Consider two sentences:
Smoking cigarette can cause cancer.
Smoking cigarette may cause cancer.
What is the difference between these two sentences?
If can is used then does it mean that it will surely cause cancer?
Asked
Active
Viewed 1,253 times
0
-
No, both mean "is able to". But cigarettes should be plural. – James Webster Oct 19 '15 at 18:06
-
They do not mean the same thing. Imagine: Smoking cigarettes can cause cancer, [but they do not always do so.] vs. Smoking cigarettes may cause cancer, [or they may not. I don't know.] As noted by @Nihilist_Frost, this is explained in greater detail at http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/69283/it-can-be-very-cold-vs-it-may-be-very-cold – Adam Oct 19 '15 at 18:19
1 Answers
0
An erroneous reading might declare that this is a case of a very popular grammar problem stemming from word choice in English involving "can" versus "may." The rule is that "can" asks for capability. "May" asks for permission. However, that is not the issue at hand, because cigarettes are not "allowed" to do anything. That usage is invalid here. Instead, this is actually a comparison between two very similar usages.
Smoking cigarettes can cause cancer.
This sentence expresses that the act of smoking cigarettes has a chance of causing cancer. The act is capable of causing cancer in the smoker. Whether it is guaranteed or not is irrelevant.
Smoking cigarettes may cause cancer.
It's hard for me to really know if there's a difference. Both terms mean that it is possible for smoking cigarettes to cause cancer, and neither terms express exactly how likely that is. I know that "may" expresses a larger likelihood than "might," but I haven't seen anywhere that compares can vs. may in this regard, only in the other usage.
In conclusion, I would not notice a difference in this particular usage as a native speaker. I don't think there is any significant difference in likelihood expressed when "can" and "may" are both being used to express the likelihood of an event.
Crazy Eyes
- 3,604
- 12
- 13