may/might

solipsister wrote:

Far too taut i wooda thunk

I don't understand what you mean. You're confusing me even more.

Could any member please tell me why 'went' is not a verb in the past tense? I was taught that the word is a simple past tense verb, but now I am told that it is the past tense form. What is the difference and which way to describe the verb.

I'm confused. Was I taught wrongly at school?

Many thanks.

Yoong Liat wrote:

Hi JTT

* If you went to bed early tonight, you might feel better tomorrow.

Why can't 'may' be used here? They provide no reason or reasons.

Allow me to answer on behalf of Contrex.

If you went to bed early tonight, you may feel better tomorrow. ('went' is past tense, but 'may' relates to the present. The sentence is concerned with something that is hypothetical. Hence, 'might' should be use instead. )

Hi YL. I'm afraid that that doesn't answer my question. 'went' is not past tense, it is only the past tense FORM. There's a big difference.

This actually refers to a future event, doesn't it, and it isn't all that hypothetical either, is it? It's hardly unlikely that the person involved would not follow such advice and in this there is hardly any difference between, "If you go ..." or "If you went". These two also have a meeting point where the difference as regards hypotheticality is negligible.

The BBC site has contradicted itself. See below. I've put the pertinent part in bold and underlined it.

BBC: "We can use the modal auxiliaries may or might to say that there is a chance that something is true or may happen. May and might are used to talk about present or future events[/u]."

Even if we were to count the 'went' as signaling an actual past time, well, we needn't even go there for it simply just ain't so.

Yoong Liat wrote:

Could any member please tell me why 'went' is not a verb in the past tense? I was taught that the word is a simple past tense verb, but now I am told that it is the past tense form. What is the difference and which way to describe the verb.

I'm confused. Was I taught wrongly at school?

Many thanks.

"Went" is the past tense of "go", period.

If you went, you'd enjoy yourself.

No one has gone, Mame. How can 'went' be the past tense and how does it, in this example, determine time?

As you know, each tense can take one of four forms: simple, progressive, perfect, and perfect progressive.

Tense determines time, and the form determines the relationship the verb has to contextual time. Examples:

SIMPLE TENSE

Simple present (action or situation exists now):

I dance.
He dances.
They dance.

These do not describe actions or situations that exist right now. They describe actions that are timeless, that occur routinely but not all the time or right at this moment.

Present progressive (action is in progress):

I am dancing.
He is dancing.
We are dancing.

I am dancing this coming Friday. (action is in progress)?? Really?

Present perfect (action begins in the past and leads up to and includes the present):

I have danced.
She has danced.
You have danced.

I have danced. The last time was 40 years ago.

(action begins in the past and leads up to and includes the present)???

Present perfect progressive (action begins in the past, continues in the present, and may continue into the future):

I have been dancing.
He has been dancing.
They have been dancing.

Mame: Where have you been?

YL: I've been dancing.

(action begins in the past, continues in the present, and may continue into the future)??

YL is not dancing now, at the moment of speaking, Mame.

~~~

PAST TENSE

Simple past (actions or situations are complete and completely in the past):

They danced.
We danced.
She danced.

I was wondering, Mame, if you would consider the following;

A: Did you want something to eat?

B: Yeah, that'd be grand.

Note that 'was' in bold and 'did', underlined, are not "(actions or situations [are] complete and completely in the past)". They are not in the past at all.


~~~

FUTURE TENSE

Simple future (actions will occur in the future):

I will dance.
She will dance.
You will dance.

English doesn't have a future tense, Mame.

I'm going to dance.
I'm just about to dance.
I want to dance.
I need to dance.
I'm dancing on Friday.
I might dance on Friday.
I may dance on Friday.
I would dance on Friday.
I should dance on Friday.
I shall dance on Friday.
I could dance on Friday.
I can dance on Friday.
I might dance on Friday.
I probably will dance on Friday.
I probably would dance on Friday.
I ought to dance on Friday.

syntinen wrote:

Quote:

'went' is not past tense, it is only the past tense FORM. There's a big difference.

