You can/may go out...

I don't know how this escapes you, Setanta, [and others] but it really illustrates a profound ignorance to think that you can or should offer advice on a topic when you steadfastly refuse to expose yourself to all the facts.

Yet you make a huge pretense that you are honest and forthright.

No. But I like it.

Mine says might is the past tense of may. They have the same meaning.
And as we have seen here, the present/ past distinction is no longer observed.
And ibid., I would agree with the suggestion that"may" is perhaps more often used in writing, and "might" in modern speech.

No doubt.



We have seen that here because I have stated that here. Oxford is still of the mistaken opinion that modals have tense.





What could this possibly mean? How could Oxford presume to know what any speaker is thinking, how certain any speaker is about what they say.

By this bit of nonthinking, 'must, almost certainly + verb, probably/likely + verb', even 'will', "are generally acceptable in either case".

"be that as it may" illustrates that 'may' is stronger. It suggests "though what you say is quite possible, ...".

I would say that "be that as it might" is not heard anywhere near as much because it doesn't express the same level of certainty.

Here are some more examples, using Oxford;



Same as above; "that may be true" illustrates that the speaker is allowing a greater possibility, that the speaker is "admitting that something is so before making another, more important point:"

A small aside: [I don't believe Oxford even has this accurate. When we use this we aren't "admitting that something is so". We are allowing that there is a relatively strong possibility. If we wanted to "admit that something was so" we'd use 'be' - That is so, but ... .]

Again, using 'might' doesn't provide the same allowance of certainty -- "That might be true, but ...".



We also use 'might' for permission and it shows a much greater deference; it illustrates that the speaker believes much greater politeness is in order. By using 'might' a speaker is in essence saying,

Is there the smallest possibility/chance that ... ?

In both the two Oxford examples from above:

the first; you may confirm my identity with your Case Officer, if you wish

the second: may I ask a few questions?

with a switch to 'might',

1. you might confirm my identity with your Case Officer, if you wish
2. might I ask a few questions?

the expectations are reduced. Those reduced expectations come from 'might' which carries a lower level of possibility.



Here too, 'may' expresses the stronger possibility. It says, "I express my strongest sentiment that she rests in peace".

"might she rest in peace" wouldn't be used because it illustrates a callous disregard for feelings. It expresses a lower expectation that she will rest in peace and that's not what people want to hear at times like this.

We all know when and how to use these words. All native speakers would know not to use 'might' in this case because of the possibility implications that it holds.



I don't know if that's the case or not. It could be but again, since these are such highly personal choices, in the sense of how certain an individual is, I'd say that this is one of the hardest things to make an accurate corpus study of.

Given this evidence and the paucity of evidence on the other side, I think it premature to state that the two modals hold the same level of certainty meaning.

Again, to reiterate, because this is important, epistemic [level of certainty] modal meanings are the base, if you will, from which deontic [social modal meaning] flows. The difference between the deontic uses of 'may' and 'might' are the clearest indication that the two are different.

Most assuredly there comes a point on the level of certainty scale where different modals/semi-modals meet. At that "point", they can sure seem to be the same.

A strongly voice 'might' might/may seem as strong as a weakly voiced 'may'.

But that same thing could happen with 'must' versus 'probably/likely'. That wouldn't make us suggest that those two are equal in certainty level, that, as Oxford suggests, either is acceptable in any case.

That goes so much against what modals are; they are expressions of a highly personal nature.

I'm not going to pick all the way through this again. Don't accuse me of dishonesty, that's getting tedious. In fact, tedium is the name of the game here.

However



This is confused, and harps back to the can/may argument. It refers to permission.

In the might/may case, I am arguing about the meaning in terms of probability only. Both words have quite a few other meanings and usages.

To recap: I am saying

"I may go there tomorrow" and "I might go there tomorrow" have exactly the same meaning.

I don't have to accuse you of dishonesty, McTag. Your actions speak for themselves.

