Can/could

[fowlerwouldbehorrified]

I am not sure if I am right here, and for context I went to school in the late '80s at a time when "can" was a mere verb transitive and not taught as a modal. Conjugation from what I remember broadly followed how pouvoir in French is conjugated - and even today the translations of the various tenses of pouvoir into English match how we use "can" and "could" in everyday language.

DC has been taught that this verb now is modal and as such has no infinitive (in my day I am sure it was "to be able" according to Fowler) and is defective has been given a lot of confusing information about the use of the verb, basically examples of use rather than rules and nothing about the conditional, present and past - ie conditional "could" and "could have".

DC has also been told that "can" is informal and "could" is polite.

I have an issue about how "modals" are being taught. I also have an issue about the bit about informal vs polite. To my mind neither "can" nor "could" are informal - "can" is not an informal word; they both have different meanings; either could be more or less polite depending on context and also depending on user. Different social groups and different areas of the UK use language differently and this has always been the case. "Could" might seem polite to some groups but to others it might come across as too indirect/not clear and therefore irritating - if you want to be polite so as to avoid the request sounding like an instruction you would use a phrase like "would you mind awfully..." or "could you possibly..." not "could".

Does anyone agree or am I being a bit of a git about all this? Does anyone agree that how modals are taught is too unclear and the relationship with conditional tenses is unclear and how we were taught in the good old days was much better?!

Was the teacher improvising?!
Language develops but the can/ could polite/ formal isn't grammar but register.
What age is dc? In the UK? If they’re not to be tested on it (SATs?) I’d gently suggest that teacher isn’t 100% right on this but not to worry as if it’s something they’re interested in you can look at these books together or they study more deeply later.

I am not overly worried about this in the context of DC, this thread is more about how correct it is/isn't (hence putting it is pedant's corner!).

To answer you in part, the bit about informal/polite was being taught as a finite rule, and I googled and found the same information on Grammarly. There was no distinction made as you have. I agree with your analysis of it and I am basically complaining about the lack of clarity in relation to teaching of "modals" etc

Can is a modal verb - it doesn't take an object (so can't be a transitive verb) and always works together with another verb. That doesn't mean that 'could' isn't also conditional (like 'would', 'should' and 'might' as opposed to 'will', 'shall' and 'may'). I'd say neither way of learning these verbs as a grammar point is wrong, they just emphasise different things.

The thing about formal vs. informal is nonsense, though, if presented as a rule of grammar rather than a convention that only applies in some contexts.

@BarnacleBeasley from what I can glean, before can was taught as a modal verb it was classified as a transitive verb - in my dictionary from 1998 it is classified as a transitive verb and not a modal verb - but my dictionary dated 2001 classifies it as a modal verb - and it still fits into the wider definition of of transitive verb I think (I would need to check tho).

I am not entirely clear about all this though. I am not sure when or why the modals started being taught as modals in schools rather than normal verbs as was the case when I was at school.

I didn't learn formal English grammar at school at all, so all my grammar is via learning other languages. But in my ancient Collins-Robert from 1995, 'can' is listed as a modal auxiliary, with 'could' as the conditional and preterite. My 2004 Concise Oxford English dictionary also lists it as a modal. How are you defining a transitive verb? I just can't imagine a definition in which it is one, because it doesn't take any objects. And you compared it to the usage of 'pouvoir' in French which is also not transitive.

Your confusion stems from your understanding of what a modal and transitive verbs are.

Modal verbs have a infinitive/stem which doesn't change for different subjects unlike other verbs and are auxiliary forms = found "helping" other verbs.

Can/will/must/should etc.

Could is the past simple of can. It's also the polite way to ask permission.

"Could have" third conditional (the past which never happened)

Transitive verbs are verbs which can take an object.

The way your son has been taught (by having examples, rather than rules) is great- it's been proven that this way of "teaching grammar" is far more effective and helps the student hardwire the rule more quickly, as they are the ones who've worked it out from the example given. It's called inductive grammar teaching. The old-fashioned giving a rule and then examples is called deductive.

"to be able to" is just another phrase used to show ability. Not related to "can" other than by meaning.
Used generally when we can't use "can". (when expressing the future, for example)

As I said, in my dictionary from 1988, can is listed as a transitive verb. The infinitive is "to be able". When I was at school, can/could was conjugated with the same tenses as pouvoir and with an infinitive.

