0

  1. Explain the topic in a way that a ten year old can understand, please.

  2. Explain the topic in a way that a ten year old could understand, please.

  3. Explain the topic in a way that a ten year old would be able to understand, please.

Do these sentences convey the same meaning?

Improve this question
8
  • 2
    The word is so, not like.
    – Lambie
    Commented Aug 4 at 16:59
  • 2
    This question is similar to: Are "could" and "would be able to" always interchangeable?. If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem.
    – Lambie
    Commented Aug 4 at 17:00
  • Or in a way that.
    – Kate Bunting
    Commented Aug 4 at 17:05
  • 1
    @Lambie, that sentence is in past tense and mine are present tense sentences. Also, with my sentences, I'm trying to compare three modals "can", "could" and "would".
    – Mr. X
    Commented Aug 4 at 17:39
  • 1
    @Lambie: Close, but no cigar! That linked Q only covers could and would be able to, not can. Mr X - I'd say there's no difference in meaning between your three sentences that's worth thinking about, Use whichever you like best. Nor would it make any difference with so instead of in a way that.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Aug 4 at 17:52

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

Yes they convey the same meaning. There is at most a minuscule difference, if any. It is a matter of personal choice and taste.

  1. Active voice, present tense, can.
  2. Conditional voice of "can": could. Can and could are never used with other modals.
  3. Condirional voice of "to be able" using conditional form of modal "will": would.

The modal "can" and verb phrase "to be able" both convey the sense of ability or capability, so they convey synonymous senses. So 2 and 3 are just synonyms for the same thing, both in the conditional voice.

The only distinction is that 2 and 3 are addressing clearly hypothetical situations, while 1 is addressing a situation which could by hypothetical or an actual present situation.

  1. A child can understand the topic, right now, (if the situation arises).
  2. A child could hypothetically understand the topic, (if the situation arose).
  3. A child could hypothetically understand the topic, (if the situation arose).

The distinctions are very slight, as they all are addressing hypotheticals. One is a hypothetical in the active voice, and the others are dealing with hypotheticals in the voice particularly used for hypotheticals. A lot of questions arise from this situation of being able to convey the same meaning in different grammatical ways, apparently under the impression that different grammar must always have a different meaning.

Improve this answer
5
  • 1
    Thanks. Corrected.
    – fred2
    Commented Aug 4 at 20:38
  • He can go. I'll allow it. Versus: He could go, if his mother allowed it. Not the same.
    – Lambie
    Commented Aug 5 at 15:15
  • Yes, I didn't say there is never a distinction between subjunctive and active meanings. Obviously there is. However it's surprising how often sentences arise where, to all intents and purposes, the subjunctive meaning and a simple active meaning are indistinguishable. Or, at the very least, additional context is needed before any meaningful distinction can be discerned by the reader (such as your hypothetical mother).
    – fred2
    Commented Aug 5 at 16:54
  • I don't much like the term subjunctive. It's conditional.
    – Lambie
    Commented Aug 5 at 16:57
  • 1
    Fair. I have replaced. I was using "subjunctive" as a kind of "generic irrealis", but that was incorrect
    – fred2
    Commented Aug 5 at 17:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .