2
   

may/might

 
 
solipsister
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2008 04:39 pm
contrex wrote:
Assbergers


Asperse??? Nice neologism putting the b into poor Asperger. Tut tut.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2008 06:21 pm
McTag wrote:
I did one.


Could you point me to it or lead it to me, please, McTag?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2008 06:42 pm
JTT wrote:
McTag wrote:
I did one.


Could you point me to it or lead it to me, please, McTag?


Or did you mean that you did a deal on a bridge?
0 Replies
 
Yoong Liat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Mar, 2008 10:08 pm
Hi JTT

When I ask you to buy grammar and English usage books, I mean you should buy those by Michael Swan and other Briitish or American writers. Don't buy one written by an Asian, for example.

I suggest you buy one by Michael Swan and you will find that what he prescribes is what you already know. I believe you know Michael Swan's book is about British English, so if you read something that you disagree with, it could be his version is BrE while yours is AmE. However, I believe that BrE doesn't differ very much from AmE and so you will, I believe, agree with what Michael Swan prescribes. Or maybe you should buy one written by an American writer and I'm sure that whatever is stated in that book is what you already know.

As for sentences, I provided you with one from the dictionary which gave an example of usage of 'might' as a verb in the past tense, but you said that it is not correct. I also quoted from an AmE native speaker to illustrate the usage of 'might', and you also said that his example is not acceptable. He is a teacher of English and has a school teaching English and yet you disagreed with him.

Mc Tag said he provided one. See his latest post. Contrex wrote a couple of sentences which you also said are not acceptable. This means that you disagree with the dictionary, Contrex and Mc Tag.

How could our discussion continue if you insist you're right without quoting from an authoritative source that my dictionary, Contrex and Mc Tag are wrong? Instead you insist that we have not provided you with sentences to prove our point.

Best wishes.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 12:43 am
solipsister wrote:
contrex wrote:
Assbergers


Asperse??? Nice neologism putting the b into poor Asperger. Tut tut.


Not my "neologism", a common enough US slang usage inspired by the annoying [to some] features of the condition.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 12:46 am
Yoong Liat wrote:
This means that you disagree with the dictionary, Contrex and Mc Tag.

How could our discussion continue if you insist you're right without quoting from an authoritative source that my dictionary, Contrex and Mc Tag are wrong? Instead you insist that we have not provided you with sentences to prove our point.

Best wishes.


You tell her, YL!
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 02:58 am
JTT wrote:
McTag wrote:
I did one.


Could you point me to it or lead it to me, please, McTag?


http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=112158&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=70

Bottom of page 8, penultimate post.

(crosses fingers)
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 03:08 am
Yoong Liat wrote:
Hi JTT

When I ask you to buy grammar and English usage books, I mean you should buy those by Michael Swan and other Briitish or American writers. Don't buy one written by an Asian, for example.

I suggest you buy one by Michael Swan and you will find that what he prescribes is what you already know. I believe you know Michael Swan's book is about British English, so if you read something that you disagree with, it could be his version is BrE while yours is AmE. However, I believe that BrE doesn't differ very much from AmE and so you will, I believe, agree with what Michael Swan prescribes. Or maybe you should buy one written by an American writer and I'm sure that whatever is stated in that book is what you already know.

As for sentences, I provided you with one from the dictionary which gave an example of usage of 'might' as a verb in the past tense, but you said that it is not correct. I also quoted from an AmE native speaker to illustrate the usage of 'might', and you also said that his example is not acceptable. He is a teacher of English and has a school teaching English and yet you disagreed with him.

Mc Tag said he provided one. See his latest post. Contrex wrote a couple of sentences which you also said are not acceptable. This means that you disagree with the dictionary, Contrex and Mc Tag.

How could our discussion continue if you insist you're right without quoting from an authoritative source that my dictionary, Contrex and Mc Tag are wrong? Instead you insist that we have not provided you with sentences to prove our point.

Best wishes.


My dad used to swear by Fowler's Usage and Abusage. And he swore a lot. Smile
My copy of Fowler's is in fact his, but I'm sure it has been updated and is available in modern form.

