Why can't the word “can” be used in future tense (will can)?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}






up vote
50
down vote

favorite
22












I'm curious about why the English word can cannot be used in future tense (e.g. will can).



An example unrelated to English is French term je pourrai, but that's exactly what I mean.



Compare German ich werde können which translates exactly to I will be able, and literally to I will can, given that können and can have the same origin. I feel that this is confusing.










share|improve this question




















  • 8




    To my ear, it sounds like you're going to throw something out. As in: "If it gets too cost-prohibitive, I will can that idea."
    – Ian MacDonald
    Nov 29 at 14:55






  • 2




    Yes, I understood that. I'm just suggesting that perhaps people don't say it because of the other meaning of that pairing.
    – Ian MacDonald
    Nov 29 at 14:58






  • 31




    "Why" questions about English grammar? Do not expect logical answers.
    – GEdgar
    Nov 29 at 15:01






  • 8




    I think the reason is that standard English prohibits the use of double modals, as addressed in this post: english.stackexchange.com/questions/3211/…. Some dialects, like my own, incorporate double modals like 'might could,' 'might should,' 'should ought to,' etc. but I don't believe I've ever heard 'will can.'
    – eenbeetje
    Nov 29 at 15:19








  • 3




    @JanusBahsJacquet 'Why' questions, though ostensibly about motivation (as though there is some conscious designer of a language, and 'why' asks for that person's reasons), usually turn out to be adequately answered by a description of history (what actually happened to change or not), and then comparing with similar situations (this other pattern did a similar thing). So it is often descriptive rather than explanatory. Sometimes there are actual explanations (vowel rotations, filling lexical gaps, etc) but often history is all there is. Appeals to laziness are often... lazy.
    – Mitch
    Nov 29 at 16:37

















up vote
50
down vote

favorite
22












I'm curious about why the English word can cannot be used in future tense (e.g. will can).



An example unrelated to English is French term je pourrai, but that's exactly what I mean.



Compare German ich werde können which translates exactly to I will be able, and literally to I will can, given that können and can have the same origin. I feel that this is confusing.










share|improve this question




















  • 8




    To my ear, it sounds like you're going to throw something out. As in: "If it gets too cost-prohibitive, I will can that idea."
    – Ian MacDonald
    Nov 29 at 14:55






  • 2




    Yes, I understood that. I'm just suggesting that perhaps people don't say it because of the other meaning of that pairing.
    – Ian MacDonald
    Nov 29 at 14:58






  • 31




    "Why" questions about English grammar? Do not expect logical answers.
    – GEdgar
    Nov 29 at 15:01






  • 8




    I think the reason is that standard English prohibits the use of double modals, as addressed in this post: english.stackexchange.com/questions/3211/…. Some dialects, like my own, incorporate double modals like 'might could,' 'might should,' 'should ought to,' etc. but I don't believe I've ever heard 'will can.'
    – eenbeetje
    Nov 29 at 15:19








  • 3




    @JanusBahsJacquet 'Why' questions, though ostensibly about motivation (as though there is some conscious designer of a language, and 'why' asks for that person's reasons), usually turn out to be adequately answered by a description of history (what actually happened to change or not), and then comparing with similar situations (this other pattern did a similar thing). So it is often descriptive rather than explanatory. Sometimes there are actual explanations (vowel rotations, filling lexical gaps, etc) but often history is all there is. Appeals to laziness are often... lazy.
    – Mitch
    Nov 29 at 16:37













up vote
50
down vote

favorite
22









up vote
50
down vote

favorite
22






22





I'm curious about why the English word can cannot be used in future tense (e.g. will can).



An example unrelated to English is French term je pourrai, but that's exactly what I mean.



Compare German ich werde können which translates exactly to I will be able, and literally to I will can, given that können and can have the same origin. I feel that this is confusing.










share|improve this question















I'm curious about why the English word can cannot be used in future tense (e.g. will can).



An example unrelated to English is French term je pourrai, but that's exactly what I mean.



Compare German ich werde können which translates exactly to I will be able, and literally to I will can, given that können and can have the same origin. I feel that this is confusing.







word-usage tenses modal-verbs






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 29 at 16:22









Janus Bahs Jacquet

29.1k568124




29.1k568124










asked Nov 29 at 14:49









iBug

557414




557414








  • 8




    To my ear, it sounds like you're going to throw something out. As in: "If it gets too cost-prohibitive, I will can that idea."
    – Ian MacDonald
    Nov 29 at 14:55






  • 2




    Yes, I understood that. I'm just suggesting that perhaps people don't say it because of the other meaning of that pairing.
    – Ian MacDonald
    Nov 29 at 14:58






  • 31




    "Why" questions about English grammar? Do not expect logical answers.
    – GEdgar
    Nov 29 at 15:01






  • 8




    I think the reason is that standard English prohibits the use of double modals, as addressed in this post: english.stackexchange.com/questions/3211/…. Some dialects, like my own, incorporate double modals like 'might could,' 'might should,' 'should ought to,' etc. but I don't believe I've ever heard 'will can.'
    – eenbeetje
    Nov 29 at 15:19








  • 3




    @JanusBahsJacquet 'Why' questions, though ostensibly about motivation (as though there is some conscious designer of a language, and 'why' asks for that person's reasons), usually turn out to be adequately answered by a description of history (what actually happened to change or not), and then comparing with similar situations (this other pattern did a similar thing). So it is often descriptive rather than explanatory. Sometimes there are actual explanations (vowel rotations, filling lexical gaps, etc) but often history is all there is. Appeals to laziness are often... lazy.
    – Mitch
    Nov 29 at 16:37














  • 8




    To my ear, it sounds like you're going to throw something out. As in: "If it gets too cost-prohibitive, I will can that idea."
    – Ian MacDonald
    Nov 29 at 14:55






  • 2




    Yes, I understood that. I'm just suggesting that perhaps people don't say it because of the other meaning of that pairing.
    – Ian MacDonald
    Nov 29 at 14:58






  • 31




    "Why" questions about English grammar? Do not expect logical answers.
    – GEdgar
    Nov 29 at 15:01






  • 8




    I think the reason is that standard English prohibits the use of double modals, as addressed in this post: english.stackexchange.com/questions/3211/…. Some dialects, like my own, incorporate double modals like 'might could,' 'might should,' 'should ought to,' etc. but I don't believe I've ever heard 'will can.'
    – eenbeetje
    Nov 29 at 15:19








  • 3




    @JanusBahsJacquet 'Why' questions, though ostensibly about motivation (as though there is some conscious designer of a language, and 'why' asks for that person's reasons), usually turn out to be adequately answered by a description of history (what actually happened to change or not), and then comparing with similar situations (this other pattern did a similar thing). So it is often descriptive rather than explanatory. Sometimes there are actual explanations (vowel rotations, filling lexical gaps, etc) but often history is all there is. Appeals to laziness are often... lazy.
    – Mitch
    Nov 29 at 16:37








8




8




To my ear, it sounds like you're going to throw something out. As in: "If it gets too cost-prohibitive, I will can that idea."
– Ian MacDonald
Nov 29 at 14:55




To my ear, it sounds like you're going to throw something out. As in: "If it gets too cost-prohibitive, I will can that idea."
– Ian MacDonald
Nov 29 at 14:55




