His eventual defeat might have happened

Forums: English, Esl, Grammar, Might, Modal Verbs
Email this Topic • Print this Page

A text: The need to fight the Japanese before finishing off the Red Army had been forced on Chiang by events beyond his control. His eventual defeat might have happened in any case.

I understand all the usages of MAY and MIGHT, and I only hope those experts here can ascertain my statements: I think in the above MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED can change to MIGHT HAPPEN and it simply depends on where the writer puts himself; because if the writer puts himself in the past in that period, the corresponding present time frame is in the period and he can reasonalby use MIGHT HAPPEN to refer to a 'present' thing; do you agree?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 2,845 • Replies: 47

No top replies

View best answer, chosen by WBYeats

@WBYeats,

No, it mixes the tenses up too much for mine - the previous sentence is using the past tense - switching the next sentence to present tense while still talking about the same event makes it awkward. The writer has already put himself in the now looking back. Switching while still in the same paragraph is confusing, at least to my non-expert native english speaking self.

Your suggestion would work if the writer was putting himself in Chiang's position and saying Chiang was thinking 'My eventual defeat might happen' at the time - but that's not the writer's intention - Chiang is third person.

Just by the by, have you seen this TED talk about how different languages deal with the temporal affects speakers' behaviours?

http://blog.ted.com/2013/02/19/saving-for-a-rainy-day-keith-chen-on-language-that-forecasts-weather-and-behavior/

It's my understanding

1 Reply

@WBYeats,

Quote:

I understand all the usages of MAY and MIGHT, and I only hope those experts here can ascertain my statements:

I'm not sure that you do understand all the usages of MAY and MIGHT, WB, because I know that ESL/EFLs have historically had 'may/might', [and all the other modal verbs], badly described to them.

Quote:

A text: The need to fight the Japanese before finishing off the Red Army had been forced on Chiang by events beyond his control. His eventual defeat might have happened in any case.

I think in the above MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED can change to MIGHT HAPPEN and it simply depends on where the writer puts himself; because if the writer puts himself in the past in that period, the corresponding present time frame is in the period and he can reasonably use MIGHT HAPPEN to refer to a 'present' thing; do you agree?

Please provide an example of what you mean and then we can see if your idea has merit.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT, thank you for giving me so many good replies.

As for the grammar I've learned, I'm not worried about the correctness, because I learn grammar from books written by grammarians who are held in esteem even by native English speakers, but I have to admit that when things cut deep, I can't find answers in them.

In fact, before starting the thread, I had an example from novels that I guessed could justify my usage of changing MIGHT HAVE DONE STH to MIGHT DO STH, but somehow I lost it, and then a few hours ago with God's help I could lay my hands upon it.

In The Hound of the Baskervilles, Watson reports to Holmes, and in that report Watson uses the past tense throughout, apart from conversations. But he has a sentence:

He was on the moor path, about a quarter of a mile off, and a lady was by his side who could only be Miss Stapleton.

According to the context, the correct tense should be COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN, because the meaning is IT WAS ONLY POSSIBLE THAT THE LADY WAS MISS STAPLETON, and using COULD ONLY BE will change the meaning to something that describes a present situation. But Doyle's English, though old-fashioned, isn't anything I can challenge, so I think the reason he uses COULD ONLY BE is that Doyle puts Watson at the time Watson sees Miss Stapleton, rather than the time Watson reports to Holmes.

By the same token, COULD BE can replace COULD HAVE BEEN, then MIGHT HAPPEN should also be able to replace MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED. But since native speakers think I was wrong in thinking so, I hope you can point out my faults; I am happy to stand corrected!

1 Reply

@WBYeats,

Quote:

In The Hound of the Baskervilles, Watson reports to Holmes, and in that report Watson uses the past tense throughout, apart from conversations. But he has a sentence:

He was on the moor path, about a quarter of a mile off, and a lady was by his side who could only be Miss Stapleton.

According to the context, the correct tense should be COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN, because the meaning is IT WAS ONLY POSSIBLE THAT THE LADY WAS MISS STAPLETON, and using COULD ONLY BE will change the meaning to something that describes a present situation. But Doyle's English, though old-fashioned, isn't anything I can challenge, so I think the reason he uses COULD ONLY BE is that Doyle puts Watson at the time Watson sees Miss Stapleton, rather than the time Watson reports to Holmes.

He was on the moor path, about a quarter of a mile off, and a lady was by his side who could only be Miss Stapleton.

I don't think this is an issue of tense and time because tense doesn't always describe time. In your example sentence two things are in the past: I've underlined them. The third, which I've put in red describes the speaker's opinion as to the lady's identity. It uses the modal 'could' which is neither a present or a past tense. English modal verbs are tenseless.

The speaker is saying, "It is my opinion that the only possibility is for that to be Miss Stapleton".

