"Could" and "would" have some special use patterns when requests are involved.
Would you like a cup of coffee?
^ This is a correct way to ask if the listener wants you to give her some coffee.
Could you like a cup of coffee?
^ This is not correct; it sounds wrong and would not be spoken by a fluent speaker. "Could" refers ...
a) Teacher: It's OK but this would be the normal way of expressing it: ABC.
This is fine, although it might be clearer to say: It's OK, but the normal way of expressing it would be: ABC.
b) Teacher: It's OK but this will be the normal way of expressing it: ABC.
This sounds wrong.
c) Teacher: It's OK but this is the normal way of expressing it: ABC.
I would go with neither of those options and instead use an adverb with is:
The sentence is probably grammatical.
You can use a thesaurus to find synonyms:
The sentence is likely grammatical.
This is puts the statement as less certain than is alone but more certain than changing the verb.
Simple answer? Yes they are all correct. I see only slight differences, which are not always intended.
B1 is a simple statement.
B2 is a conditional statement, suggesting that you vaguely admit to a little doubt about it.
B3 is a future statement, suggesting that you are still vaguely considering the evidence for it.
Technically, you could, though I feel it does change the “flavour” of the expression somewhat, particularly in the case of the lightning example, and makes it sound as if you are more seriously suggesting this might happen to you.
So you could, but I’d stick with “could”. With “could”, you’re purely stating that there is technically a possibility, but with “...
Can and be able to are generally synonymous in English (with some caveats in terms of usage, but none that are relevant to the question). So in theory, you could use "was able to" in place of "could" in your example sentences, and none of them are incorrect.
However, "I'm able to imagine going to Canada" and other examples using ...
It does make it a question, and the passage is very badly punctuated. It should be like this:
The easy chat they have overcomes Jessica's repulsion at the whole idea, and soon they have become more than just friends. However, can Jessica accept the truth herself, far less be honest with others?
Note the 's after the first "Jessica" and the comma ...
No, double modals are never acceptable in standard English. There are some dialects that use them.
Note that modals are followed by the bare infinitive, but modal verbs don't have infinitives of any kind (at least, in standard English).
One of your examples is not a true double modal:
Could I thought you might help me?
The two modals are in two separate ...
It's not explicit, so technically it could be either. But generally if someone asks "can you imagine [a thing, a situation] where [some criteria are met]" they want you to explain what you've come up with, rather than just replying "yep".
Contrast that with a sentence like "can you imagine having to beg for food", where they're ...
"Should" emphasises the hypothetical nature of the condition and makes it seem less likely or more remote.
Should you fail to do so, we would have no choice but to take further action.
This is the inverted form of "If you should fail...".
It can equally be expressed as "If you failed..." or "If you were to fail...".
None of these say he is 60 years old. Some sound like an opinion, others like a preparation for a lie.
How old is Mick Jagger? I say he is sixty years old - just your opinion, and wrong. I would say he is 60 years old - another guess.
Your dad is 58, so he can’t get the pensioner price for a ticket. I will say he is 60 - you are prepared to lie to save a bit ...
In most circumstances, B2 "I would say he is 60 years old" is the most natural phrasing.
"I will say he is 60 years old" could be a statement about the future (in answer to "How old will you say he is, if anyone asks?") or it could just be a guess about his age (although in British English, "I'm going to say he's 60 years ...
Modal verbs are defective. They don't have proper tenses.
"Should" evolved from an Old English word that was a past subjunctive of "Shall". It doesn't have a past tense form.
In the example you give, the word "should" isn't back-shifted:
She said, "John, you should wash your hands before dinner". (direct)
She said ...
Avoid all these expressions.
They are all valid, and formed by correct manipulation from
I have to be sent there
I have to have my car washed.
I have to have guns.
These are correct and reasonably idiomatic (though the last one is a little odd).
Shifting each one into the past perfect and inverting the auxiliary verb to make a question is valid grammar. ...
It depends on whether your audience is readers or writers. For an audience of writers you are telling them that they are able to imply the degree of likelihood using context. Can says it is possible; may says it is their choice. There is little practical difference.
For an audience of readers either can or may says that the author might have used the context ...