2




2




Yes, I understood that. I'm just suggesting that perhaps people don't say it because of the other meaning of that pairing.
– Ian MacDonald
Nov 29 at 14:58




Yes, I understood that. I'm just suggesting that perhaps people don't say it because of the other meaning of that pairing.
– Ian MacDonald
Nov 29 at 14:58




31




31




"Why" questions about English grammar? Do not expect logical answers.
– GEdgar
Nov 29 at 15:01




"Why" questions about English grammar? Do not expect logical answers.
– GEdgar
Nov 29 at 15:01




8




8




I think the reason is that standard English prohibits the use of double modals, as addressed in this post: english.stackexchange.com/questions/3211/…. Some dialects, like my own, incorporate double modals like 'might could,' 'might should,' 'should ought to,' etc. but I don't believe I've ever heard 'will can.'
– eenbeetje
Nov 29 at 15:19






I think the reason is that standard English prohibits the use of double modals, as addressed in this post: english.stackexchange.com/questions/3211/…. Some dialects, like my own, incorporate double modals like 'might could,' 'might should,' 'should ought to,' etc. but I don't believe I've ever heard 'will can.'
– eenbeetje
Nov 29 at 15:19






3




3




@JanusBahsJacquet 'Why' questions, though ostensibly about motivation (as though there is some conscious designer of a language, and 'why' asks for that person's reasons), usually turn out to be adequately answered by a description of history (what actually happened to change or not), and then comparing with similar situations (this other pattern did a similar thing). So it is often descriptive rather than explanatory. Sometimes there are actual explanations (vowel rotations, filling lexical gaps, etc) but often history is all there is. Appeals to laziness are often... lazy.
– Mitch
Nov 29 at 16:37




@JanusBahsJacquet 'Why' questions, though ostensibly about motivation (as though there is some conscious designer of a language, and 'why' asks for that person's reasons), usually turn out to be adequately answered by a description of history (what actually happened to change or not), and then comparing with similar situations (this other pattern did a similar thing). So it is often descriptive rather than explanatory. Sometimes there are actual explanations (vowel rotations, filling lexical gaps, etc) but often history is all there is. Appeals to laziness are often... lazy.
– Mitch
Nov 29 at 16:37










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
77
down vote



accepted










This is a good example of the problems caused by lying to students in saying that will is "The Future Tense". There is no future tense in English. There is likewise no perfect tense, no progressive tense, no pluperfect tense, no future perfect tense. There are also no moods or voices. No matter what you've been taught. Sorry about that.



What English has is a present tense and a past tense, both managed by suffix or root change (deletes/deleted, drives/drove). That's it for tenses. There are various constructions like the Perfect construction, the Progressive construction, the Passive construction, etc. All of them take several words and don't require endings or prefixes, and word order is important.



One of the constructions that occurs in practically every sentence is the Verb Phrase, which usually starts with an auxiliary verb of some sort: some form of be or have for Perfect, Passive, or Progressive, and, at the beginning of the verb phrase, a modal auxiliary verb. When modals occur, they are always at the beginning of the verb phrase, because they only have one form (they are "defective verbs"), and that form is not an infinitive form or a participle form, so it can't go after be or have as the constructions require.



This results in modal auxiliaries always occurring alone at the beginning of a verb phrase -- or inverted with the subject in questions -- whenever they occur; and it also has the effect of limiting modals to one per verb phrase, at the beginning.



Why is this relevant to the "future tense"? Because what students are erroneously taught is not that will is one of the modal auxiliaries, and therefore behaves like can, may, must, should, would, could in not appearing together, but rather that will is "The Future Tense", a different category entirely, which can apply to anything, including uninflectable modal auxiliaries like can. Hence the question.



The answer is that English has special constructions that mean the same as modals, but have infinitive and participle forms, so they can be used in past tense, or in the Perfect or Progressive. These are called Periphrastic Modals, and the one associated with can in the sense you indicate is be able to.



That is, one can't say




  • *I will/should can do that by next year.


but one can say, with the same intended meaning,




  • I will/should be able to do that by next year.






share|improve this answer



















  • 9




    @iBug Yes, it’s the same. All Germanic languages have only present and past as far as tenses go. The statement in this answer that there are no moods in English is not uncontroversial, however; to the extent that there is any agreement on what ‘moods’ are (their definition varies an awful lot), there are many linguists who do consider that English has at least two moods (imperative and indicative), and also many that consider it to have three (adding the subjunctive).
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Nov 29 at 16:15






  • 17




    I call BS on your assertion that English doesn't have moods or voices. Were it to lack voices, this sentence would not be possible. Don't try to tell me that the previous sentence is past tense, nor that it's just present tense (indicative mood/voice; you can argue it isn't a mood or you that it isn't a voice, but it has to be one of them or their functional equivalent), for it's clearly neither of those.
    – Monty Harder
    Nov 29 at 17:59






  • 6




    and When did periphrastic tenses stop being tenses?
    – Mari-Lou A
    Nov 29 at 20:03






  • 7




    @John They only decay into Truth fights of religious zealotry if you let them by using absolutist statements like, “There are also no moods or voices. No matter what you've been taught”. If you wanted to avoid religion, you could have phrased it differently. There are many questions and answers dealing with these things whose writers avoid ineffable fights by presenting terminology and theories as just that, rather than gospel truths.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    2 days ago






  • 11




    @John Yes, but you can quite easily do that without making absolutist statements that many will call out as being just as wrong. Make it clear that ‘tense’ is a vague and problematic term which it makes most sense to limit to the meaning ‘morphological tense’, whereas the other forms often labelled ‘tenses’ are better called constructions. Mood and voice wasn’t even relevant to the answer to begin with.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    2 days ago


















up vote
18
down vote













Per Wikipedia, can is a "defective verb"...




For example, can lacks an infinitive, future tense, participle, imperative, and gerund. The missing parts of speech are instead supplied by using the appropriate forms of to be plus able to. So, while I could write and I was able to write have the same meaning, I could has two meanings depending on use, which are I was able to or I would be able to. One cannot say I will can, which is instead expressed as I will be able to.




As you'll see from that Wikipedia article, many other languages (including French and German as mentioned by OP) have defective verbs. But there's no particular reason why they should be the same verbs in different languages, since the reason for their existence at all (natural language variation over time) will depend very much on individual circumstances relating to time, place, meaning, and peculiar factors relating to such things as the social class of different speakers, etc.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    Can you address the question tag (etymology) somehow?
    – iBug
    Nov 29 at 15:22










  • My guess is it's extremely unlikely anyone could say exactly why the specific word can happens to lack the specific forms infinitive, future tense, participle, imperative, and gerund. Not all defective verbs lack the same forms, anyway, but I suppose at least sometimes the etymological background has something in common with other irregular verbs. For example, I don't hear people saying to be is "defective", but obviously there must be some kind of reason why Anglophones decided that I be a yokel was to be laughed out of (Norman conqueror) court.
    – FumbleFingers
    Nov 29 at 15:34








  • 1




    I think the "could" example in there is confusing/unhelpful. Why say those sentences have the same meaning, when the rest of the sentence explains that they don't always?
    – 1006a
    Nov 29 at 16:43










