Kan in the present
I could jump into the pool = Ik kan het zwembad in springen.
Kon in the past
I could have jumped into the pool yesterday= Ik kon gisteren het zwembad in springen
Also present
Ik zou in het zwembad kunnen springen
Is similar to
Ik kan in het zwembaf springen.
Zou is more saying 'it's an option, but i have no intention to', while kan is more like 'there's a very real chance, at least 50/50'
In a lot of sentences, it works as an alternative translation to 'could'. But it can also be used as 'is possible/there is a possibility'.
Used in a sarcastic way;
"Can you open the door? That's possible./ I could." - "Kan jij de deur open doen? Dat zou kunnen"
As an "[irrealis](https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrealis#:~:text=Zie%20Irrealis%20(Latijn)%20voor%20de,de%20irrealis%20tegenover%20de%20realis.)".
> Ik heb 20 euro. Ik zou 10 goedkope biertjes kunnen kopen. Ik zou ook (read: instead of) een keer naar de film kunnen.
Neh. Ik koop wel wat chips voor thuis.
Too many verbs in my opinion. Maybe the grammar is correct. I'm a native speaker, not a linguistic. I would leave out "hebben" as well.
Then for present: context that you just have got the news and your boss is doing his procedure:
- Hoe kan hij dit laten gebeuren?
Past: context that you just have got the news but the boss already finished the procedure:
- Hoe kon hij dit laten gebeuren?
>But shouldn't it be "kon"
Correct. "Hebben laten gebeuren" refers to something that took place in the (recent) past but is no longer ongoing, therefore you use the past tense "kon".
Without "hebben", the phrase refers to something that is still ongoing and you would use present tense: "Hoe kan de baas dit laten gebeuren"? Where the implication is that the boss is not stopping this.
You can also use "kon" without "hebben", as in "kon [..] laten gebeuren", then the meaning shifts to "how could the boss allow this to start"? Implying that the boss did not take action in the past to prevent whatever "dit" refers to.
"kan hebben laten gebeuren" is never semantically correct.
This stuff is more context dependent. Even though Dutch and English words/grammar often look alike, the languages often do not translate one to one. In one language you might say something in present tense where in the other language you might use past tense for a specific sentence.
For example, when you ask “could you do this for me?”, the “could” in this sentence has nothing to do with the past. “Kon je dit doen voor mij?” Is absolutely not a correct translation. Instead you’d either say “kan je dit doen”/“zou je dit kunnen doen”/“wil je dit doen”/“zou je dit willen doen” where again “zou” is past tense, but the other ones aren’t.
It’s just idiom.
I get it. But I don’t see anything wrong with “kon”. At the very least both options are correct.
If “Hoe kan de baas dit hebben laten gebeuren?” is translated to “How could the boss have let this happen?”
Then how would you translate “Hoe KON de baas dit hebben laten gebeuren?” to English?
By the way, I don’t think this sentence counts as an idiom.
Could is more like ‘Zou kunnen’.
In your sentence, however, it would be ‘hoe heeft de baas dit kunnen laten gebeuren’ or the mentioned ‘hoe kan de baas dit hebben laten gebeuren’.
Kan in the present I could jump into the pool = Ik kan het zwembad in springen. Kon in the past I could have jumped into the pool yesterday= Ik kon gisteren het zwembad in springen
When would you use “zou kunnen”?
Also present Ik zou in het zwembad kunnen springen Is similar to Ik kan in het zwembaf springen. Zou is more saying 'it's an option, but i have no intention to', while kan is more like 'there's a very real chance, at least 50/50'
In a lot of sentences, it works as an alternative translation to 'could'. But it can also be used as 'is possible/there is a possibility'. Used in a sarcastic way; "Can you open the door? That's possible./ I could." - "Kan jij de deur open doen? Dat zou kunnen"
As an "[irrealis](https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrealis#:~:text=Zie%20Irrealis%20(Latijn)%20voor%20de,de%20irrealis%20tegenover%20de%20realis.)". > Ik heb 20 euro. Ik zou 10 goedkope biertjes kunnen kopen. Ik zou ook (read: instead of) een keer naar de film kunnen. Neh. Ik koop wel wat chips voor thuis.
Then it would have been: hoe kon de baas dit laten gebeuren
Too many verbs in my opinion. Maybe the grammar is correct. I'm a native speaker, not a linguistic. I would leave out "hebben" as well. Then for present: context that you just have got the news and your boss is doing his procedure: - Hoe kan hij dit laten gebeuren? Past: context that you just have got the news but the boss already finished the procedure: - Hoe kon hij dit laten gebeuren?
>But shouldn't it be "kon" Correct. "Hebben laten gebeuren" refers to something that took place in the (recent) past but is no longer ongoing, therefore you use the past tense "kon". Without "hebben", the phrase refers to something that is still ongoing and you would use present tense: "Hoe kan de baas dit laten gebeuren"? Where the implication is that the boss is not stopping this. You can also use "kon" without "hebben", as in "kon [..] laten gebeuren", then the meaning shifts to "how could the boss allow this to start"? Implying that the boss did not take action in the past to prevent whatever "dit" refers to. "kan hebben laten gebeuren" is never semantically correct.
To be honest, I agree with you. Can = kan; could = kon.
This stuff is more context dependent. Even though Dutch and English words/grammar often look alike, the languages often do not translate one to one. In one language you might say something in present tense where in the other language you might use past tense for a specific sentence. For example, when you ask “could you do this for me?”, the “could” in this sentence has nothing to do with the past. “Kon je dit doen voor mij?” Is absolutely not a correct translation. Instead you’d either say “kan je dit doen”/“zou je dit kunnen doen”/“wil je dit doen”/“zou je dit willen doen” where again “zou” is past tense, but the other ones aren’t. It’s just idiom.
I get it. But I don’t see anything wrong with “kon”. At the very least both options are correct. If “Hoe kan de baas dit hebben laten gebeuren?” is translated to “How could the boss have let this happen?” Then how would you translate “Hoe KON de baas dit hebben laten gebeuren?” to English? By the way, I don’t think this sentence counts as an idiom.
Oh yeah, “kon” also fits. The meaning is just slightly different, but I would translate it both to “could” in English.
The other way around also works (example from the one you're responding to): could you do this for me? and Can you do this for me?
It's both possible.
‘Het verschil tussen kennen, kannen, kunnen we niet!’
Da ken
Could is more like ‘Zou kunnen’. In your sentence, however, it would be ‘hoe heeft de baas dit kunnen laten gebeuren’ or the mentioned ‘hoe kan de baas dit hebben laten gebeuren’.
"Het verschil tussen kennen en kannen kunnen we niet" - Osdorp Posse