In this case this has the same semantic affect as, "It is my opinion that the only possibility is for that person to have been Miss Stapleton", which equals "It is my opinion that that person could only have been Miss Stapleton", which equals "It is my opinion that the person who was there is Miss Stapleton".

Quote:

but somehow I lost it, and then a few hours ago with God's help I could lay my hands upon it.

Here is an example that is not possible for English. Where you have used 'could', we need 'was able to' --> but somehow I lost it, and then a few hours ago with God's help I was able to lay my hands upon it.

1 Reply

@WBYeats,

Quote:

A text: The need to fight the Japanese before finishing off the Red Army had been forced on Chiang by events beyond his control. His eventual defeat might have happened in any case.

I understand all the usages of MAY and MIGHT, and I only hope those experts here can ascertain my statements: I think in the above MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED can change to MIGHT HAPPEN and it simply depends on where the writer puts himself; because if the writer puts himself in the past in that period, the corresponding present time frame is in the period and he can reasonably use MIGHT HAPPEN to refer to a 'present' thing; do you agree?

No, I don't agree, WB. The writer can not "put himself in the past in that period". MIGHT HAPPEN refers to a future.

If the writer had actually been present at that time, the quote would look like this;

The need to fight the Japanese before finishing off the Red Army has been forced on Chiang by events beyond his control. His eventual defeat might happen in any case.

Note the shift from the past perfect [had been forced] to the present perfect [has been forced]. Now MIGHT HAPPEN is required to point to a small potential, in the eyes of the speaker/writer as to the likelihood of a future Chiang defeat.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Oh, I forgot the rule of not using COULD for a particular past instance! I'm happy to see my mistake pointed out!

As to other parts of your answer, they are excellent; thank you; I need some time to read them again.

1 Reply

@WBYeats,

Quote:

Oh, I forgot the rule of not using COULD for a particular past instance!

Which clearly points up that COULD is not the past tense of CAN.

1 Reply

As discussed, to refer to a past thing we must say:

-MIGHT HAVE DONE STH or MAY HAVE DONE STH

If in a lesson a teacher at the beginning tells his student: This lesson can be very different from what you might think., does it necessarily refer to a present thing?

1 Reply

@WBYeats,

Quote:

As discussed, to refer to a past thing we must say:

-MIGHT HAVE DONE STH or MAY HAVE DONE STH

If in a lesson a teacher at the beginning tells his student: "This lesson can be very different from what you might think.", does it necessarily refer to a present thing?

No, WB, it refers to a general condition - the potential in the teacher's mind that this student believes a certain something to be the case. When we believe something, it occurs in the past starting at the point it came to be believed, it holds in the present and it goes into the future, at least to the point where the student's mind could be changed by what he/she hears from the teacher.

This lesson can be very different

Your use of CAN doesn't sound quite natural. COULD [= it's possible], MIGHT [1 to 25% certainty], MAY [=26 to50% certainty], PROBABLY WILL [= 51 to 75% certainty], VERY LIKELY WILL [=76 TO 89% certainty], ALMOST CERTAINLY WILL [90 to 99% certainty], WILL [stating 100% certainty], MOST DEFINITELY WILL [110% certainty] sound like more natural choices, depending of course on what is needed for the language situation.

CAN is normally used to describe general possible conditions --> It can rain heavily there this time of year, not specific, one time instances of possibility.

I suppose it could/can be used to strongly reassert if someone has put forward a denial.

2 Replies

@JTT,

Thank you, JTT. You have reminded me of a lot of things and clarified them~

0 Replies

@JTT,

Sometimes whether a situation is general is difficult to tell.... Is the following one?:

-What is stated in dictionaries can very well be the biased opinions of the editors.

2 Replies

@WBYeats,

Quote:

Sometimes whether a situation is general is difficult to tell.... Is the following one?:

-What is stated in dictionaries can very well be the biased opinions of the editors.

I agree it is, WB. But that's usually the case with stand alone sentences. In real life there is enough context.

As to your example, yes, it does show the general condition, both what is in dictionaries and that some editors hold biases.

I don't know how developed your sense of this is but just think of a situation where a one time event takes place and we speculate on that situation - I gave the example of a group surreptitiously choosing colored magnets.

With everyone sitting there and no one knowing exactly what color anyone has, hearing "Bob can have a blue one" immediately conjures a deontic/social sense modal feeling of permission, not one of an epistemic/level of certainty meaning.

0 Replies

@WBYeats,

Are you surprised at the distinct lack of English native speakers providing examples sentences showing how modals have tense, WB?

0 Replies

@JTT,

For

-I'm so glad that you could come.

Can COULD be replaced by CAN? I think not, because it seems to refer to a past thing, but I'm not sure....

1 Reply

@WBYeats,

Quote:

For

I'm so glad that you could come.

Can COULD be replaced by CAN? I think not, because it seems to refer to a past thing, but I'm not sure....

