On Thursday 8 May 2008 5:39:14 Ian Kelly wrote: > "CAN" and "could" are not synonymous. If the phrase used by R2169 is > intended to mean "...the possible agreements that the parties CAN > make...", then it should say that. Currently, it does not.
Fair point. However: "Could" is the subjunctive form of "can" (R754(1)), as in "I can join the AAA today; I could have joined the AAA yesterday." "Can" SHOULD be taken to mean "CAN" (R2152). Grammatically, it makes perfect sense to say "could" to mean "can" in this context. Again, I point to R754(1). Alternatively, if you wish to argue that this creates an ambiguity in meaning, I fall back on R754(4), since "could" is nowhere actually defined. I agree that "could" *could* be reasonably read to mean what you want it to, but it could also reasonably be read not to. We don't really have a case of "it should have said X if that's what it meant". What it says is the most straightforward way to express X. ..Pavitra
