0

is it ok to use could be with past, present and future actions.

the bridge could be removed yesterday but they decided to do it today.

the bridge could be removed today .

There are chances that the bridge could be removed tomorrow by this time.

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

It's fine with non-past, but it doesn't work with past. The first needs to be could have been removed.

Note that 2 unambiguously refers to the part of today starting from now: if you're referring to earlier today, that also needs to be could have been removed.

Improve this answer
4
  • Is this ok, "There are chances that the bridge could be removed tomorrow by this time".
    – JN Raju
    Commented Jan 20, 2022 at 17:43
  • Yes, except that there are chances is not idiomatic: there is a chance that... Your second and third examples use the same tense, the non-past (often misleadingly referred to as the "present"), which was why I said it was fine with the non-past.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Jan 20, 2022 at 17:48
  • so "could have been" used for past only, not for non-past.
    – JN Raju
    Commented Jan 20, 2022 at 18:19
  • No. One use of it is for (possibly realisable) conditions in the pas: They could have seen him yesterday: they didn't tell me. Another use of it is for an irrealis (or counterfactual - something that did not/is not going to happen) in any tense: I could have been rich if my company hadn't failed might be referring to a past or to a present or future possibility, but in any case the speaker knows that it can't happen.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Jan 20, 2022 at 18:29

You must log in to answer this question.

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