Whether it is transitive or intransitive is not the point - it was clearly transitive as it required an object whereas intransitive doesn't but the point was that it was not listed as a modal/defective/without infinitive verb. Ie at that point we learned about the conditional and the subjunctive and other tenses of "to be able" whereas now children do not. We learned about the correct usage of "could have" (and "should have" and "would have") whereas children do not seem to be. Which might be why so many people on MN refer to "could of" instead of "could have" - they have not been taught the conditional tenses.

Grammar rules change but I fear that in this case the development of modal verbs is to the detriment of learning and clarity and should be reversed. Otherwise we will at some point have people adopting "should of" as correct language.

If you look up could in the conditional tense you will find a great deal of confusion and articles about "grey areas"

You probably can, but you may not.
Said by many a teacher in my day.

I genuinely have no clue what any of you are talking about 😂. Are you all English Professors in Universities?

No, my confusion was about why modal verbs have come about and when, not about grammar or how transitive/intransitive verbs work. Your explanation does not reflect how grammar was taught when I was younger, and objectively it isn't clearer - DC and his class mates have no problem with how pouvoir is conjugated, for example, or how it is used - I think rules based learning alongside examples is better than just random examples on their own and so I disagree with you there.

What is your source for "could" being more polite incidentally?

What is your source for saying "could have" is conditional 3 and do you know when this source was developed?

Do you know when modal verbs with their current rules were developed and why and when they became part of the curriculum?

Just going back to intransitive or transitive - intransitive are verbs which can stand on their own and make sense eg "I live" whereas transitive verbs require actions to make sense eg "I can sing"

No, "to be able" was one of the infinitives relating to the verb "can". The translation of pouvoir infinitive is usually "to be able".

Exactly!

My sources?

Too numerous here to list given I've been teaching and teacher training this stuff since 1994.

Modal verb rules haven't changed. You just don't understand them. And are a bit rude as well.

Can and "able to" are two completely different verbs so no idea why you keep conflating them. They are sometimes synonymous. We use "be able to" in the future because we can't use can. What with it being a modal.

You also need to stop thinking in terms of what other languages do. It matters not how "pouvoir" is used or conjugated.

Third Conditional sentences:

If + subject + past perfect, subject + would/could/should/might etc + have + past participle.

Refers to the past that never happened. The impossible past.

"If you had been more polite, I might have helped you"

If you Google, you'll find some elementary English grammar summaries that might help you understand the basics. Try something for A2 CEFR levels.

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/english-grammar-reference/modal-verbs

Pouvoir btw is "can" and "be able to".
(French degree, moved into English teaching after MA and PhD if you're after my "sources")

I am sorry if you think I was being rude, I wasn't intending to be, I was slightly irritated that you hadn't read what I had written, but as I say apologies if you think I was rude, not intended. It is a bit cheeky/rude to be referring me to the "beginner" page of your source.

Basically, I have looked into this more since my original post and indeed it is the case that certain verbs (now called "modal" verbs) are taught now completely differently from when I was at school/uni. I asked for your sources because there is no official body in the UK responsible for changes to language. You have only linked British Council which is not an official body, it is charity, not sure who funded by, and it has somewhat dubious entries and blog posts. There are no credible sources from what I can see, and yet this has been taught this way since 1994 you say - and I think that this is an issue, and I will explain in more and clearer detail when I get the chance - you can read and respond or not as you wish.

In relation to pouvoir, the infinitive is usually "to be able to" not "can" and yes it does have other meanings too in our formerly rich English language. You have misunderstood why I was referring to the French verb - I did explain in my posts upthread if you want to read more carefully. I am not being rude here, just straightforward. If you don't want to re-read that is fine too.

I am going to explain more clearly why I think the teaching about can/could, and about modality generally, is currently inadequate. This is long, apologies, but there was confusion up thread - some of it mine. NB how these verbs are used is apparently still subject to debate at academic levels. In summary there used to be a lot more detail readily available and I will say why I think this matters in the next post.

How it is taught now:

Can/could appears to be taught at a very basic level across the board in, primarily, in its sense “to be able to”, and examples given are very basic such as “he can ride a bike” and “she could play the music easily”; it is taught that can is a defective verb and only really exists in the present tense, that could is used as the past tense and is itself a separate very basic one tense verb. They are referred to as “modal” with “modal” being the only explanation ie scant information about what modal means. It is stated in absolute terms that “could” is (not “can be”) the polite form of can. Most contemporary dictionary entries only say “modal” without more detail about meanings and without explanation of meaning of “modal”. There is confusion and incorrect information online.