  • @1006a: I suppose the writer thought it might be even more confusing if he'd dotted the i's and crossed the t's with "I could write and I was able to write could have the same meaning". But even as "standalone" sentences, they might not - they'd both mean exactly the same in the context of a preceding sentence such as I had one big advantage when I started infant's school, but not if preceded by I certainly wouldn't be bored if I had a pen and paper.
    – FumbleFingers
    Nov 29 at 17:24








  • 1




    @rackandboneman: Another verb that can't be "named" that way is to must. Interestingly though, although no-one seems to have a problem with using could as both a present and past tense form, the earlier ELU question Is “must” ever grammatical as a past tense verb? suggests that many native speakers are a bit unsure about must as a past form.
    – FumbleFingers
    yesterday


















up vote
12
down vote













The reason is that standard English prohibits the use of double modals, which 'can' and 'will' both are, as addressed in this post. Some dialects, like my own, incorporate double modals like 'might could,' 'might should,' 'ought to should,' etc. but I don't believe I've ever heard 'will can.'






share|improve this answer



















  • 5




    That question might be improved by mentioning which dialect is your own.
    – Pere
    2 days ago


















up vote
9
down vote













Can is part of the set of verbs called the 'Preterite-present' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_verb#Preterite-presents). This essentially means that the form can was originally a past tense form which has now taken on a present tense meaning. It betrays its past tense origin in English because it lacks the third person singular s (compare he holds vs he held); other languages offer even more proof (e.g. the vowel shift between Dutch singular kan and plural kunnen).



For reasons unknown to me, English modals did not 'develop' new infintival forms. This did happen in Dutch, German, Swedish, ... which is why he will can is perfectly possible in those languages (hij zal kunnen/er wird können/han ska kunna). Can as it is now still 'functions' as a past tense form and much like how you can't say he will held, you can't say he will can. As others have pointed out, this makes the verb defective.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Henri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    up vote
    -8
    down vote













    For this question that might be a Rhetorical question: The answer is that the future tense of the word can is could. For example: You could accept this answer in the future, if you still can, but you probably can't for some reason, if you missed the exact time and date that you could have accepted this answer. And also The word Could is used as a future tense of the word can, Could have is used as a past tense of the word can.






    share|improve this answer










    New contributor




    jehovahsays is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.














    • 1




      The OP can accept this answer tomorrow or even next week. But I don't think they will.
      – Mari-Lou A
      Nov 29 at 20:27








    • 7




      You cannot say that could is the “future tense” of can, it is misinformation.
      – Mari-Lou A
      Nov 29 at 20:32






    • 2




      'could' is the simple past of 'can'. In your example it is used to form the conditional.
      – chasly from UK
      Nov 29 at 20:50








    • 3




      I raised "Not an answer" flag because a wrong answer is not an answer.
      – scaaahu
      Nov 30 at 8:19






    • 3




      @scaaahu Please do not flag wrong answers for moderator attention. Instead, downvote posts which are not useful, upvote posts which are useful, and optionally use comments to explain your actions.
      – MetaEd
      2 days ago













    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "97"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f474963%2fwhy-cant-the-word-can-be-used-in-future-tense-will-can%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    77
    down vote



    accepted










    This is a good example of the problems caused by lying to students in saying that will is "The Future Tense". There is no future tense in English. There is likewise no perfect tense, no progressive tense, no pluperfect tense, no future perfect tense. There are also no moods or voices. No matter what you've been taught. Sorry about that.



    What English has is a present tense and a past tense, both managed by suffix or root change (deletes/deleted, drives/drove). That's it for tenses. There are various constructions like the Perfect construction, the Progressive construction, the Passive construction, etc. All of them take several words and don't require endings or prefixes, and word order is important.



    One of the constructions that occurs in practically every sentence is the Verb Phrase, which usually starts with an auxiliary verb of some sort: some form of be or have for Perfect, Passive, or Progressive, and, at the beginning of the verb phrase, a modal auxiliary verb. When modals occur, they are always at the beginning of the verb phrase, because they only have one form (they are "defective verbs"), and that form is not an infinitive form or a participle form, so it can't go after be or have as the constructions require.



    This results in modal auxiliaries always occurring alone at the beginning of a verb phrase -- or inverted with the subject in questions -- whenever they occur; and it also has the effect of limiting modals to one per verb phrase, at the beginning.



    Why is this relevant to the "future tense"? Because what students are erroneously taught is not that will is one of the modal auxiliaries, and therefore behaves like can, may, must, should, would, could in not appearing together, but rather that will is "The Future Tense", a different category entirely, which can apply to anything, including uninflectable modal auxiliaries like can. Hence the question.



    The answer is that English has special constructions that mean the same as modals, but have infinitive and participle forms, so they can be used in past tense, or in the Perfect or Progressive. These are called Periphrastic Modals, and the one associated with can in the sense you indicate is be able to.



    That is, one can't say




    • *I will/should can do that by next year.


    but one can say, with the same intended meaning,




    • I will/should be able to do that by next year.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 9




      @iBug Yes, it’s the same. All Germanic languages have only present and past as far as tenses go. The statement in this answer that there are no moods in English is not uncontroversial, however; to the extent that there is any agreement on what ‘moods’ are (their definition varies an awful lot), there are many linguists who do consider that English has at least two moods (imperative and indicative), and also many that consider it to have three (adding the subjunctive).
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      Nov 29 at 16:15






    • 17




      I call BS on your assertion that English doesn't have moods or voices. Were it to lack voices, this sentence would not be possible. Don't try to tell me that the previous sentence is past tense, nor that it's just present tense (indicative mood/voice; you can argue it isn't a mood or you that it isn't a voice, but it has to be one of them or their functional equivalent), for it's clearly neither of those.
      – Monty Harder
      Nov 29 at 17:59






    • 6




      and When did periphrastic tenses stop being tenses?
      – Mari-Lou A
      Nov 29 at 20:03






    • 7




      @John They only decay into Truth fights of religious zealotry if you let them by using absolutist statements like, “There are also no moods or voices. No matter what you've been taught”. If you wanted to avoid religion, you could have phrased it differently. There are many questions and answers dealing with these things whose writers avoid ineffable fights by presenting terminology and theories as just that, rather than gospel truths.
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      2 days ago






    • 11




      @John Yes, but you can quite easily do that without making absolutist statements that many will call out as being just as wrong. Make it clear that ‘tense’ is a vague and problematic term which it makes most sense to limit to the meaning ‘morphological tense’, whereas the other forms often labelled ‘tenses’ are better called constructions. Mood and voice wasn’t even relevant to the answer to begin with.
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      2 days ago















    up vote
    77
    down vote



    accepted










    This is a good example of the problems caused by lying to students in saying that will is "The Future Tense". There is no future tense in English. There is likewise no perfect tense, no progressive tense, no pluperfect tense, no future perfect tense. There are also no moods or voices. No matter what you've been taught. Sorry about that.



    What English has is a present tense and a past tense, both managed by suffix or root change (deletes/deleted, drives/drove). That's it for tenses. There are various constructions like the Perfect construction, the Progressive construction, the Passive construction, etc. All of them take several words and don't require endings or prefixes, and word order is important.



    One of the constructions that occurs in practically every sentence is the Verb Phrase, which usually starts with an auxiliary verb of some sort: some form of be or have for Perfect, Passive, or Progressive, and, at the beginning of the verb phrase, a modal auxiliary verb. When modals occur, they are always at the beginning of the verb phrase, because they only have one form (they are "defective verbs"), and that form is not an infinitive form or a participle form, so it can't go after be or have as the constructions require.



