1

Anupam Pathak

People ask where would AAP get money from to fulfill their promises. Remember that episode on Garbage on Satyamev Jayate where a scientist explained how a work that could have been easily done in 3 crores was done in 70 crores using a different mechanism and that too a much substandard work.

Can the highlighted words be replaced by could be, such that it does not change the tense.

Are "could have been" and "could be" interchangeable?

Nathan Tuggy
  • 9,513
  • 20
  • 40
  • 56
user188386
  • 41
  • 2

1 Answers1

-1

There is a difference. In this case Could have been refers to an ability at that time in the past. Could be refers to an ability today.

To use both tenses in a sentence:

...explained how a work that could have been easily done in 3 crores, and by today's standards could be done in 2 crores, was done in 70 crores...

santiago arizti
  • 99
  • 2
  • 2
    Your sentence is better composed than the example given, but in that example, there is no difference in meaning. The OP really needs to understand what the perfect is and when to use it, I think. – P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica Aug 04 '16 at 20:21
  • @P.E.Dant I think, "could be" can also be used in the past. *"In the past, it could be issued that ....."* Am I right? – Cardinal Aug 04 '16 at 20:48
  • @Cardinal It can be (and could be!) and frequently is. StoneyB's primer will help the OP - not with the conditional part necessarily, but with the perfect part. – P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica Aug 04 '16 at 20:51
  • @P.E.Dant Thanks. I mentioned that since after reading this answer, I referred that the answer went too far to strictly say that "Could be refers to an ability today.". Perhaps, they meant in that context. – Cardinal Aug 04 '16 at 20:58
  • Confused."Could ,could be and could have been" all three can be used to show past ability ? – user188386 Aug 04 '16 at 20:59
  • Although strictly speaking the distinction made here could apply in certain circumstances, it clearly doesn't in OP's context, so I don't think this is the way to address the question - where as @P. E. Dant says, there is* no difference in meaning* (and both versions are perfectly acceptable, both stylistically and syntactically) – FumbleFingers Aug 04 '16 at 21:20
  • Yesterday our home minister went to neighbouring country and criticised it for supporting terrorism. They broadcasted only their primeminister's speech and stopped the broadcast when our home minister's turn came. Which one is correct to show past ability: A) if they could broadcast their primeminister's speech then they could also broadcast our minister's speech (past ability).

    B) if they could have broadcasted their primeminister's speech then they could have also broadcasted our minister's speech (past ability).

     – user188386 Aug 05 '16 at 04:42
  • I agree with some comments here, but disagree with others, I stand by my answer but will edit to say that in this case, could have been and could be have different meanings – santiago arizti Aug 05 '16 at 23:11