"there is nobody that could" or "there is nobody that can"?
The other day a person in my class of english literature said: "there is nobody that can... etc" and it sounded to me wrong. I think that it should be: "there is nobody that could... etc" because I know that in spanish I would say "no hay nadie que pueda". It has to use the subjunctive. In english also they have a subjunctive tense (but I think that it is that many people do not realise this), so I was wondering which is better? Did the person just make a mistake in saying "can" or is there some explanation why it does not use here the subjunctive?
5 Answers
In English, as you said, we do have a subjunctive tense but it is rarely used. I would say that it has become "accepted" to not use the subjunctive.
I have always been one to use the subjunctive in English. I would say: "there is nobody that could."
I hope that I am correct and helped. I truly think both would be accepted by English speakers.
Hi Adelita,
I don't think that there is anything wrong with either sentence. In English, to get around the lack of dedicated verb tenses for the subjunctive we often use modal auxiliaries such as can, could, might, may, etc. to signal the subjunctive mood of a particular clause.
The modal auxiliaries "could" and "can" are often used to express possibility. It addresses the question is it even possible for someone to lift a truck. "Can" is also used to express capability as well, so depending on the intent of the speaker, either sentence is possible:
1). There is nobody that can lift a truck [can express capability or possibility]
• There is no man so strong that he (be able to/can) lift a truck (capability)
• Can anybody lift a truck? Is there anybody that can lift a truck? (capability)
• There is no possibility that he (be able to/can) lift a truck (possibility)
• Can anybody lift a truck? Is it possible that anyone can lift a truck? (possibility)
2). There is nobody that could lift a truck [expresses possibility]
• There is no way that he (could) lift that truck. (possibility)
In these examples, I have used the third person singular to demonstrate what the sentence would look like using the less common unaccompanied subjunctive verb form. The words in parenthesis indicate a possible modal auxiliary that would more likely be used in place of the subjunctive verb form.
Also, you might want to notice that to impart a subjunctive meaning, we (in English) often use an infinitive verb form in order to get around the lack of dedicated verb forms. For example:
• There is nobody that can/could lift a truck. [modal auxiliary]
• It is impossible for anyone to lift a truck. [infinitive verb form]
• It is impossible that anyone lift a truck. [subjunctive verb form]
I always associate can with ability too while could is possibility
I agree with you there that "could" is probably more strongly implicating of possibility/impossibility. For example:
• I wish that I could fly like a bird.
• California could fall into the ocean if a really big earthquake were to strike.
Other modal auxiliaries that are sometimes used (besides could and can) for possibility include "might" and "may," and it just depends on the context as to which is more appropriate.
• The next president of the United States may/might/could be a woman.
• When he has to much to drink, anything can/could/might happen.
Both sentences are wrong because they refer to people. They must be, "There is nobody who can / could. With who, they are both correct. It's just a matter what the speaker wishes to imply. "Can" is simple present tense, meaning always having the ability. "Could" is subjuctive and usually used as half of a sentence in conditional case #1. IE: I would leave tomorrow if I could." "Me saldría mañana si pudiera."
gracias a todos!