In contrast, how it was taught in the 1980s:

The entry for can and could in my dictionary from the 1980s is as follows:
can transitive verb, verbal auxiliary. Meanings:
1(a) know how to (“he can read”);
1(b) be physically or mentally able to (“I can't think why”);
1(c) may perhaps, used chiefly in questions (“what can they want”);
1(d) be logically inferred or supposed to used chiefly in negatives (“he can hardly have meant that”);
(compare with must);
1(e) be permitted by conscience or feeling to (“can hardly blame him”);
1(f) be inherently able or designed to (“everything that money can buy”);
1(g) logically able to (“x can also be written y”);
1(h) be enabled by law, agreement, or custom to;
2 - have permission to, used interchangeably with may;
3 – will, used in questions with the force of a request (“can you hold on please”)
4 - will have to (“if you don't like it you can lump it”)

"Could": past of "can"; conditional of "can" (“he would if he could”); as alternative to "can" suggesting less force or certainty (“you could be right”); as an alternative to might; expressing purpose in the past (“I wrote it it down so that I could remember it”); as an alternative to ought or should (“you could at least apologise”); feel impelled to.

The entries for will and other modal verbs were equally detailed back in the 1980s.

In relation to modality the following came from grammar books and academic sources from the 1980s or around that time and NB this is still considered good authority today:

Auxiliary verbs are split into primary and secondary, the secondary being modal. To determine whether a verb is an auxiliary, or a “full” verb, the NICE test is used – negation, inversion, code and emphasis. Full verbs can also be picked up by an auxiliary for example “he might/he ought to/he can't/he needn't” where the meaning is the full verb. Re secondary modals there are different classes – "be" and "have" are in a different class to "do/will/shall/may" and "need/ought/dare/must" and when "dare" and "need" are complemented by "to" scholars regard them as full verbs. The form used to express present and past of the modal auxiliaries can also be used to express future time often with hypothetical or tentative meaning.

Modal verbs have a unique function and are essential linguistic devices, the insertion of which into an otherwise non-modal environment generally introduces a different understanding of the whole statement. Modality is the term used to relate to meanings that are usually associated with mood and the usual meanings covered by modals are ability, volition, permission, possibility, necessity, obligation, probability, futurity and intentions such as prediction, hypothesis, (quasi)subjunctive. This can be further categorised into intrinsic, where there is some kind of intrinsic human control over events, and extrinsic, where there is human judgement of what is or is not likely to happen.

Modality can be used to express the speaker's attitude to the truthfulness of a proposition, or about what is possible and what is necessary with respect to some authority or moral values, or to evaluate the occurrence of events or the existence of state of affairs as necessary, important, advisable, possible, desirable within a circumstantial frame of reference stated or not stated, or references to abilities or volition.

For each modal meaning there are one or more modal verbs available ie there is overlap. Can and may for permission, or could and might expressing possibility for example. Where there is overlap modals used can be interpreted with nuances depending on context and speaker so that obligations, inference and possibility are able to be expressed and understood, eg strong or weak obligation, or confident or tentative inference.

So there seems to be a big difference in how it is taught, but there have been no substantive changes in relation to grammar, just in relation to how it is represented and taught

The reason why I think all this is important is because our level of understanding of complexities in language:

• affects how we communicate with others, how well we understand others and are understood;

• affects how we write academically, how well we analyse literature;

• affects how we think and perceive, our cognition and cognisance; learning about variety and complexities and nuances in meaning can introduce children to new ideas

• affects how accurately we translate other languages, ie how well we can be understood and can understand on an international level, both in relation to interpersonal relationships and in relation to diplomacy, world affairs, business

The simplification of grammar in relation to things like “can/could” might aim to make it more accessible, but the effect has been that a great deal of meaning is lost and is replaced with confusion. There are debates at an academic level about the morpho-syntactic and semantic use of can and other modals.

Since starting the thread I have discovered that France has a special body to govern language and maintain standards – the Académie Française is the official authority on the usage, vocabulary and grammar of the French language and it publishes a dictionary which is regarded as official in France. A special commission of scholars are elected to do the work. Why do we not have something similar?

Another thing on the French theme is that in France the standard of teaching in relation to grammar generally is much higher than in the UK. French born teachers often teach English better than English born teachers.

I have also discovered that the usage of words such as "would" "should" etc has diminished in the last couple of decades, and as we all know the conditional past is often spelt incorrectly (should “of”) – is this directly connected to problems with how it is being taught and sources made available? Is the problem at policy level?

