1. I can eat a horse.
2. I could eat a horse.
----------------------
Which one has stronger possibility between two sentences? The difference between 'can' and 'could'
The first one isn't used because it's a statement of fact that isn't really true.
We do use the second one -- as in -- I'm so hungry I could eat a horse.
The difference between "can" and "could" in these sentences lies in the strength of possibility or capability. Here, "can" suggests the ability or possibility to eat a horse, while "could" implies the same possibility but also introduces an element of uncertainty or hypothetical condition.
To determine which sentence has a stronger possibility, we need to consider the context and the intention of the speaker.
1. "I can eat a horse" suggests a strong possibility or capability. It implies that the speaker possesses the ability or the capacity to consume a horse. This statement comes across as a straightforward assertion of the speaker's capacity to eat a horse.
2. "I could eat a horse" expresses a conditional or hypothetical possibility. It suggests that the speaker is considering the idea of eating a horse but does not necessarily indicate that they possess the ability to do so. This usage of "could" introduces a sense of uncertainty or qualification to the statement.
Therefore, in terms of stronger possibility, "I can eat a horse" generally implies a higher degree of certainty or capability compared to "I could eat a horse." However, it is important to note that the interpretation of these sentences also depends on the context and the intention behind them.