    This results in modal auxiliaries always occurring alone at the beginning of a verb phrase -- or inverted with the subject in questions -- whenever they occur; and it also has the effect of limiting modals to one per verb phrase, at the beginning.



    Why is this relevant to the "future tense"? Because what students are erroneously taught is not that will is one of the modal auxiliaries, and therefore behaves like can, may, must, should, would, could in not appearing together, but rather that will is "The Future Tense", a different category entirely, which can apply to anything, including uninflectable modal auxiliaries like can. Hence the question.



    The answer is that English has special constructions that mean the same as modals, but have infinitive and participle forms, so they can be used in past tense, or in the Perfect or Progressive. These are called Periphrastic Modals, and the one associated with can in the sense you indicate is be able to.



    That is, one can't say




    • *I will/should can do that by next year.


    but one can say, with the same intended meaning,




    • I will/should be able to do that by next year.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 9




      @iBug Yes, it’s the same. All Germanic languages have only present and past as far as tenses go. The statement in this answer that there are no moods in English is not uncontroversial, however; to the extent that there is any agreement on what ‘moods’ are (their definition varies an awful lot), there are many linguists who do consider that English has at least two moods (imperative and indicative), and also many that consider it to have three (adding the subjunctive).
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      Nov 29 at 16:15






    • 17




      I call BS on your assertion that English doesn't have moods or voices. Were it to lack voices, this sentence would not be possible. Don't try to tell me that the previous sentence is past tense, nor that it's just present tense (indicative mood/voice; you can argue it isn't a mood or you that it isn't a voice, but it has to be one of them or their functional equivalent), for it's clearly neither of those.
      – Monty Harder
      Nov 29 at 17:59






    • 6




      and When did periphrastic tenses stop being tenses?
      – Mari-Lou A
      Nov 29 at 20:03






    • 7




      @John They only decay into Truth fights of religious zealotry if you let them by using absolutist statements like, “There are also no moods or voices. No matter what you've been taught”. If you wanted to avoid religion, you could have phrased it differently. There are many questions and answers dealing with these things whose writers avoid ineffable fights by presenting terminology and theories as just that, rather than gospel truths.
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      2 days ago






    • 11




      @John Yes, but you can quite easily do that without making absolutist statements that many will call out as being just as wrong. Make it clear that ‘tense’ is a vague and problematic term which it makes most sense to limit to the meaning ‘morphological tense’, whereas the other forms often labelled ‘tenses’ are better called constructions. Mood and voice wasn’t even relevant to the answer to begin with.
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      2 days ago













    up vote
    77
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    77
    down vote



    accepted






    This is a good example of the problems caused by lying to students in saying that will is "The Future Tense". There is no future tense in English. There is likewise no perfect tense, no progressive tense, no pluperfect tense, no future perfect tense. There are also no moods or voices. No matter what you've been taught. Sorry about that.



    What English has is a present tense and a past tense, both managed by suffix or root change (deletes/deleted, drives/drove). That's it for tenses. There are various constructions like the Perfect construction, the Progressive construction, the Passive construction, etc. All of them take several words and don't require endings or prefixes, and word order is important.



    One of the constructions that occurs in practically every sentence is the Verb Phrase, which usually starts with an auxiliary verb of some sort: some form of be or have for Perfect, Passive, or Progressive, and, at the beginning of the verb phrase, a modal auxiliary verb. When modals occur, they are always at the beginning of the verb phrase, because they only have one form (they are "defective verbs"), and that form is not an infinitive form or a participle form, so it can't go after be or have as the constructions require.



    This results in modal auxiliaries always occurring alone at the beginning of a verb phrase -- or inverted with the subject in questions -- whenever they occur; and it also has the effect of limiting modals to one per verb phrase, at the beginning.



    Why is this relevant to the "future tense"? Because what students are erroneously taught is not that will is one of the modal auxiliaries, and therefore behaves like can, may, must, should, would, could in not appearing together, but rather that will is "The Future Tense", a different category entirely, which can apply to anything, including uninflectable modal auxiliaries like can. Hence the question.



    The answer is that English has special constructions that mean the same as modals, but have infinitive and participle forms, so they can be used in past tense, or in the Perfect or Progressive. These are called Periphrastic Modals, and the one associated with can in the sense you indicate is be able to.



    That is, one can't say




    • *I will/should can do that by next year.


    but one can say, with the same intended meaning,




    • I will/should be able to do that by next year.






    share|improve this answer














    This is a good example of the problems caused by lying to students in saying that will is "The Future Tense". There is no future tense in English. There is likewise no perfect tense, no progressive tense, no pluperfect tense, no future perfect tense. There are also no moods or voices. No matter what you've been taught. Sorry about that.



    What English has is a present tense and a past tense, both managed by suffix or root change (deletes/deleted, drives/drove). That's it for tenses. There are various constructions like the Perfect construction, the Progressive construction, the Passive construction, etc. All of them take several words and don't require endings or prefixes, and word order is important.



    One of the constructions that occurs in practically every sentence is the Verb Phrase, which usually starts with an auxiliary verb of some sort: some form of be or have for Perfect, Passive, or Progressive, and, at the beginning of the verb phrase, a modal auxiliary verb. When modals occur, they are always at the beginning of the verb phrase, because they only have one form (they are "defective verbs"), and that form is not an infinitive form or a participle form, so it can't go after be or have as the constructions require.



    This results in modal auxiliaries always occurring alone at the beginning of a verb phrase -- or inverted with the subject in questions -- whenever they occur; and it also has the effect of limiting modals to one per verb phrase, at the beginning.



    Why is this relevant to the "future tense"? Because what students are erroneously taught is not that will is one of the modal auxiliaries, and therefore behaves like can, may, must, should, would, could in not appearing together, but rather that will is "The Future Tense", a different category entirely, which can apply to anything, including uninflectable modal auxiliaries like can. Hence the question.



    The answer is that English has special constructions that mean the same as modals, but have infinitive and participle forms, so they can be used in past tense, or in the Perfect or Progressive. These are called Periphrastic Modals, and the one associated with can in the sense you indicate is be able to.



    That is, one can't say




    • *I will/should can do that by next year.


    but one can say, with the same intended meaning,




    • I will/should be able to do that by next year.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Nov 29 at 16:12

























    answered Nov 29 at 16:08









    John Lawler

    83.8k6115326




    83.8k6115326








    • 9




      @iBug Yes, it’s the same. All Germanic languages have only present and past as far as tenses go. The statement in this answer that there are no moods in English is not uncontroversial, however; to the extent that there is any agreement on what ‘moods’ are (their definition varies an awful lot), there are many linguists who do consider that English has at least two moods (imperative and indicative), and also many that consider it to have three (adding the subjunctive).
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      Nov 29 at 16:15






    • 17




      I call BS on your assertion that English doesn't have moods or voices. Were it to lack voices, this sentence would not be possible. Don't try to tell me that the previous sentence is past tense, nor that it's just present tense (indicative mood/voice; you can argue it isn't a mood or you that it isn't a voice, but it has to be one of them or their functional equivalent), for it's clearly neither of those.
      – Monty Harder
      Nov 29 at 17:59






