the name "modal verb"), and the exact type of modality (_permission, ability_) depends on context.

In Old English, _could _had distinctive morphological forms for most grammatical persons, in present tense and past tense, indicative and subjunctive, plus a base form. (For example, see conjugation here) All that's gone in modern English, where _could _and all other modal verbs evolved into a separate category ("modal verbs") that deals with _modality_ not "tense."

Huddleston and Pullum call _could _the past tense of _can _based on _usage_, given that _could_ commonly appears in contexts where lexical preterites appear (past time, conditional sentences, backshifting). However, that doesn't mean that "could" is _inflected_ to show contrast between past tense and present tense.  _She swam_ is morphologically marked to show past tense; _She could swim_ and _She couldn't swim_ are not. That's the point. As a result (for their lack of morphological forms), modal verbs are helping verbs which never occur as main verbs.

And if you call "can" present "tense," you run into a problem (as I said earlier): you can't say "That *can* be the house" to express_ deduction_ in present time. No verb _inflected for tense _runs into that problem, where a present _tense_ in some contexts can't be used to make reference to present _time_. If you say that "can" depicts modality and not tense, there is no problem, because modal verbs have their own syntax and uses: for modality of deduction in present time, we use _must_, not _can,_ in positive environments (_That must be the house_) and_ can't _in negative environments (_That can't be the house_).

Huddleston and Pullum also call _might, would, should_ the preterite forms of _may, will, and shall_. In some works of morphology, these forms, plus _could_, are called _lexemes_ rather than "past tenses."


----------



## boozer

This is beginning to degenerate into an academic discussion leading nowhere, but...

I disagree that 'could' is not marked for tense. It surely is the past-tense inflected form of 'can'.

That it can also mark non-past or tenseless modality and is, therefore, a modal verb in its own right, is another story. Some dictionaries prefer to separate these two distinct types of usage and, logically, the first usage they describe is the past-tense one. For instance Cambridge:
could Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

My point is, first and foremost, 'could' is a past-tense form. All else comes as a consequence of this being the case.


----------



## wandle

SevenDays said:


> tense _is_ inflection; tense _is _morphology.


Inflection and morphology can express tense, as can an auxiliary verb.


SevenDays said:


> We might be drawn to think of "She couldn't swim" as a "past event" because we tend to see "unrealized" actions that way


Who does? The past tense is used for completed actions or former states. 'Couldn't' is simply the negation of 'could'.


> but that doesn't make "couldn't" a past "tense."


This part is true. That argument does not make 'couldn't' a past tense (a) because it is invalid, (b) because (as far as I know) no one uses it and (c) because it is the actual usage of 'could' and 'could not' as past tense, meaning 'was able to' and 'was not able to' (a usage continuous and documented since very early times) that makes it so.

Think of two children, aged eight and nine, talking about learning to swim. One says 'I could swim two lengths when I was seven'. The other says 'No, you couldn't! You couldn't even do it yesterday!' Does anyone doubt that this is a valid and realistic example of the past tense of 'can'? That illustrates how we grow up with this natural and (in the English-speaking world) universal usage.

Of course, this point in no way negates the subjunctive or hypothetical uses of 'could' meaning 'would be able to'.


----------



## thetazuo

wandle said:


> This is an open past conditional (type A in this table). In this case, 'could' means 'was able to'.
> The sentence is equivalent to: 'If anyone in the Isles was able to have found me, it was Lurk'.
> 
> In other words, 'have' in this case belongs with 'found', not 'could'. '(To) have found' is the perfect infinitive corresponding to the present infinitive '(to) find'.
> The perfect infinitive expresses the completed action, while the present infinitive expresses the incomplete action.
> 
> Thus both options are grammatically and semantically correct in this context, but 'have found' is the normal idiomatic preference, just because it expresses completion (which is what matters, in psychological terms, in the issue of finding someone).


Hi, wandle. When I review this thread I find a problem with your above explanation. In fact "If anyone in the Isles *could* find me, it *was* Lurk" is not grammatical.


----------



## wandle

thetazuo said:


> "If anyone in the Isles *could* find me, it *was* Lurk" is not grammatical.


You made this objection in post 41 and I answered it in post 42.

The sentence with 'could find' is perfectly grammatical. It is an ordinary open past conditional. It is of the same kind as 'If anyone was upset, it was Fred'. This means that Fred was the one person who was really upset.

In the same way, the sentence with 'could find' means that Lurk was the one person who was able to find the speaker.

The sentence with 'could have found' means that Lurk was the one person who was able to have found the speaker.

It is important to remember two different meanings of 'could': (1) 'was able to' and (2)'would be able to'. In the present case, we are dealing with (1), not (2).


----------



## thetazuo

wandle said:


> You made this objection in post 41 and I answered it in post 42.
> 
> The sentence with 'could find' is perfectly grammatical. It is an ordinary open past conditional. It is of the same kind as 'If anyone was upset, it was Fred'. This means that Fred was the one person who was really upset.
> 
> In the same way, the sentence with 'could find' means that Lurk was the one person who was able to find the speaker.
> 
> The sentence with 'could have found' means that Lurk was the one person who was able to have found the speaker.
> 
> It is important to remember two different meanings of 'could': (1) 'was able to' and (2)'would be able to'. In the present case, we are dealing with (1), not (2).


Thank you. I forgot asking that question, sorry. 
So generally, if the main clause is simple past tense, then we are dealing with "if ... could have done X" in sense (1) "was able to have", as in the original sentence in op, suggesting X has already been completed 
But if the main clause is "modal + have+ past participle", for example, "If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it *would have* been Lurk", then we are dealing with "if ... could have done X" in sense (2) "would be able to have", suggesting X hasn't been completed yet.
Right?