But because it is the past tense form, the rest of the sentence must correspond.

Why must the rest of the sentence correspond, Syntinen? Correspond to what? Following that logic, you prevent certain levels of certainty from being expressed. Why do you think that by choosing 'might' there is a "correspondence"?


Consider this analogy:

If you go to bed early tonight, you will feel better tomorrow

and:

If you went to bed early tonight, you would feel better tomorrow"

Surely you agree that "If you went to bed early tonight, you will feel better tomorrow" is blatantly wrong?

Could you explain to me why it's "blatantly wrong"; not uncommon but blatantly wrong?

At the risk of causing confusion, I am going to mention another "may/might" distinction. In old-fashioned/formal BrE, the word "may" is used to request or grant permission.

I never even saw this post. How did you manage to slip it in, Contrex?

That distinction, using 'may' for permission is still the same to this day, but the prohibition against using 'can' for permission has been a crock for a couple of centuries now.

Furthermore, the word "might" is used when this took place in the past.

"May I leave the room?", asked John.

(John asked if he might leave the room)

"You may." replied the teacher.

(The teacher told him that he might leave the room)

Note that this is entirely distinct and separate from the topic of this thread!

contrex wrote:

JTT wrote:

Contrex, I'm interested in your idea that the words are considered equivalent. Could you please provide some examples where you consider them to be equivalents?

I was going by what the BBC Learning English website says, and my own experience. Do you disagree?

Hello Contrex. Thanks for your reply.

Do I think that they are sometimes equivalents? I guess I'd say no, because they are different modals, though sometimes they come so close to each other that they can easily be seen as equivalents AND because words are highly flexible, it's easy for them to be seen as equivalent.

Have I confused you sufficiently?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/youmeus/learnit/learnitv162.shtml

Note that it says that "might" may suggest a smaller chance etc, not that it invariably does so.

Quote:

may / might

... We can use the modal auxiliaries may or might to say that there is a chance that something is true or may happen. May and might are used to talk about present or future events. They can normally be used interchangeably, although might may suggest a smaller chance of something happening. Compare the following:

* I may go into town tomorrow for the Christmas sales. And James might come with me!
* What are you doing over the New Year, Ann? ~ Oh, I may go to Scotland, but there again, I might stay at home.
* If you go to bed early tonight, you may / might feel better tomorrow.
* If you went to bed early tonight, you may/might feel better tomorrow.
* One of my New Year resolutions is to go to the gym twice a week! ~ And pigs might fly!

Note that 'Pigs might fly' is a fixed expression and always uses might. It means that something will never happen.

Actually there's an equivalent saying, "When pigs fly" which means the same.

I haven't seen anything from that site that supports their contention that the two modals are the same. Actually, they can't be used interchangeably because if a person wants to suggest a stronger possibility they will use 'may', a lesser possibility, 'might'.

These words obviously describe a range of certainty that can/could be expressed numerically because a person can be 1% sure of something or 99.9% sure of something or anything in between.

Now of course, the numbers are much more exact than the modals. The range of certainty described by a modal or a semi-modal [probably/likely/perhaps] have to meet somewhere and it is at these "meeting points" that the difference becomes negligible.

What's the difference between,

He MIGHT WELL come to the party.

AND

He maaayyy come to the party.

The 'might' is right up at the top of its range and the 'may' is down at the bottom of its range, their meeting point and the difference is next to nothing.


In the first conditional example, will perhaps could be substituted.

'maybe' could also be used.

* If you go to bed early tonight, you may / might feel better tomorrow.


In the second conditional example, where might is an alternative for would perhaps, may cannot be substituted.

* If you went to bed early tonight, you might feel better tomorrow.

Why can't 'may' be used here? They provide no reason or reasons.

JTT, you're spouting nonsense. The millisecond after John says "May I leave the room", it is in the past, and so we can refer to him having asked if he might leave the room, irrespective of whether he has actually yet done so.