    • 6




      and When did periphrastic tenses stop being tenses?
      – Mari-Lou A
      Nov 29 at 20:03






    • 7




      @John They only decay into Truth fights of religious zealotry if you let them by using absolutist statements like, “There are also no moods or voices. No matter what you've been taught”. If you wanted to avoid religion, you could have phrased it differently. There are many questions and answers dealing with these things whose writers avoid ineffable fights by presenting terminology and theories as just that, rather than gospel truths.
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      2 days ago






    • 11




      @John Yes, but you can quite easily do that without making absolutist statements that many will call out as being just as wrong. Make it clear that ‘tense’ is a vague and problematic term which it makes most sense to limit to the meaning ‘morphological tense’, whereas the other forms often labelled ‘tenses’ are better called constructions. Mood and voice wasn’t even relevant to the answer to begin with.
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      2 days ago














    • 9




      @iBug Yes, it’s the same. All Germanic languages have only present and past as far as tenses go. The statement in this answer that there are no moods in English is not uncontroversial, however; to the extent that there is any agreement on what ‘moods’ are (their definition varies an awful lot), there are many linguists who do consider that English has at least two moods (imperative and indicative), and also many that consider it to have three (adding the subjunctive).
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      Nov 29 at 16:15






    • 17




      I call BS on your assertion that English doesn't have moods or voices. Were it to lack voices, this sentence would not be possible. Don't try to tell me that the previous sentence is past tense, nor that it's just present tense (indicative mood/voice; you can argue it isn't a mood or you that it isn't a voice, but it has to be one of them or their functional equivalent), for it's clearly neither of those.
      – Monty Harder
      Nov 29 at 17:59






    • 6




      and When did periphrastic tenses stop being tenses?
      – Mari-Lou A
      Nov 29 at 20:03






    • 7




      @John They only decay into Truth fights of religious zealotry if you let them by using absolutist statements like, “There are also no moods or voices. No matter what you've been taught”. If you wanted to avoid religion, you could have phrased it differently. There are many questions and answers dealing with these things whose writers avoid ineffable fights by presenting terminology and theories as just that, rather than gospel truths.
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      2 days ago






    • 11




      @John Yes, but you can quite easily do that without making absolutist statements that many will call out as being just as wrong. Make it clear that ‘tense’ is a vague and problematic term which it makes most sense to limit to the meaning ‘morphological tense’, whereas the other forms often labelled ‘tenses’ are better called constructions. Mood and voice wasn’t even relevant to the answer to begin with.
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      2 days ago








    9




    9




    @iBug Yes, it’s the same. All Germanic languages have only present and past as far as tenses go. The statement in this answer that there are no moods in English is not uncontroversial, however; to the extent that there is any agreement on what ‘moods’ are (their definition varies an awful lot), there are many linguists who do consider that English has at least two moods (imperative and indicative), and also many that consider it to have three (adding the subjunctive).
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Nov 29 at 16:15




    @iBug Yes, it’s the same. All Germanic languages have only present and past as far as tenses go. The statement in this answer that there are no moods in English is not uncontroversial, however; to the extent that there is any agreement on what ‘moods’ are (their definition varies an awful lot), there are many linguists who do consider that English has at least two moods (imperative and indicative), and also many that consider it to have three (adding the subjunctive).
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Nov 29 at 16:15




    17




    17




    I call BS on your assertion that English doesn't have moods or voices. Were it to lack voices, this sentence would not be possible. Don't try to tell me that the previous sentence is past tense, nor that it's just present tense (indicative mood/voice; you can argue it isn't a mood or you that it isn't a voice, but it has to be one of them or their functional equivalent), for it's clearly neither of those.
    – Monty Harder
    Nov 29 at 17:59




    I call BS on your assertion that English doesn't have moods or voices. Were it to lack voices, this sentence would not be possible. Don't try to tell me that the previous sentence is past tense, nor that it's just present tense (indicative mood/voice; you can argue it isn't a mood or you that it isn't a voice, but it has to be one of them or their functional equivalent), for it's clearly neither of those.
    – Monty Harder
    Nov 29 at 17:59




    6




    6




    and When did periphrastic tenses stop being tenses?
    – Mari-Lou A
    Nov 29 at 20:03




    and When did periphrastic tenses stop being tenses?
    – Mari-Lou A
    Nov 29 at 20:03




    7




    7




    @John They only decay into Truth fights of religious zealotry if you let them by using absolutist statements like, “There are also no moods or voices. No matter what you've been taught”. If you wanted to avoid religion, you could have phrased it differently. There are many questions and answers dealing with these things whose writers avoid ineffable fights by presenting terminology and theories as just that, rather than gospel truths.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    2 days ago




    @John They only decay into Truth fights of religious zealotry if you let them by using absolutist statements like, “There are also no moods or voices. No matter what you've been taught”. If you wanted to avoid religion, you could have phrased it differently. There are many questions and answers dealing with these things whose writers avoid ineffable fights by presenting terminology and theories as just that, rather than gospel truths.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    2 days ago




    11




    11




    @John Yes, but you can quite easily do that without making absolutist statements that many will call out as being just as wrong. Make it clear that ‘tense’ is a vague and problematic term which it makes most sense to limit to the meaning ‘morphological tense’, whereas the other forms often labelled ‘tenses’ are better called constructions. Mood and voice wasn’t even relevant to the answer to begin with.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    2 days ago




    @John Yes, but you can quite easily do that without making absolutist statements that many will call out as being just as wrong. Make it clear that ‘tense’ is a vague and problematic term which it makes most sense to limit to the meaning ‘morphological tense’, whereas the other forms often labelled ‘tenses’ are better called constructions. Mood and voice wasn’t even relevant to the answer to begin with.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    2 days ago












    up vote
    18
    down vote













    Per Wikipedia, can is a "defective verb"...




    For example, can lacks an infinitive, future tense, participle, imperative, and gerund. The missing parts of speech are instead supplied by using the appropriate forms of to be plus able to. So, while I could write and I was able to write have the same meaning, I could has two meanings depending on use, which are I was able to or I would be able to. One cannot say I will can, which is instead expressed as I will be able to.




    As you'll see from that Wikipedia article, many other languages (including French and German as mentioned by OP) have defective verbs. But there's no particular reason why they should be the same verbs in different languages, since the reason for their existence at all (natural language variation over time) will depend very much on individual circumstances relating to time, place, meaning, and peculiar factors relating to such things as the social class of different speakers, etc.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1




      Can you address the question tag (etymology) somehow?
      – iBug
      Nov 29 at 15:22










    • My guess is it's extremely unlikely anyone could say exactly why the specific word can happens to lack the specific forms infinitive, future tense, participle, imperative, and gerund. Not all defective verbs lack the same forms, anyway, but I suppose at least sometimes the etymological background has something in common with other irregular verbs. For example, I don't hear people saying to be is "defective", but obviously there must be some kind of reason why Anglophones decided that I be a yokel was to be laughed out of (Norman conqueror) court.
      – FumbleFingers
      Nov 29 at 15:34








    • 1




      I think the "could" example in there is confusing/unhelpful. Why say those sentences have the same meaning, when the rest of the sentence explains that they don't always?
      – 1006a
      Nov 29 at 16:43










    • @1006a: I suppose the writer thought it might be even more confusing if he'd dotted the i's and crossed the t's with "I could write and I was able to write could have the same meaning". But even as "standalone" sentences, they might not - they'd both mean exactly the same in the context of a preceding sentence such as I had one big advantage when I started infant's school, but not if preceded by I certainly wouldn't be bored if I had a pen and paper.
      – FumbleFingers
      Nov 29 at 17:24








    • 1




      @rackandboneman: Another verb that can't be "named" that way is to must. Interestingly though, although no-one seems to have a problem with using could as both a present and past tense form, the earlier ELU question Is “must” ever grammatical as a past tense verb? suggests that many native speakers are a bit unsure about must as a past form.
      – FumbleFingers
      yesterday















    up vote
    18
    down vote













    Per Wikipedia, can is a "defective verb"...