I'm sure that you can see that if you want to proffer advice on something you can't simply pick and chose information to suit your idea.

The 'd' word yet again. The tedium might ['might' used to express a much lower chance of this happening than 'may'] go away if you put your mind to the actual discussion.



It's only you who is confused. If my explanation was too much for you, you should have said something. That would be the honest way.

You can't argue probability only because, as I stated, modals get their deontic [social] meanings from their core epistemic [certainty] meanings. They are inextricably intertwined.

If you took the "quite a few other meanings and usages" and analyzed them you would see that.



You aren't recapping. You are continuing with a fatuous suggestion that isn't supported by anything you have previously said. Nor is it supported by anything you have offered.

Suffering Christ. I believe you may be borderline insane. I am arguing with a lunatic.

You just can't address the language issues, eh, McTag? Language isn't the simplistic nonsense you've been led to believe and as it seems you are unable to go beyond simplistic and nonsense, I guess we end here.

To recap.

The following modals are used in English to ask permission: can, could, would, may, might.

Epistemic modal/semi-modal use:

Expressing certainty

[% range gives an idea of the range of the various modals. Remember, the % doesn't reflect the actual outcome, it only describes the speakers feeling as to the outcome. The number are presented to give an idea of the range, not as absolute values.]

100% certain: will, be going to, be about to, 'be' verb [other future structures]

Very high [90-99%] must, almost certainly + verb

+50% certain: should, probably + verb, likely + verb

Below 50% certain:

Higher range: may, maybe, perhaps

Lower range: might

I came to that conclusion a long time ago. You just don't argue with them!

Note that Cambridge Dictionaries makes that same distinction for 'might'. It points up that it is not simply a measure of possibility, it is used to express that one's statement using 'might' is not very likely. That same feature is not described for 'may', because 'may' stands above 'might' in expressing certainty.

Margo, get serious. McTag has been avoiding the facts from the beginning of the thread.

You, yourself can't argue the facts, Margo, but you seemed eager to "argue" a fiction about language, even when the facts were placed square in front of you.

Under topics. JTT's post is the last, but I cannot find it. I am baffled. Could somebody rectify the problem? Thanks.

I never argue with fools and the obsessive compulsive.

Who the hell cares that much! I have some sort of life...

Teachers who are tired of the nonsense that has been fed to EFL/ESLs. Actually, even everyday run of the mill honest people should care. People who can, simply by checking a dictionary, or noticing how language is used all around them, easily see that 'can' holds more meanings than simply 'ability', Margo.

When reality knocks this hard on one's door, most sensible people answer. That must be some sort of life, steadfastly clutching falsehoods.

McTag has been supplying the facts from the beginning of the thread, and refuting the overheated, misleading, unhelpful and erroneous piffle put up by JTT.

You'rrrrrre being mendacious, McTag. This post of yours is as fine an example as any in this thread of you "refuting".

Some of my posts are commentary, some are for other purposes. Some newcomers doubtless need a beacon from time to time to guide them through the drivel. I am happy sometimes to supply those beacons.

Another fine example of a post in which you "refute", McTag.

I did my refuting a few pages ago. It is silly to be in a "yes it is" "no it isn't" type of conversation, so I leave that kind of thing to you.
None of the links you provide convince me that there is any difference in meaning between may and might, though...because, guess what...there isn't any.

How? By stamping your feet and screaming about the imminent decline of language, the manner in which "educated" folk use something or other, the fine distinctions of language that you can't describe and last but not least, the fine distinctions that you can't understand even when they are shown to you.

That's the extent of your "refuting", McTag. And if you check others posts, you'll find the same thing. That's just how prescriptivists refute because they've got nothing else.

Instead you glom onto one entry from Oxford in which they provided not proof or reasonable effort and they even contradicted themselves.

Better do a review of the meaning of the word 'refute'.

Next sentence.