Contrex, you're awfully quick to disparage others but you offer nothing to justify your assertions.

The only thing that is in the past after John says, "May I leave the room?" is the actual saying which would be reflected in the reporting verb becoming 'said' or 'asked'.

We know that if there is a backshift to might or could, it has nothing to do with past time or a real past tense because what John said can easily be reported directly, as in,

John asked, "May I leave the room?"


A: I like pizza.

B: [to C] What did A say?

C: She said that she likes pizza.


I have not answered your previous question partly because I think you should address it to the authors of the BBC Learning English page to which I attributed it.

You offered this information to YL in order to help him and it's hardly a help that you would now leave him high and dry. If your advice on English is limited to simply offering others good or bad advice, then perhaps you should consider a disclaimer at the bottom of your postings.

There's nothing wrong with being wrong in these discussions. Language is an immensely difficult field of study. What was the other "part"?

Jtt, you're still talking nonsense.

Quote:

'went' is not past tense, it is only the past tense FORM. There's a big difference.

But because it is the past tense form, the rest of the sentence must correspond.

Consider this analogy:

If you go to bed early tonight, you will feel better tomorrow

and:

If you went to bed early tonight, you would feel better tomorrow"

Surely you agree that "If you went to bed early tonight, you will feel better tomorrow" is blatantly wrong?

People have gotten the backshifting that occurs in reported speech, again not an issue of tense, all mixed up and they've come to the mistaken notion that shifting to 'might' makes it the past tense of 'may'. It does not.

Quote:

People have gotten the backshifting that occurs in reported speech, again not an issue of tense, all mixed up and they've come to the mistaken notion that shifting to 'might' makes it the past tense of 'may'. It does not.

JTT, you are a bit confused, I think.


Where "may" has a sense of "capacity", we sometimes find a genuine past-tense "might":

Contrex, if you think that those examples are past tense, then I'm afraid that it you who is confused.

Does 'may' have a sense of 'capacity'. Can you give some examples?

They have no connection to 'may' so the suggestion that 'might' is the past tense of 'may' can be discarded.

You know, Contrex, it's funny but someone brought up these same examples a few years back. Have you found another site that's feeding you more information?

"Of course she was very busy all day long, but whenever she had a little spare time she sat down to spin. Her distaff turned of itself and her spindle span by itself and the flax wound itself off; and however much she might use there was always plenty left."

This doesn't talk of a finished action. It's the same as 'however much you use' time after time, "whatever amount you use" repeatedly. And there is no connection to 'may'.

I say to you; "However much you might say on this, Contrex, you'll never be able to convince anyone".

If someone reads that sentence in 2, 5 or 100 years from now, the 'might' will still be saying the same thing and it won't be saying anything about any past event.

If the reader wonders how many times over the years you, Contrex said more on this issue, they won't, couldn't describe the finished event with,

Contrex might said something after 5 years and might said something after 20 years.

If they know, from some record, they could say, "Contrext said something after 5 years and again after 15 years". If they don't know and they want to speculate, they could say, " Contrex may/might have said something after __ years".

That is how we discuss finished events in modern English when using modals; "modal + have + PP".




"Stilicho's position was not so secure as it seemed. His daughter, the Empress Maria, was dead, but Honorius had been induced to wed her sister Aemilia Materna Termantia, and Stilicho might think that his influence over the Emperor was inpregnable, and might still hope for the union of his son with Placidia. But any popularity he had won by the victory over Gildo, by the expulsion of Alaric from Italy, by the defeat of Radagaisus, was ebbing away."

contrex wrote:

Quote:

People have gotten the backshifting that occurs in reported speech, again not an issue of tense, all mixed up and they've come to the mistaken notion that shifting to 'might' makes it the past tense of 'may'. It does not.

JTT, you are a bit confused, I think.


Where "may" has a sense of "capacity", we sometimes find a genuine past-tense "might":

Contrex, if you think that those examples are past tense, then I'm afraid that it you who is confused.

Does 'may' have a sense of 'capacity'. Can you give some examples?

They have no connection to 'may' so the suggestion that 'might' is the past tense of 'may' can be discarded.

You know, Contrex, it's funny but someone brought up these same examples a few years back. Have you found another site that's feeding you more information?

"Of course she was very busy all day long, but whenever she had a little spare time she sat down to spin. Her distaff turned of itself and her spindle span by itself and the flax wound itself off; and however much she might use there was always plenty left."

This doesn't talk of a finished action. It's the same as 'however much you use' time after time, "whatever amount you use" repeatedly. And there is no connection to 'may'.

I say to you; "However much you might say on this, Contrex, you'll never be able to convince anyone".

If someone reads that sentence in 2, 5 or 100 years from now, the 'might' will still be saying the same thing and it won't be saying anything about any past event.

If the reader wonders how many times over the years you, Contrex said more on this issue, they won't, couldn't describe the finished event with,

Contrex might said something after 5 years and might said something after 20 years.

If they know, from some record, they could say, "Contrext said something after 5 years and again after 15 years". If they don't know and they want to speculate, they could say, " Contrex may/might have said something after __ years".

That is how we discuss finished events in modern English when using modals; "modal + have + PP".




"Stilicho's position was not so secure as it seemed. His daughter, the Empress Maria, was dead, but Honorius had been induced to wed her sister Aemilia Materna Termantia, and Stilicho might think that his influence over the Emperor was inpregnable, and might still hope for the union of his son with Placidia. But any popularity he had won by the victory over Gildo, by the expulsion of Alaric from Italy, by the defeat of Radagaisus, was ebbing away."

No past actions here either;

"Stilicho might think" is the same as "Stilicho thinks" only the speaker expresses a lower level of certainty.

"Stilicho ... might still hope for the union of his son with Placidia."

""Stilicho ... might still hope ..." is the same as "Stilicho ... still hopes ...", only the speaker expresses a lower level of certainty, about, and this is vital, an event that has not yet come to pass.

Clearly a future event in the timeline of this story.

The real test, Contrex is for you to make a sentence where 'might' is used as the past tense of 'may'. It canna be done, Laddie, but knock yourself out.

Quote:

[How do Scots say that/spell that 'canna be done'???]

They say it to rhyme with "Hannah", and they spell it either as you have done, or sometimes "cannae".

contrex wrote:

Quote:

People have gotten the backshifting that occurs in reported speech, again not an issue of tense, all mixed up and they've come to the mistaken notion that shifting to 'might' makes it the past tense of 'may'. It does not.

JTT, you are a bit confused, I think.


Where "may" has a sense of "capacity", we sometimes find a genuine past-tense "might":

Contrex, if you think that those examples are past tense, then I'm afraid that it you who is confused.

Does 'may' have a sense of 'capacity'. Can you give some examples?

They have no connection to 'may' so the suggestion that 'might' is the past tense of 'may' can be discarded.

You know, Contrex, it's funny but someone brought up these same examples a few years back. Have you found another site that's feeding you more information?

"Of course she was very busy all day long, but whenever she had a little spare time she sat down to spin. Her distaff turned of itself and her spindle span by itself and the flax wound itself off; and however much she might use there was always plenty left."

This doesn't talk of a finished action. It's the same as 'however much you use' time after time, "whatever amount you use" repeatedly. And there is no connection to 'may'.

I say to you; "However much you might say on this, Contrex, you'll never be able to convince anyone".

If someone reads that sentence in 2, 5 or 100 years from now, the 'might' will still be saying the same thing and it won't be saying anything about any past event.

If the reader wonders how many times over the years you, Contrex said more on this issue, they won't, couldn't describe the finished event with,

Contrex might said something after 5 years and might said something after 20 years.

If they know, from some record, they could say, "Contrext said something after 5 years and again after 15 years". If they don't know and they want to speculate, they could say, " Contrex may/might have said something after __ years".

That is how we discuss finished events in modern English when using modals; "modal + have + PP".




"Stilicho's position was not so secure as it seemed. His daughter, the Empress Maria, was dead, but Honorius had been induced to wed her sister Aemilia Materna Termantia, and Stilicho might think that his influence over the Emperor was inpregnable, and might still hope for the union of his son with Placidia. But any popularity he had won by the victory over Gildo, by the expulsion of Alaric from Italy, by the defeat of Radagaisus, was ebbing away."

No past actions here either;

"Stilicho might think" is the same as "Stilicho thinks" only the speaker expresses a lower level of certainty.

"Stilicho ... might still hope for the union of his son with Placidia."

""Stilicho ... might still hope ..." is the same as "Stilicho ... still hopes ...", only the speaker expresses a lower level of certainty, about, and this is vital, an event that has not yet come to pass.

Clearly a future event in the timeline of this story.

The real test, Contrex is for you to make a sentence where 'might' is used as the past tense of 'may'. It canna be done, Laddie, but knock yourself out.

Quote:

[How do Scots say that/spell that 'canna be done'???]

They say it to rhyme with "Hannah", and they spell it either as you have done, or sometimes "cannae".

contrex wrote:

Quote:

People have gotten the backshifting that occurs in reported speech, again not an issue of tense, all mixed up and they've come to the mistaken notion that shifting to 'might' makes it the past tense of 'may'. It does not.

JTT, you are a bit confused, I think.


Where "may" has a sense of "capacity", we sometimes find a genuine past-tense "might":

Contrex, if you think that those examples are past tense, then I'm afraid that it you who is confused.

Does 'may' have a sense of 'capacity'. Can you give some examples?

They have no connection to 'may' so the suggestion that 'might' is the past tense of 'may' can be discarded.

You know, Contrex, it's funny but someone brought up these same examples a few years back. Have you found another site that's feeding you more information?

"Of course she was very busy all day long, but whenever she had a little spare time she sat down to spin. Her distaff turned of itself and her spindle span by itself and the flax wound itself off; and however much she might use there was always plenty left."

This doesn't talk of a finished action. It's the same as 'however much you use' time after time, "whatever amount you use" repeatedly. And there is no connection to 'may'.

I say to you; "However much you might say on this, Contrex, you'll never be able to convince anyone".

If someone reads that sentence in 2, 5 or 100 years from now, the 'might' will still be saying the same thing and it won't be saying anything about any past event.

If the reader wonders how many times over the years you, Contrex said more on this issue, they won't, couldn't describe the finished event with,

Contrex might said something after 5 years and might said something after 20 years.

If they know, from some record, they could say, "Contrext said something after 5 years and again after 15 years". If they don't know and they want to speculate, they could say, " Contrex may/might have said something after __ years".

That is how we discuss finished events in modern English when using modals; "modal + have + PP".




"Stilicho's position was not so secure as it seemed. His daughter, the Empress Maria, was dead, but Honorius had been induced to wed her sister Aemilia Materna Termantia, and Stilicho might think that his influence over the Emperor was inpregnable, and might still hope for the union of his son with Placidia. But any popularity he had won by the victory over Gildo, by the expulsion of Alaric from Italy, by the defeat of Radagaisus, was ebbing away."

No past actions here either;

"Stilicho might think" is the same as "Stilicho thinks" only the speaker expresses a lower level of certainty.

"Stilicho ... might still hope for the union of his son with Placidia."

""Stilicho ... might still hope ..." is the same as "Stilicho ... still hopes ...", only the speaker expresses a lower level of certainty, about, and this is vital, an event that has not yet come to pass.

Clearly a future event in the timeline of this story.

The real test, Contrex is for you to make a sentence where 'might' is used as the past tense of 'may'. It canna be done, Laddie, but knock yourself out.

Quote:

[How do Scots say that/spell that 'canna be done'???]

They say it to rhyme with "Hannah", and they spell it either as you have done, or sometimes "cannae".

contrex wrote:

Jtt, you're still talking nonsense.

So I take it that this is as far as you're willing to go in assisting YL, Contrex.