    For example, can lacks an infinitive, future tense, participle, imperative, and gerund. The missing parts of speech are instead supplied by using the appropriate forms of to be plus able to. So, while I could write and I was able to write have the same meaning, I could has two meanings depending on use, which are I was able to or I would be able to. One cannot say I will can, which is instead expressed as I will be able to.




    As you'll see from that Wikipedia article, many other languages (including French and German as mentioned by OP) have defective verbs. But there's no particular reason why they should be the same verbs in different languages, since the reason for their existence at all (natural language variation over time) will depend very much on individual circumstances relating to time, place, meaning, and peculiar factors relating to such things as the social class of different speakers, etc.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1




      Can you address the question tag (etymology) somehow?
      – iBug
      Nov 29 at 15:22










    • My guess is it's extremely unlikely anyone could say exactly why the specific word can happens to lack the specific forms infinitive, future tense, participle, imperative, and gerund. Not all defective verbs lack the same forms, anyway, but I suppose at least sometimes the etymological background has something in common with other irregular verbs. For example, I don't hear people saying to be is "defective", but obviously there must be some kind of reason why Anglophones decided that I be a yokel was to be laughed out of (Norman conqueror) court.
      – FumbleFingers
      Nov 29 at 15:34








    • 1




      I think the "could" example in there is confusing/unhelpful. Why say those sentences have the same meaning, when the rest of the sentence explains that they don't always?
      – 1006a
      Nov 29 at 16:43










    • @1006a: I suppose the writer thought it might be even more confusing if he'd dotted the i's and crossed the t's with "I could write and I was able to write could have the same meaning". But even as "standalone" sentences, they might not - they'd both mean exactly the same in the context of a preceding sentence such as I had one big advantage when I started infant's school, but not if preceded by I certainly wouldn't be bored if I had a pen and paper.
      – FumbleFingers
      Nov 29 at 17:24








    • 1




      @rackandboneman: Another verb that can't be "named" that way is to must. Interestingly though, although no-one seems to have a problem with using could as both a present and past tense form, the earlier ELU question Is “must” ever grammatical as a past tense verb? suggests that many native speakers are a bit unsure about must as a past form.
      – FumbleFingers
      yesterday













    up vote
    18
    down vote










    up vote
    18
    down vote









    Per Wikipedia, can is a "defective verb"...




    For example, can lacks an infinitive, future tense, participle, imperative, and gerund. The missing parts of speech are instead supplied by using the appropriate forms of to be plus able to. So, while I could write and I was able to write have the same meaning, I could has two meanings depending on use, which are I was able to or I would be able to. One cannot say I will can, which is instead expressed as I will be able to.




    As you'll see from that Wikipedia article, many other languages (including French and German as mentioned by OP) have defective verbs. But there's no particular reason why they should be the same verbs in different languages, since the reason for their existence at all (natural language variation over time) will depend very much on individual circumstances relating to time, place, meaning, and peculiar factors relating to such things as the social class of different speakers, etc.






    share|improve this answer














    Per Wikipedia, can is a "defective verb"...




    For example, can lacks an infinitive, future tense, participle, imperative, and gerund. The missing parts of speech are instead supplied by using the appropriate forms of to be plus able to. So, while I could write and I was able to write have the same meaning, I could has two meanings depending on use, which are I was able to or I would be able to. One cannot say I will can, which is instead expressed as I will be able to.




    As you'll see from that Wikipedia article, many other languages (including French and German as mentioned by OP) have defective verbs. But there's no particular reason why they should be the same verbs in different languages, since the reason for their existence at all (natural language variation over time) will depend very much on individual circumstances relating to time, place, meaning, and peculiar factors relating to such things as the social class of different speakers, etc.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Nov 29 at 15:27

























    answered Nov 29 at 15:21









    FumbleFingers

    119k32239421




    119k32239421








    • 1




      Can you address the question tag (etymology) somehow?
      – iBug
      Nov 29 at 15:22










    • My guess is it's extremely unlikely anyone could say exactly why the specific word can happens to lack the specific forms infinitive, future tense, participle, imperative, and gerund. Not all defective verbs lack the same forms, anyway, but I suppose at least sometimes the etymological background has something in common with other irregular verbs. For example, I don't hear people saying to be is "defective", but obviously there must be some kind of reason why Anglophones decided that I be a yokel was to be laughed out of (Norman conqueror) court.
      – FumbleFingers
      Nov 29 at 15:34








    • 1




      I think the "could" example in there is confusing/unhelpful. Why say those sentences have the same meaning, when the rest of the sentence explains that they don't always?
      – 1006a
      Nov 29 at 16:43










    • @1006a: I suppose the writer thought it might be even more confusing if he'd dotted the i's and crossed the t's with "I could write and I was able to write could have the same meaning". But even as "standalone" sentences, they might not - they'd both mean exactly the same in the context of a preceding sentence such as I had one big advantage when I started infant's school, but not if preceded by I certainly wouldn't be bored if I had a pen and paper.
      – FumbleFingers
      Nov 29 at 17:24








    • 1




      @rackandboneman: Another verb that can't be "named" that way is to must. Interestingly though, although no-one seems to have a problem with using could as both a present and past tense form, the earlier ELU question Is “must” ever grammatical as a past tense verb? suggests that many native speakers are a bit unsure about must as a past form.
      – FumbleFingers
      yesterday














    • 1




      Can you address the question tag (etymology) somehow?
      – iBug
      Nov 29 at 15:22










    • My guess is it's extremely unlikely anyone could say exactly why the specific word can happens to lack the specific forms infinitive, future tense, participle, imperative, and gerund. Not all defective verbs lack the same forms, anyway, but I suppose at least sometimes the etymological background has something in common with other irregular verbs. For example, I don't hear people saying to be is "defective", but obviously there must be some kind of reason why Anglophones decided that I be a yokel was to be laughed out of (Norman conqueror) court.
      – FumbleFingers
      Nov 29 at 15:34








    • 1




      I think the "could" example in there is confusing/unhelpful. Why say those sentences have the same meaning, when the rest of the sentence explains that they don't always?
      – 1006a
      Nov 29 at 16:43










    • @1006a: I suppose the writer thought it might be even more confusing if he'd dotted the i's and crossed the t's with "I could write and I was able to write could have the same meaning". But even as "standalone" sentences, they might not - they'd both mean exactly the same in the context of a preceding sentence such as I had one big advantage when I started infant's school, but not if preceded by I certainly wouldn't be bored if I had a pen and paper.
      – FumbleFingers
      Nov 29 at 17:24