----------



## wandle

thetazuo said:


> we are dealing with "if ... could have done X"


Sorry, but this is not clear, because it does not let us know what is in the gap (we cannot even see which clause the verb is in).

However, in this sentence:


thetazuo said:


> "If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it *would have* been Lurk"


the meaning is that the speaker was not found.

This is equivalent to: 'If anyone in the Isles had been able to find me, it would have been Lurk' (closed past conditional, also called type 3).


----------



## thetazuo

wandle said:


> Sorry, but this is not clear, because it does not let us know what is in the gap (we cannot even see which clause the verb is in).


Thank you. Does what is in the gap make a difference to the conclusion I am going to draw? 
And do you think whether the main clause uses "modal + have + past participle" or not will affect the way we interpret "could have done X" in the if-clause?


----------



## wandle

thetazuo said:


> Does what is in the gap make a difference to the conclusion I am going to draw?


Certainly, because with the gap it is not clear what the sentence would be.
As before, the reason why I do not endorse the conclusion is that I want to avoid a statement which could mean more than one thing.


thetazuo said:


> And do you think whether the main clause uses "modal + have + past participle" or not will affect the way we interpret "could have done X" in the if-clause?


Yes it will, but so will other factors. We have to remember that in English conditionals it is possible for one pattern of words to represent more than one construction (and for one construction to appear in more than one pattern). Therefore when interpreting a sentence we have to take the whole context into account.


----------



## thetazuo

wandle said:


> Yes it will, but so will other factors. We have to remember that in English conditionals it is possible for one pattern of words to represent more than one construction (and for one construction to appear in more than one pattern). Therefore when interpreting a sentence we have to take the whole context into account.


Thank you. So with this being true, I'd say some of lingobingo's explanation is not quite right.
She said in a scenario where Virginia Woolf is NOT saved, both of the following sentences mean the same thing:
_If anyone could have saved me, it was you 
If anyone could have saved me, it would have been you _
But now I think the above two sentences are different in meaning. "_If anyone could have saved me, it was you_" would mean Virginia Woolf was actually saved.
Right?


----------



## wandle

thetazuo said:


> "_If anyone could have saved me, it was you_" would mean Virginia Woolf was actually saved.


That would mean understanding that sentence as a past open conditional (as in the Lurk sentence) equivalent to 'If anyone was able to have saved me, it was you'. 
I do not think it makes sense for someone to say that in a suicide letter. 

Virginia Woolf quite correctly wrote 'If anyone could have saved me it would have been you', equivalent to 'If anyone had been able to save me, it would have been you', which is a past closed conditional (or type 3).


----------



## thetazuo

wandle said:


> That would mean understanding that sentence as a past open conditional (as in the Lurk sentence) equivalent to 'If anyone was able to have saved me, it was you'.
> I do not think it makes sense for someone to say that in a suicide letter.
> 
> Virginia Woolf quite correctly wrote 'If anyone could have saved me it would have been you', equivalent to 'If anyone had been able to save me, it would have been you', which is a past closed conditional (or type 3).


Thank you. Yes, that's what I think. So only when the speaker was actually saved can he say "_If anyone could have saved me, it was you",_ right?


----------



## wandle

thetazuo said:


> So only when the speaker was actually saved can he say "_If anyone could have saved me, it was you",_ right?


In grammar, yes, but even so, it is incongruous. It would be odd to say it to the person who has saved you. It would be more natural to say it about a third person, as in the Lurk case.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you. I didn't notice the difference between first and third person. 
So just to make sure, similarly, only when the speaker was actually found can he say If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it was Lurk. 
Right?


----------



## thetazuo

Hi, everyone. I have a question about the sentence “If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it would have been Lurk”. 
Can this sentence be uttered only in a context where he speaker was *criticizing* Lruk for having failing to find him, when someone other than Lurk did find the speaker?


----------



## lingobingo

To summarise… 

This thread began with the sentence “If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it was Lurk” (who did find her in the story in which it appeared). This was a past-tense version of the well-established construction “If anyone can do it, it’s you”, typically used as encouragement for someone to do something, but here said after the event so congratulating rather than encouraging. 

“If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it would have been Lurk.” 

This is your altered version of the same sentence, intended to imply that Lurk did not find the girl. Does it convey criticism? No. 

Does it convey criticism if the girl is speaking after being found by someone other than Lurk? Still no.

Would it even make sense for the girl to say this after the event? No again. It could only form part of an account of how she had felt while still waiting to be rescued.

Is there a way it can be made to imply criticism (or at least a tinge of regret)? Only if you rewrite it: “If anyone in the Isles was going to find me, it should have been Lurk.”


----------



## thetazuo

lingobingo said:


> It could only form part of an account of how she had felt while still waiting to be rescued.


Thank you, lingobingo. Then how did the speaker feel when he uttered the sentence (my altered version)? 
PS: the speaker is an old man


----------



## lingobingo

No particular emotion is implied, except perhaps a hint of surprise that in the end it was someone other than Lurk who found him. But anyway, as I said, the sentence as it stands does not make sense after the event.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you. I see.


----------



## xu xian

If anyone in the Isles could have found me, it was Lurk.
=anyone could not have found me except lurk.
=even if anyone except lurk in that Isles had searched me，they could not have found.


No need long words.
So it is a “third conditional”?(Sorry I’m not familiar with these English terms)


[Chinese text removed from the English Only forum.  DonnyB - moderator]


----------



## london calling

Welcome xu. 

I'm afraid your suggestions are incorrect. And no, the original sentence is not a third conditional. It's a mixed conditional. If you search the forum you'll find many examples.


----------