@TheLongGloriesOfTheWinterMoon I also would like to come back to some of the points you made in a more considered way. You said:

“Can and "able to" are two completely different verbs so no idea why you keep conflating them. They are sometimes synonymous. We use "be able to" in the future because we can't use can. What with it being a modal.”

It seems to be incorrect that you can't use can or other modals in the future. Quite a lot of sources online also confirm this, such as the Cambridge dictionary, and also see my summary in a previous post about modality taken from academic sources.

You also can't simply use "to be able to" instead of can as you suggest here for the future or any other tense, because whether it is synonymous will depend on a number of factors including context. "To be able to" is only one meaning of can. Other than that single meaning, "to be able" isn't synonymous, in any tense.

You also need to stop thinking in terms of what other languages do. It matters not how "pouvoir" is used or conjugated

I think it does matter a great deal what other languages do if you want to communicate with people other than native English speakers on an interpersonal level or an international level. It matters in relation to how you translate. It matters as it affects our own understanding of our language and how we teach it. It also matters because sometimes we can learn from how other countries teach and maintain language in a positive way and import the same.

One of my points at the start of the thread which I possibly didn't explain properly is that very often the natural translation of the various tenses of pouvoir will be translated using can/could in natural parlance and also in formal translations - and yet - this isn't at all well represented in how we currently teach can or the sources available, and I think that this is a problem. To explain this more clearly, using the first personal singular of each tense:

Je peux - generally translated as "I can"
Je pourrais (conditional)– most commonly used natural translation is “I could”
J'aurais pu (conditional)– most commonly used natural translation is “I could have”
Je pourrai (future) – most commonly used natural translation is “I can” or “I will be able to”
J'ai pu (past) – most commonly used natural translation is “I could” even though this isn't an exact translation as there is no pp of can
Je pouvais (imperfect) – most commonly used natural translation is “I could” even though there is officially no preterite tense of can in English)

Also re "pouvant etre" – the natural translation is “can be” even though can does not exist in the preterite form according to scholars (“pouvant” is the preterite form, or the imparfait in French)

In contrast, j'avais pu likely to be translated as “I had been able to” and j'aurai pu likely to be “I will have been able to”

I have used French just as an example, the same issues will apply with other languages.

Could ...[is] the polite way to ask permission
I think it would be more correct to say that indirect language can be more polite, as is the case for many languages, but this is not always the case in relation to "could". It depends on context. Could can be used when wanting to be polite in some circumstances, it isn't always going to be appropriate as the polite way to ask permission.

Can is a transitive verb when, and only when, it means "put in a can".

What you say here is according to today's dictionary. Not according to 1980's dictionary. Yet grammar rules since 1980s have not substantively changed in this respect. Is my point (or one of them).

I'm 52, teach 3 languages and learned most of my English grammar via MFL and Latin lessons. To my knowledge, 'can' has always been a modal verb and has never been a transitive verb (except when it means 'to put something in a can'). The verb 'can' does not take an object. Like other modals, it does not require 'to' before the verb that follows it.

Tenses of English modals are absolutely bonkers. I often use them as an example to disprove my students' belief that 'we don't have any of that silly irregular verb nonsense in English'.

I find your last post comparing English and French tenses a bit odd. None of them is exactly a perfect translation, because their tenses don't work like ours. The best you can have is an approximate equivalent.

Surely your dc is not being taught about modals in this level of detail?

@AllProperTeaIsTheft if you are 52, grammar was not being taught as a matter of policy when you were at school, other than at some private schools, and basically (and I say this without wishing to be rude at all) I think you are wrong in many of your points, notwithstanding the fact that you are a teacher. Dictionaries from the 1980s which list "can" as an auxiliary and a transitive verb are very unlikely to be wrong. Or superceded in any substantive way since then. According to academic sources I looked at, modal verbs are a subset of auxiliaries and they can be both transitive verbs and modals. Many English verbs are irregular. There really is nothing bonkers about the conjugation of modal verbs if you look at academic sources, which were summarised in a long post post above.

I am not sure why you used the word "odd" about the comparison with pouvoir, as it was explained fully - odd is an odd choice of word! Anyway, moving on, there are significant similarities between usage and conjugation of French verbs and English verbs which is only to be expected as they have common roots. Far more so when compared with other world languages. Look at a complex sentence in a French newspaper which uses the subjuctive and other tenses and you will find easy direct translations into English if you know English grammar well. French has a couple of erudite tenses such as the passe simple, and there are other differences, such as conjugation of personal pronouns and masc/fem, but as I say if you know English grammar well there are many similarities.

Children in other countries are being taught grammar to this level of detail and children in the UK should be too, I believe.