    • 1




      @rackandboneman: Another verb that can't be "named" that way is to must. Interestingly though, although no-one seems to have a problem with using could as both a present and past tense form, the earlier ELU question Is “must” ever grammatical as a past tense verb? suggests that many native speakers are a bit unsure about must as a past form.
      – FumbleFingers
      yesterday








    1




    1




    Can you address the question tag (etymology) somehow?
    – iBug
    Nov 29 at 15:22




    Can you address the question tag (etymology) somehow?
    – iBug
    Nov 29 at 15:22












    My guess is it's extremely unlikely anyone could say exactly why the specific word can happens to lack the specific forms infinitive, future tense, participle, imperative, and gerund. Not all defective verbs lack the same forms, anyway, but I suppose at least sometimes the etymological background has something in common with other irregular verbs. For example, I don't hear people saying to be is "defective", but obviously there must be some kind of reason why Anglophones decided that I be a yokel was to be laughed out of (Norman conqueror) court.
    – FumbleFingers
    Nov 29 at 15:34






    My guess is it's extremely unlikely anyone could say exactly why the specific word can happens to lack the specific forms infinitive, future tense, participle, imperative, and gerund. Not all defective verbs lack the same forms, anyway, but I suppose at least sometimes the etymological background has something in common with other irregular verbs. For example, I don't hear people saying to be is "defective", but obviously there must be some kind of reason why Anglophones decided that I be a yokel was to be laughed out of (Norman conqueror) court.
    – FumbleFingers
    Nov 29 at 15:34






    1




    1




    I think the "could" example in there is confusing/unhelpful. Why say those sentences have the same meaning, when the rest of the sentence explains that they don't always?
    – 1006a
    Nov 29 at 16:43




    I think the "could" example in there is confusing/unhelpful. Why say those sentences have the same meaning, when the rest of the sentence explains that they don't always?
    – 1006a
    Nov 29 at 16:43












    @1006a: I suppose the writer thought it might be even more confusing if he'd dotted the i's and crossed the t's with "I could write and I was able to write could have the same meaning". But even as "standalone" sentences, they might not - they'd both mean exactly the same in the context of a preceding sentence such as I had one big advantage when I started infant's school, but not if preceded by I certainly wouldn't be bored if I had a pen and paper.
    – FumbleFingers
    Nov 29 at 17:24






    @1006a: I suppose the writer thought it might be even more confusing if he'd dotted the i's and crossed the t's with "I could write and I was able to write could have the same meaning". But even as "standalone" sentences, they might not - they'd both mean exactly the same in the context of a preceding sentence such as I had one big advantage when I started infant's school, but not if preceded by I certainly wouldn't be bored if I had a pen and paper.
    – FumbleFingers
    Nov 29 at 17:24






    1




    1




    @rackandboneman: Another verb that can't be "named" that way is to must. Interestingly though, although no-one seems to have a problem with using could as both a present and past tense form, the earlier ELU question Is “must” ever grammatical as a past tense verb? suggests that many native speakers are a bit unsure about must as a past form.
    – FumbleFingers
    yesterday




    @rackandboneman: Another verb that can't be "named" that way is to must. Interestingly though, although no-one seems to have a problem with using could as both a present and past tense form, the earlier ELU question Is “must” ever grammatical as a past tense verb? suggests that many native speakers are a bit unsure about must as a past form.
    – FumbleFingers
    yesterday










    up vote
    12
    down vote













    The reason is that standard English prohibits the use of double modals, which 'can' and 'will' both are, as addressed in this post. Some dialects, like my own, incorporate double modals like 'might could,' 'might should,' 'ought to should,' etc. but I don't believe I've ever heard 'will can.'






    share|improve this answer



















    • 5




      That question might be improved by mentioning which dialect is your own.
      – Pere
      2 days ago















    up vote
    12
    down vote













    The reason is that standard English prohibits the use of double modals, which 'can' and 'will' both are, as addressed in this post. Some dialects, like my own, incorporate double modals like 'might could,' 'might should,' 'ought to should,' etc. but I don't believe I've ever heard 'will can.'






    share|improve this answer



















    • 5




      That question might be improved by mentioning which dialect is your own.
      – Pere
      2 days ago













    up vote
    12
    down vote










    up vote
    12
    down vote









    The reason is that standard English prohibits the use of double modals, which 'can' and 'will' both are, as addressed in this post. Some dialects, like my own, incorporate double modals like 'might could,' 'might should,' 'ought to should,' etc. but I don't believe I've ever heard 'will can.'






    share|improve this answer














    The reason is that standard English prohibits the use of double modals, which 'can' and 'will' both are, as addressed in this post. Some dialects, like my own, incorporate double modals like 'might could,' 'might should,' 'ought to should,' etc. but I don't believe I've ever heard 'will can.'







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Nov 29 at 15:34

























    answered Nov 29 at 15:25









    eenbeetje

    3337




    3337








    • 5




      That question might be improved by mentioning which dialect is your own.
      – Pere
      2 days ago














    • 5




      That question might be improved by mentioning which dialect is your own.
      – Pere
      2 days ago








    5




    5




    That question might be improved by mentioning which dialect is your own.
    – Pere
    2 days ago




    That question might be improved by mentioning which dialect is your own.
    – Pere
    2 days ago










    up vote
    9
    down vote













    Can is part of the set of verbs called the 'Preterite-present' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_verb#Preterite-presents). This essentially means that the form can was originally a past tense form which has now taken on a present tense meaning. It betrays its past tense origin in English because it lacks the third person singular s (compare he holds vs he held); other languages offer even more proof (e.g. the vowel shift between Dutch singular kan and plural kunnen).



    For reasons unknown to me, English modals did not 'develop' new infintival forms. This did happen in Dutch, German, Swedish, ... which is why he will can is perfectly possible in those languages (hij zal kunnen/er wird können/han ska kunna). Can as it is now still 'functions' as a past tense form and much like how you can't say he will held, you can't say he will can. As others have pointed out, this makes the verb defective.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Henri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















      up vote
      9
      down vote













      Can is part of the set of verbs called the 'Preterite-present' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_verb#Preterite-presents). This essentially means that the form can was originally a past tense form which has now taken on a present tense meaning. It betrays its past tense origin in English because it lacks the third person singular s (compare he holds vs he held); other languages offer even more proof (e.g. the vowel shift between Dutch singular kan and plural kunnen).



      For reasons unknown to me, English modals did not 'develop' new infintival forms. This did happen in Dutch, German, Swedish, ... which is why he will can is perfectly possible in those languages (hij zal kunnen/er wird können/han ska kunna). Can as it is now still 'functions' as a past tense form and much like how you can't say he will held, you can't say he will can. As others have pointed out, this makes the verb defective.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Henri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















        up vote
        9
        down vote










        up vote
        9
        down vote









        Can is part of the set of verbs called the 'Preterite-present' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_verb#Preterite-presents). This essentially means that the form can was originally a past tense form which has now taken on a present tense meaning. It betrays its past tense origin in English because it lacks the third person singular s (compare he holds vs he held); other languages offer even more proof (e.g. the vowel shift between Dutch singular kan and plural kunnen).



