In purpose clauses with "so that" and "in order that", "can" is used in present/future settings, and "could" is used in past settings. Thus, you can have:
You must carry on (now) so that you can succeed (in the future).
You had to carry on (in the past) so that you could succeed (in the past).
Depending on the context, instead of "can" you can find "will" ...
While it is possible to say "I cannot not eat..." You should avoid this construction if possible. In this case you could say "I cannot fast for 5 days" or "I cannot go without food for five days".
Other words don't have convenient ways of expressing the negative "not eat" with positive verb "fast". However it is usually possible to say "I cannot stop ...
The difference between the two involves the relative order in time between their thinking and your selling. Both sentences say that at some point in the past, everyone did some thinking. But according to the first sentence, their opinion was that it would be well if you were to sell at some time after that. By contrast, the second sentence says that it would ...
This is a case of the so called Mixed conditional in speech. The first sentence means that Person 1 didn't understand the question that was asked in the quiz.
Person 2 replies to Person 1, while using the so called Mixed conditional of the type: if + 2nd conditional / 3rd conditional.
A grammatically complete sentence, which is implied, is that: 'If I got ...
Wouldn't have is hypothetical. Won't have is real.
"I can't believe I got the final question in the pop quiz wrong."
"I wouldn't have known the answer either."
The first person took the quiz, and they can't believe they got the final question wrong. The second person would have gotten the question wrong too if they had taken the quiz (instead of the ...
At 10 years of age, your issue is usually permission rather than ability.
Your parents/guardians are in charge of pretty much everything you do. You don't really have any say in things.
So, you really want to say
I didn't have permission to drink coffee (come home late) when I was 10 years old.
but, wow, that's a bit formal, so you'd soften it to
Auxiliaries are important in spoken conversation because the patterns with them are regularly used in it. They are used instead of repetition of lexical verbs in short answers. The syntax with a modal verb 'must' is governed with the so called the auxiliary pattern. The complexity of using auxiliary pattern of the modal verb 'must' is that some short answers ...
Want and querer in Spanish work similarly.
Quiero hablar con ella = I want to talk to her.
Spanish infinitives end in -ar, -er, or -ir. English ones begin with to with a few exceptions. Using want like this is not one of them.
Can is a modal verb. Here's all the common English modals:
can could will would shall should may might
English likes to ...
I am going to expand on JD2000 comment
When you say I think maybe the sentence means this sentence. : If you
were a true friend of mine, you wouldn't say such a thing that's
exactly it - but this does not mean that " "A true friend" doesn't
actually indicates a true friend in general. I think the "A true
friend" indicates the listener." It ...
The writer wants to express:
We wanted to carry on, but it was not possible.
If they had simply written If we had carried on ... it would have expressed only that they did not do so.
In this context, could + not + have + [past participle] is used to say that something was not possible, or that it didn't happen (was not "real", actualized, or manifested). ...
Thanks for the valuable contribution above but for clarification, It happened today that this sentence came in my son's English exam. First of all, the context should be clear that it is based on a part of the curriculum taught to grade 9 students in Egypt. In this part, they study the difference between using "might" and "must" in the ...
Neither half works for me.
The smaller the friend circle gets to be/becomes, the cosier it will get.
The smaller the friend circle got to be/became/were to be, the cosier it would get.
I am aware that some American speakers use would in counter-factual conditional ("If it would happen ... ") and I guess that ...
You should be able to tell from the context whether the past or the future is being referred to.
"He could come by car or by bus." (future)
"I told him that he could come by car, as there were plenty of parking spaces." (past)
"He could have come by car if he could have found someone to drive." (past)
Syntactically it would be "valid", but it wouldn't be "appropriate" to replace would with did in the cited example, because in such contexts this would always imply emphatic refutation (of some contextually-relevant claim that those warships didn't actually lead the rescue).
BUT you could reasonably remove the word would completely, and change "bare ...