Despite the opinion of Stephen Pinker and his disciples about these books, I would say that they are invaluable/ indispensible to the EFL learner, as well as interested users in this country and elsewhere.
0 Replies
 
Yoong Liat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 03:46 am
Hi Mc Tag

I've two editions of Fowler's Usage and Abusage. They are the latest editions, I believe. Nowadays, I can't find Fowler's books when I go to bookshops to buy other books.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 04:24 am
Who is this "Fowler"? My copy of Usage and Abusage is by Eric Partridge.
0 Replies
 
Yoong Liat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 04:47 am
Hi Contrex

I went to have a look and found that the title of the book by Fowler is Modern English Usage.

I think Mc Tag either got the title of the book wrong or the name of the author.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 04:57 am
Yes, I know. I was being facetious.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 05:13 am
contrex wrote:
Who is this "Fowler"? My copy of Usage and Abusage is by Eric Partridge.


I checked my bookshelf afterwards- sorry- it's Modern English Usage

Both books good.

(I have to refer to it so seldom...... :wink: )
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 06:21 am
McTag wrote:
contrex wrote:
Who is this "Fowler"? My copy of Usage and Abusage is by Eric Partridge.


I checked my bookshelf afterwards- sorry- it's Modern English Usage

Both books good.

(I have to refer to it so seldom...... :wink: )


Indeed.

Going back to an earlier topic, capability/ permission may/might... I have come up with this.

Jim the BrE speaking amateur sailor was sailing in his little boat at night when it was caught up in a storm. He thought he would drown but at length it was swept onto some rocks. he leapt on to one of them and thought he would be marooned for days. However, when day broke, he could see that there was a line of barely submerged rocks between him and the shore, and he realised that at low tide he might (future in the past) easily walk to land. When the tide had receded enough, he said to himself, "Now I may (present) gain the shore.". Later, when he told his friends about his adventure, he told them how he realised that he might (past) walk to safety.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 09:01 am
contrex wrote:
McTag wrote:
contrex wrote:
Who is this "Fowler"? My copy of Usage and Abusage is by Eric Partridge.


I checked my bookshelf afterwards- sorry- it's Modern English Usage

Both books good.

(I have to refer to it so seldom...... :wink: )


Indeed.

Going back to an earlier topic, capability/ permission may/might... I have come up with this.

Jim the BrE speaking amateur sailor was sailing in his little boat at night when it was caught up in a storm. He thought he would drown but at length it was swept onto some rocks. he leapt on to one of them and thought he would be marooned for days. However, when day broke, he could see that there was a line of barely submerged rocks between him and the shore, and he realised that at low tide he might (future in the past) easily walk to land. When the tide had receded enough, he said to himself, "Now I may (present) gain the shore.". Later, when he told his friends about his adventure, he told them how he realised that he might (past) walk to safety. "So then", says Jim, "*I might walk to the shore*."


"... he realized that he might be able to/could walk to shore."

This shows nothing but the potential to walk to shore, just as "Now I may gain the shore" does. It doesn't describe a past event. "I walked to shore" describes a past event.

Later, when he told his friends about his adventure, he told them how he realised that he might walk to safety. "But", said Jim, "I chickened out and just sat and waited. Luckily, a boat came by and picked me up.


Later, when he told his friends about his adventure, he told them how he realised that he might walk to safety [had the potential to walk to safety]. I said to myself, "Now I may gain the shore". He started out but it was deeper than he thought, so he turned back and waited for a passing boat.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 09:24 am
Quote:


The Decline of Grammar

[reprint from the December 1983 issue of The Atlantic Monthly]

Geoffrey Nunberg


Take Modern English Usage, by that good man H. W. Fowler, "a Christian in all but actual faith," as the Dictionary of National Biography called him. Despite a revision in 1965, it is out-of-date, yet it still has a coterie as devoted as the fans of Jane Austen or Max Beerbohm ...


http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/correct/decline/

0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 09:55 am
Quote:
"... he realized that he might be able to/could walk to shore."

This shows nothing but the potential to walk to shore, just as "Now I may gain the shore" does. It doesn't describe a past event.


It describes a past situation of being capable of walking to shore.

No matter what you say, those who hold to this view will continue to do so, so you may as well pour yourself a nice tall cool glass of...
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 11:55 am
McTag wrote:


McTag: "May I go to the party?"

[I'm asking if I may go to the party.]

Last week, I was wondering if I might go to the party.

Am I wrong?


I'm afraid that you are mistaken to think that might is acting as the past tense of may, McTag.


[quote] The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language

[5]

i ORIGINAL: I love you.

ii REPORT: I said I loved you. You said you loved me.
She / Sue / The doctor said she loved me. I told him / Max /Jill's brother that i loved him.


Tense

Indirect reports commonly have a preterite tense [=past tense] where the original has a present: compare the loved of [5ii] with the love of [5i]. ... We have seen that there is nothing special about the use or meaning of the pronouns in [5ii]: it is the same as in non-reporting utterances. The loved of [5ii], however, does represent a special use of the preterite, the past tense what we call a backshifted preterite.

An ordinary preterite, as in She loved him for several years, normally locates the situation of her loving him at a time prior to the time of speaking, but that is not what a backshifted preterit does.

This is evident from examples like I wish he realized she loved him, where in the intended interpretation the situation of her loving him still obtains at the time of utterance.

=============

[10]

i I have too many commitments. [original utterance: present tense]

ii Jill said that she had too many commitments. [backshifted report: preterit]

In (i), have is in the present tense, whereas in [ii] it is in the preterite: the term backshifted preterite is intended to suggest this change from an original present to a preterite.

We retain the traditional terminology for its mnemonic value but emphasise that backshifting is not conceived of here as a syntactic process: we are not proposing that had is syntactically derived by changing the present tense of an underlying have into a preterite. The issue to be considered is what the preterit means in this construction.

Meaning of the backshifted preterit

The backshifted preterite represents a distinct use of the preterit that differs in meaning from a preterite in its primary use.

[17]

i She had too many commitments.
ii Jill said she had too many commitments.


[quote]
JTT:
We can easily see that the meanings of the two had's are different. In , had refers to an actual finished event, a real past time and a real past tense.

In [ii], with the addition of a reporting verb, had is not a real past tense, nor does it refer to a past time. Here had backshifts, ie. changes into a past tense FORM to denote that we have indirect reported speech.

In [ii], Jane still has the commitments despite the presence of 'had'. Why? Because this 'had' is not a past tense. It is a past tense FORM and what does it signal? NOT past tense but REPORTED SPEECH.
[/quote]

Conversion to indirect reported speech not a matter of grammatical rule

There is a second respect in which we must beware of being misled by the traditional account associating backshift with indirect reported speech. ... Converting into indirect reported speech, however, is not a matter of applying rules of grammar that are specific to this purpose. When I make an indirect report of Jill's speech, I purport to give the content of what she said - as opposed to quoting the actual wording, which is direct reported speech. ...

What is special about the tense is that it is [not identified with the reporter's time of speaking] but with the original speaker's, [and the backshifting to a past tense FORM (in the case of the modals, the HISTORICAL past tense FORM) shows us this relationship].

...

This is how backshift is to be interpreted, not as converting one tense into another.[/quote]
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 03:56 pm
contrex wrote:
Quote:
"... he realized that he might be able to/could walk to shore."

This shows nothing but the potential to walk to shore, just as "Now I may gain the shore" does. It doesn't describe a past event.


It describes a past situation of being capable of walking to shore.

That's a position that's decidedly different from maintaining that 'might is the past tense of 'may', Contrex, but I suspect that you cannot even see or understand that.

Have you heard the saying, "When you're in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging"?


No matter what you say, those who hold to this view will continue to do so, so you may as well pour yourself a nice tall cool glass of...


What you're saying here is that you stand, firmly it appears, by your right to maintain your level of ignorance despite the facts and with that I cannot quibble.

But you can hardly speak for others who may, at this time, just be confused by traditional grammar's dismal analysis of Reported Speech.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
  1. Forums
  2. » may/might
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 05:48:05