        For reasons unknown to me, English modals did not 'develop' new infintival forms. This did happen in Dutch, German, Swedish, ... which is why he will can is perfectly possible in those languages (hij zal kunnen/er wird können/han ska kunna). Can as it is now still 'functions' as a past tense form and much like how you can't say he will held, you can't say he will can. As others have pointed out, this makes the verb defective.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Henri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        Can is part of the set of verbs called the 'Preterite-present' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_verb#Preterite-presents). This essentially means that the form can was originally a past tense form which has now taken on a present tense meaning. It betrays its past tense origin in English because it lacks the third person singular s (compare he holds vs he held); other languages offer even more proof (e.g. the vowel shift between Dutch singular kan and plural kunnen).



        For reasons unknown to me, English modals did not 'develop' new infintival forms. This did happen in Dutch, German, Swedish, ... which is why he will can is perfectly possible in those languages (hij zal kunnen/er wird können/han ska kunna). Can as it is now still 'functions' as a past tense form and much like how you can't say he will held, you can't say he will can. As others have pointed out, this makes the verb defective.







        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Henri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer






        New contributor




        Henri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.









        answered Nov 30 at 10:09









        Henri

        911




        911




        New contributor




        Henri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.





        New contributor





        Henri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        Henri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






















            up vote
            -8
            down vote













            For this question that might be a Rhetorical question: The answer is that the future tense of the word can is could. For example: You could accept this answer in the future, if you still can, but you probably can't for some reason, if you missed the exact time and date that you could have accepted this answer. And also The word Could is used as a future tense of the word can, Could have is used as a past tense of the word can.






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            jehovahsays is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.














            • 1




              The OP can accept this answer tomorrow or even next week. But I don't think they will.
              – Mari-Lou A
              Nov 29 at 20:27








            • 7




              You cannot say that could is the “future tense” of can, it is misinformation.
              – Mari-Lou A
              Nov 29 at 20:32






            • 2




              'could' is the simple past of 'can'. In your example it is used to form the conditional.
              – chasly from UK
              Nov 29 at 20:50








            • 3




              I raised "Not an answer" flag because a wrong answer is not an answer.
              – scaaahu
              Nov 30 at 8:19






            • 3




              @scaaahu Please do not flag wrong answers for moderator attention. Instead, downvote posts which are not useful, upvote posts which are useful, and optionally use comments to explain your actions.
              – MetaEd
              2 days ago

















            up vote
            -8
            down vote













            For this question that might be a Rhetorical question: The answer is that the future tense of the word can is could. For example: You could accept this answer in the future, if you still can, but you probably can't for some reason, if you missed the exact time and date that you could have accepted this answer. And also The word Could is used as a future tense of the word can, Could have is used as a past tense of the word can.






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            jehovahsays is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.














            • 1




              The OP can accept this answer tomorrow or even next week. But I don't think they will.
              – Mari-Lou A
              Nov 29 at 20:27








            • 7




              You cannot say that could is the “future tense” of can, it is misinformation.
              – Mari-Lou A
              Nov 29 at 20:32






            • 2




              'could' is the simple past of 'can'. In your example it is used to form the conditional.
              – chasly from UK
              Nov 29 at 20:50








            • 3




              I raised "Not an answer" flag because a wrong answer is not an answer.
              – scaaahu
              Nov 30 at 8:19






            • 3




              @scaaahu Please do not flag wrong answers for moderator attention. Instead, downvote posts which are not useful, upvote posts which are useful, and optionally use comments to explain your actions.
              – MetaEd
              2 days ago















            up vote
            -8
            down vote










            up vote
            -8
            down vote









            For this question that might be a Rhetorical question: The answer is that the future tense of the word can is could. For example: You could accept this answer in the future, if you still can, but you probably can't for some reason, if you missed the exact time and date that you could have accepted this answer. And also The word Could is used as a future tense of the word can, Could have is used as a past tense of the word can.






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            jehovahsays is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            For this question that might be a Rhetorical question: The answer is that the future tense of the word can is could. For example: You could accept this answer in the future, if you still can, but you probably can't for some reason, if you missed the exact time and date that you could have accepted this answer. And also The word Could is used as a future tense of the word can, Could have is used as a past tense of the word can.







            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            jehovahsays is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Nov 30 at 7:09





















            New contributor




            jehovahsays is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            answered Nov 29 at 19:44









            jehovahsays

            912




            912




            New contributor




            jehovahsays is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





            New contributor





            jehovahsays is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            jehovahsays is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.








            • 1




              The OP can accept this answer tomorrow or even next week. But I don't think they will.
              – Mari-Lou A
              Nov 29 at 20:27








            • 7




              You cannot say that could is the “future tense” of can, it is misinformation.
              – Mari-Lou A
              Nov 29 at 20:32






            • 2




              'could' is the simple past of 'can'. In your example it is used to form the conditional.
              – chasly from UK
              Nov 29 at 20:50








            • 3




              I raised "Not an answer" flag because a wrong answer is not an answer.
              – scaaahu
              Nov 30 at 8:19






            • 3




              @scaaahu Please do not flag wrong answers for moderator attention. Instead, downvote posts which are not useful, upvote posts which are useful, and optionally use comments to explain your actions.
              – MetaEd
              2 days ago
















            • 1




              The OP can accept this answer tomorrow or even next week. But I don't think they will.
              – Mari-Lou A
              Nov 29 at 20:27








            • 7




              You cannot say that could is the “future tense” of can, it is misinformation.
              – Mari-Lou A
              Nov 29 at 20:32






            • 2




              'could' is the simple past of 'can'. In your example it is used to form the conditional.
              – chasly from UK
              Nov 29 at 20:50








            • 3




              I raised "Not an answer" flag because a wrong answer is not an answer.
              – scaaahu
              Nov 30 at 8:19






            • 3




              @scaaahu Please do not flag wrong answers for moderator attention. Instead, downvote posts which are not useful, upvote posts which are useful, and optionally use comments to explain your actions.
              – MetaEd
              2 days ago










            1




            1




            The OP can accept this answer tomorrow or even next week. But I don't think they will.
            – Mari-Lou A
            Nov 29 at 20:27






            The OP can accept this answer tomorrow or even next week. But I don't think they will.
            – Mari-Lou A
            Nov 29 at 20:27






            7




            7




            You cannot say that could is the “future tense” of can, it is misinformation.
            – Mari-Lou A
            Nov 29 at 20:32




            You cannot say that could is the “future tense” of can, it is misinformation.
            – Mari-Lou A
            Nov 29 at 20:32




            2




            2




            'could' is the simple past of 'can'. In your example it is used to form the conditional.
            – chasly from UK
            Nov 29 at 20:50






            'could' is the simple past of 'can'. In your example it is used to form the conditional.
            – chasly from UK
            Nov 29 at 20:50






            3




            3




            I raised "Not an answer" flag because a wrong answer is not an answer.
            – scaaahu
            Nov 30 at 8:19




            I raised "Not an answer" flag because a wrong answer is not an answer.
            – scaaahu
            Nov 30 at 8:19




            3




            3




            @scaaahu Please do not flag wrong answers for moderator attention. Instead, downvote posts which are not useful, upvote posts which are useful, and optionally use comments to explain your actions.
            – MetaEd
            2 days ago






            @scaaahu Please do not flag wrong answers for moderator attention. Instead, downvote posts which are not useful, upvote posts which are useful, and optionally use comments to explain your actions.
            – MetaEd
            2 days ago




















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f474963%2fwhy-cant-the-word-can-be-used-in-future-tense-will-can%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

            How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

            QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater