Proszę o pomoc

Mógłby mi ktoś wyjaśnić dlaczego w następujących zdaniach użyte zostało wyrażenie "can be done" i "can be hiding":
1) It can be done with anything that is sharp.
2) The criminal can be hiding anywhere.

Czy to jest jakaś strona bierna, czynna czy jakiś czas? Mógłby mi ktoś to wyjaśnić.

Z góry dzięki.

It can be done with anything that is sharp. taka strona bierna po czasowniku modalanym. cos jak nasze bezosobowe Mozna to zrobic czymkolwiek ostrym.

The criminal can be hiding anywhere. Przestpeca moze sie ukrywac wszedzie.
To nie jest strona bierna bo criminal jest agentem i on wykonuje czynnosc ukrywania sie.

can be hiding - teraz = it is possible that he is hiding
can hide - w ogole = it is possible that he hides

A w ogole to na pewno 'can' a nie 'could' w 2. zdaniu?

To w takim razie co to jest w drugim zdaniu jeżeli nie to nie jest strona bierna. Skąd mogę wiedzieć kiedy to użyć???

W drugim zdaniu to, zdaje sie, jest Modal Continuous. Tak jak mg Ci odpisal, uzywasz go wtedy jeżeli mowisz, ze mozliwe, ze cos sie dzieje w tej chwili. Normalnie w czasie present cont. powiedzialabys He is hiding. A poniewaz po czasownikach modalnych (should, could etc) zawsze uzywa sie formy podstawowej czasownika, to zamiast 'is' bedzie be, schematycznie tak: modal + be + forma czasownika na ing.
Jezeli chcesz powiedziec ze on na nas czeka, mowisz He is waiting for us. A jak dasz czasowniki modalne to zmienia sie znaczenie troche, ale nie czas wykonywania czynnosci.
He could be waiting for us. Mozliwe, ze on na nas czeka. (w domysle: teraz)

≫schematycznie tak: modal + be + forma czasownika na ing.

“He can be hiding anywhere”

Albo też : modal + present continuous infinitive
logical assumption ( affirmative ) as opposed to the negative logical assumption as in “he can’t be hiding anywhere. “

hm, no wlasnie 'can' jako logical assumption mi nie pasuje. o ile 'can't' mozna tak użyc, to can nie za bardzo. Bo can nie jest uzywane do mowienia o tym jak prawdobodone cos jest.

mnie też to zdziwiło, ale mieliśmy sie wypowiadać na temat 'be hiding' :-)

And what is it there, doctor, that you find it so suprising to “drool” over ?

Delimitation of the modals and their functions may extend further than we think.
The epistemic “can” followed by the present cont. infinitive overlaps with ‘must’ in this sense.

I didn’t make it up but whatever ..the asker doesn’t need it anyway.

>Delimitation of the modals and their functions may extend further than we think.

a delimitation that extends further is a narrowing, isn't it? :-)

>The epistemic “can" followed by the present cont. infinitive overlaps with 'must' in this sense.

I need to see examples.

Delimitation is also the determination of a limit of something , right ? and in our ‘sense’ here , of the semantic scope of modals . So this scope may not always be that “rigourously framed “ by the book.
You need to see some examples ? What examples ? Do you think I’m a walk-up shitting linguistic library ? :)
It should be analysed from the angle of theoretical ( not prescriptive or pedagogical ) linguistics related to transformational syntax.
I ran across it and scribbled down some notes in my “cheat sheet” some time ago while reading Quirk and Chomsky but I don’t have “any examples “ at my fingertips right now. I‘ll try to get them for you later unless some of your ‘specialist students of syntax’ beat me to it.

if there are no examples, it is not used like that.

Ok

>The epistemic “can" followed by the present cont. infinitive overlaps with 'must' in this sense.

What are saying, mate :O There's no such use, as has already been stated in this thread by mg. The only case I can think of when 'can' is used like that is a question tag:
She can't be joking, can she?
but not
She can be joking.

In such cases, you use 'may' or 'might'.

Or perhaps
The criminal could be hiding anywhere. :)

oh yes

Ok but look, what I was trying to say that “can” can be used as an epistemical modal in some cases ( though less in positive statements but we can’t entirely rule it out ), not based on that particular usage of this modal but somewhat independently , in accordance with the meaning and situational context or deduction and assumption based on some evidence or facts.
I said it “overlaps” , which means it has a weaker claim and “must” is preferred.

He can’t be hiding anyway ( epistemic negative based on facts or evidence known to the speaker. )
He can be hiding anyway ( why not then say “ epistemic” for the positive one even if it implies ‘possibility or ability’ )
He must be hiding anyway ( epistemic “must” shows confidence , based on facts or evidence known to the speaker. )

How do you see it ? Tenable ?

Using the word ‘anyway’
Anyway, he can’t be hiding.
Anyway, he could be hiding.
Anyway, he must be hiding

If as in the original post one uses the word ‘anywhere’

He can’t be hiding anywhere.
He could be hiding anywhere.

One cannot say… He must be hiding anywhere - unless one adds the words ‘he can’ to the sentence ie
He must be hiding anywhere [he can.]
or
changes the word 'anywhere' to 'somewhere', as in
He must be hiding somewhere.
I’m not sure if that helps or hinders! :)

It was to be "anywhere".

Can you say " It can happen anywhere" ?

Yes, that's perfectly OK. :)

Yes, with "must" somewhere is definitely better but we're not talking about this here.

He can be hiding anyway ( why not then say “ epistemic" for the positive one even if it implies 'possibility or ability' )

I'd use may/might/could here.

He must be hiding anyway ( epistemic “must" shows confidence , based on facts or evidence known to the speaker. )

this epistemic must is more assertive than may/might/could.
'can' is not normally used in an epistemic meaning but when I saw the original sentence I sort of mentally settled for the following meaning 'People like him are able to make their hideaway just anywhere and this is what may be happening to him'

"It can happen anywhere' does not refer to a particular situation in the same way as 'he may be hiding anywhere' does.

This is all true mg, agree, for positive the epistemic ‘may’ is used instead
of “can” but can we accept at least ( as you said you had to ‘tweak’ yourself mentally to make it fit here to produce any plausible justification for “can be hiding”) that sometimes it really depends on the situation and the speakers’ ‘subjective attitude’ regardless of the fact that modal auxiliaries are “highly gramaticized among grammatical classes expressing epistemicy” ?

‘it can happen anywhere” – it has nothing to do with the matter of our discussion here.

Let me filter it down. Say ,initially, we got “ he can be hiding anywhere’
vs “ he must be hiding somewhere’ and we don’t question so far ( ok ?) the ‘felicity condition’ for the positive use of ‘epistemic can’ in the former.
So I was trying to violate ( theoretically ) the “possibility or ability”
of ‘can’ and pop slightly the “logical assumption” of ‘must ‘into the former on the assumption that ‘he must be hiding somewhere so he can( not may ) be hiding anywhere then‘ or he ‘can be hiding anywhere so he must be hiding somewhere then’.
I know it’s a bit far-fetched but we’re not here to exclusively deal
(excuse the split infinitive ) with the sleepwalk-Mickey Mouse stuff, after all.

Quote , “ .. modal auxiliaries have been grammaticized into expressing many different types of meaning , deontic, dynamic and epistemic, and are in themselves ambiguous as to their exact semantic meaning. The polysemy of the modals have been noted by Leech and Coats ( 1980) and Coates ( 1983),for example, who claim that a modal verb may be ambiguous especially between an epistemic and non-epistemic meaning, and also indeterminate between two meanings, in which case even the context may fail to excude on of the possible meanings”, close quote .

Oh yeas, and of course "negatice can" is by all means is used epistemically, I hasten to add.

>it really depends on the situation and the speakers' 'subjective attitude'

This can be used to account for any utterance.


>Let me filter it down. Say ,initially, we got “ he can be hiding anywhere'
vs “ he must be hiding somewhere' and we don't question so far ( ok ?) the 'felicity condition' for the positive use of 'epistemic can' in the former.

We don't questions that if we take that to refer to dynamic modality (he knows how to hide anywhere). If we also know that he's not left the scene, we can conclude that he must be hiding somewhere. So far, so good, but it only works one way.


>So I was trying to violate ( theoretically ) the “possibility or ability"
of 'can' and pop slightly the “logical assumption" of 'must 'into the former on the assumption that 'he must be hiding somewhere so he can( not may ) be hiding anywhere then' or he 'can be hiding anywhere so he must be hiding somewhere then'.

No, if we're sure that he's hiding somewhere, we might say 'he may be hiding anywhere' if we fear so. However, to say 'he can be hiding anywhere' requires that we know he has the know-how of being able to hide anywhere. That's what I meant when I said 'one-way'.


>I know it's a bit far-fetched but we're not here to exclusively deal
(excuse the split infinitive ).

No. To leniently excuse that would go against my beliefs.


Quote , “ .. modal auxiliaries have been grammaticized into expressing many different types of meaning , deontic, dynamic and epistemic, and are in themselves ambiguous as to their exact semantic meaning. The polysemy of the modals have been noted by Leech and Coats ( 1980) and Coates ( 1983),for example, who claim that a modal verb may be ambiguous especially between an epistemic and non-epistemic meaning, and also indeterminate between two meanings, in which case even the context may fail to excude on of the possible meanings", close quote .

Does your source give examples? Not specifically of can, but it would just be interesting to see such na-dwoje-babka-wróżyła sort of examples.

So far so good and basically I agree of course , there’s no need to ‘get riled up’ about it :)

≫No, if we're sure that he's hiding somewhere, we might say 'he may be hiding anywhere' if we fear so.
-If we’re sure ..

Quote , “ MAY is used both epistemically and deontically. When used epistemically , MAY express UNCERTAIN possibility “ , close quote .
– And how does the “ uncertain possiblity’’ goes with your “ if we’re sure “ here ? In our example ‘may’ is undubitably epistemic , not deontic.

Whatever the case, we can round it out that “ he can be hiding’ is possible
( on your “being able to hide anywhere “ or “suspect’s ability” condition)

And to refute my own argument with the following formal explanation:
Quote, “ However, modal auxiliaries do not always express MODALITY :
‘Linford can run 100 yards in nine seconds”, here CAN is used in a factual statement about ability “ close quote (Carl Bache )

So ‘Linford can run 100 yards , and Linford can hide anywhere , and Linford can be hiding anywhere’. In other words, Linford is a goddamned Rambo.

I ‘jump/hop’ corrected, doc :)

P.S. na dwoje babka … - you want the examples , huh ? maybe they’re somewhere in real life ,I don’t know , in theoretical physics, they say it‘s the ‘singularity’ somewhere out there though nobody’s ‘seen’ it so far, but we can’t be sure it’s not there.

>P.S. na dwoje babka ... - you want the examples

the only example sentences that could prove you right would be yours, I'm afraid to say

And I'm afraid to say, 'it's not your league what I'm talking about here.'