0

Does this sentence in bold sound natural and grammatical to native speakers of English although I use “can” instead of “will be able to”?

A: Jack will try to kill that boar again tomorrow. He failed to kill it with a crossbow last time.

B: That beast is tough but not immortal. He needs to choose the right weapon. If he uses a rifle, he can definitely kill it tomorrow.

Chien Te Lu
  • 395
  • 2
  • 8
  • It sounds a little odd to me. Is there some reason you don't want to use the conditional form of can which is "could"? I think it would be more appropriate TBH. For example: If he uses a rifle, he could definitely kill it tomorrow. Even though could has a sense of "might be able to", the addition of "definitely" makes it much more likely, with only a little room for doubt. It's a definite possibility. – Billy Kerr Jan 28 '24 at 13:33

1 Answers1

2

That beast is tough but not immortal. He needs to choose the right weapon. If he uses a rifle, he can definitely kill it tomorrow.

If we remove "definitely" the sentence is totally fine even if the verb in the result-clause is "can".

It appears that in American English the auxiliary will is normally used with definitely for making predictions or assumptions in the future e.g. ”…he will (definitely) be able to kill it tomorrow”

enter image description here

Interestingly, according to Google Ngrams, British English forgoes can, preferring the will definitely form.

enter image description here

Mari-Lou A
  • 27,037
  • 13
  • 72
  • 125