0

I've seen situations in which they said these phrases:

  1. "[...] That could be dead or may not be" (Jim Carrey's phrase in a Series of Unfortunate events)

  2. "(=if we had one, it could or it may not be expensive)" (a specific grammar book by Cambridge University).

My question is: why "may" is opposed to "could" here? Can't we use "It could be dead or could not be" or "It could or it could not be expensive"? Why/why not?

Improve this question
1
  • You could say, "It could be dead or could not be," or you could not. "Could" implies that something could not be, so in a way, "could or could not be" is redundant.
    – Jake Regier
    Commented Jul 20, 2015 at 19:36

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

Because could not does not mean may not. If you say "it could not be dead," it means that it is definitely alive. If you say "it may not be dead," it means there is a possibility that it is alive.

It's better to say "may or may not be" in these situations, but if you're speaking and have already said could be, it's good to switch verbs1—so I can understand why the scriptwriters had Jim Carrey say it. But if the grammar book is suggesting that you use this phrase instead of may or may not be, I would look for another grammar book.

1 Although if you're speaking and say "could or could not be", people will usually understand what you mean.

Improve this answer
1
  • See Ngram: may or may not be is 100 times more frequent than could or could not be.
    – Peter Shor
    Commented Jul 20, 2015 at 22:12

You must log in to answer this question.

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