I'm going to guess that this example, which I've put in blue is being spoken at this moment, as in,

===========
[Mary walks into John's house for a party that she wasn't sure she would be able to attend]

John: Heeeelllllooooo Mary, what a nice surprise! I'm so glad that you could come.

Mary: Thanks, John. I'm glad to be here. I didn't/don't have to work late after all.
=================

I really can't think of anyway that 'can' could be used in this circumstance. However, that doesn't mean that COULD is the past tense of CAN. That simply means that this is one of the meanings that COULD fulfills.

A possible paraphrase for, I'm so glad that you could come is,

I'm so glad that the conditions exist at this time for you to be able to come to my party.

As you know, I gave a description, there are situations for the present where COULD, MAY & MIGHT all work, but CAN does not. That's two purported past tense modals - COULD & MIGHT - working in a present situation.

Again, it's a semantic connection, not a syntactic one. And this "close" similarity is only really apparent for CAN & COULD because they share the same wide meaning - IT'S POSSIBLE.

Let's look at that same situation, with a twist.

[Mary walks into John's house for a party that she wasn't sure she would be able to attend]

John: Heeeelllllooooo Mary, what a nice surprise! I'm so glad that you could come.

Mary: Thanks, John. I'm glad to be here. I didn't have to work late after all.

1) John [on the phone to JTT]: Jtt, guess what! Mary was able to come to my party after all.

[COULD is not possible here]

2) John [walks into the kitchen and says to some other friends]: Tom, Jill, guess what! *Mary could come to my party after all.*

[*------* denotes ungrammatical for the situation]

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

[Mary walks into John's house for a party that she wasn't sure she would be able to attend]

John: Heeeelllllooooo Mary, what a nice surprise! I'm so glad that you could come.

Mary: Thanks, John. I'm glad to be here. I didn't have to work late after all.

[Next day, John phones me [JTT] to talk]

John: JTT, guess what! Mary was able to come to my party after all.

JTT: John, Mary can't have been there at your party last night. She was with me all day and all night yesterday. That was an imposter.

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

Notice the use of CAN'T in this clearly past tense/past time situation. Yes, COULDN'T is also possible but it doesn't have the same strong denial as CAN'T. This is because CAN is a more reality based, a more certain IT'S POSSIBLE than COULD is.

[COULD is also not possible in the blue sentence above]

John: JTT, guess what! *Mary could come to my party after all*.

[*------* denotes ungrammatical for the situation]

0 Replies

Thank you, JTT. I will come back to the CAN/COULD question later.

In the Murder of Roger Ackroyd is a sentence:

-(part of a dialogue)He might have got there in a quarter of an hour if he ran
(a person doing some inference, so it's not a counter-factual conditional)

Is it for the same reason regarding the original Chiang question that Agatha Christie uses MIGHT HAVE GOT instead of MIGHT GET?

1 Reply

@WBYeats,

A text: The need to fight the Japanese before finishing off the Red Army had been forced on Chiang by events beyond his control. His eventual defeat might have happened in any case.

Quote:

In the Murder of Roger Ackroyd is a sentence:

-(part of a dialogue)He might have got there in a quarter of an hour if he ran
(a person doing some inference, so it's not a counter-factual conditional)

Is it for the same reason regarding the original Chiang question that Agatha Christie uses MIGHT HAVE GOT instead of MIGHT GET?

CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT, WB. Context is paramount to determining language use.

1 Reply

Sorry, JTT.

Do you mean this?:

http://esl-bits.net/ESL.English.Learning.Audiobooks/The_Murder_of_Roger_Ackroyd/Ch20/default.html

0 Replies

@JTT,

A text: The need to fight the Japanese before finishing off the Red Army had been forced on Chiang by events beyond his control. His eventual defeat might have happened in any case.

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

Quote:

In the Murder of Roger Ackroyd is a sentence:

-(part of a dialogue)He might have got there in a quarter of an hour if he ran
(a person doing some inference, so it's not a counter-factual conditional)

Is it for the same reason regarding the original Chiang question that Agatha Christie uses MIGHT HAVE GOT instead of MIGHT GET?

Yes, that [copied below] is the context I was referring to, WB. Thanks.

What do you think the difference would be if it was a "counter-factual conditional"?

‘Those alibis now. Worthless! Absolutely worthless. Got to start again. Find out what everyone was doing from nine-thirty onwards. Nine-thirty - that’s the time we’ve got to hang on to. You were quite right about the man Kent we don’t release him yet awhile. Let me see now - nineforty-five at the Dog and Whistle. He might have got there in a quarter of an hour if he ran. It’s just possible that it was his voice Mr Raymond heard talking to Mr Ackroyd asking for money which Mr Ackroyd refused. But one thing’s clear - it wasn’t he who sent the telephone message.

0 Replies

His eventual defeat might have happened

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know