POLL 4 on a very simple argument especially designed for Sarkus

[Yazata]

It seems it's time for an English lesson. I think we can all learn something from this - especially Speakpigeon.

If you click on Speakpigeon's name on each of his posts, you get a grey box that says that he's a male in Paris, France, EU. So I'm guessing that English might be (or may be) a second language for him. (If so, he was taught well. His English is very good.) But maybe he was taught the might/may distinction in a way that sounds peculiar and a bit off to native English-speakers' ears. It may (or might) be a bit disconcerting for him to learn that native Anglophones of the Californian (me) and Australian (you) variety don't use these words in quite the way he could have (eek!) conceivably learned was correct.

I'm inclined to think that regardless of the subtleties of English usage and when it might sound better to the ear to use one or the other, 'may', 'might', 'could be' and 'could have' can all be symbolized in formal logic by the modal possibility operator.

 

[James R]

Yazata:

If you click on Speakpigeon's name on each of his posts, you get a grey box that says that he's a male in Paris, France, EU. So I'm guessing that English might be (or may be) a second language for him. (If so, he was taught well. His English is very good.)

If his own English is not up to scratch, then he'd probably do better than to make uninformed pronouncements on English usage. I agree that his English appears to be good, in general, so maybe, like me, he just wasn't aware of the subtleties in how these particular words are generally used, or how people think they should be used (which is a separate matter).

But maybe he was taught the might/may distinction in a way that sounds peculiar and a bit off to native English-speakers' ears.

Obviously he picked it up somewhere. A web search on the issue of "may" vs "might" turns up lots of sites - many of which appear to have copied the same original source (unknown, since no acknowledgment is given) - that show that some people think, as Speakpigeon does, that "might" implies a lower level of probability than "may". Many other writers regard this as a distinction that doesn't really exist in the language, since usage is so inconsistent across different writers/speakers. Most authorities do, however, agree that "might" is to be preferred over "may" in the context of past-tense counterfactual examples (i.e. events that could conceivably have happened in the past, but did not in fact occur). Usually, in that context, the word "might" is coupled as "might have".

It may (or might) be a bit disconcerting for him to learn that native Anglophones of the Californian (me) and Australian (you) variety don't use these words in quite the way he could have (eek!) conceivably learned was correct.

I get the impression that there are some differences in usage between writers in Britain and the United States (which are reflected in the OED and MW definitions). It is possible that the "probability" distinction between "might" and "may" is more prevalent in the US than in Britain. It is also likely that a native French speaker who learned English from a US teacher (or using US sources) might end up with more American usages than British ones.

In Australia, the way English words are used tends, as a general rule, to follow British usage more often than American usage, though there are exceptions and there are also plenty of peculiarly Australian usages (though not in this particular case). I would have liked to consult the Macquarie dictionary along with the others, but it is apparently behind an internet paywall, and I only have hard-copy OEDs at hand.

As an aside, I also looked at my copy of Mind the Gaffe: The Penguin Guide to Common Errors in English by R.L. Trask, a grammar specialist. Dr Trask was born and grew up in the US (New York state), but obtained his PhD at the University of London, and he lectures (lectured?) at the University of Sussex. His first sentence on the subject is this:

"In the present tense, either of these is acceptable, though ['may'] perhaps suggests a somewhat greater degree of confidence than ['might']."

I'm inclined to think that regardless of the subtleties of English usage and when it might sound better to the ear use one or the other, 'may', 'might', 'could be' and 'could have' can all be symbolized in formal logic by the modal possibility operator.

I agree.

 

[Sarkus]

Being a native speaker of the language in question I can assure you that you can sensibly use either in almost any context where it is appropriate. There are a few guidelines, not rules per se, such as using "may" when asking for permission. E.g. if you're asked of the chances of your team winning, you would tend to say "we might win" rather than "we may win", as the latter could sound as if you will win if you get the necessary permission to do so.
But most of the time, at least in good ol' Blighty, they are interchangeable, and a matter of what sounds better. It even differs by region: in the north of England they use "might" in more scenarios when in the south they may use "may".

As has been expressed many times now, though, they both express possibility, irrespective of the level of probability one attaches to the words. So if one's concern is with regard possibility then either is acceptable, and to reject points made that use "might" instead of "may" is simply a red-herring and an attempt to avoid the points.

 

[Speakpigeon]

A comment on the gerrymandering of language in this thread. James R mentions this: (sorry didn't use the reply option, perhaps James has lost interest anyway) I still remember teachers who would correct their children about asking permission, viz: Kid: "Miss Teacher, can I go outside and play?" Teach: "Of course you can, but you may not." Kid: "Well, might I go out and play?" Teach: "That depends, have you done the spelling assignment for today?" (note Teach here introduces a condition) Kid: "Well, perhaps I have, perhaps I haven't." (this kid is smarter than he looks) Teach: "Well, then perhaps you might hand it to me. If it's finished then you may go and play, ok?" So, perhaps Speakpidgin thinks he can change the Oxford Dictionary (without reading it!), but then he might find out about how teachers can keep naughty children in the classroom. Since they may do so according to the (now somewhat defunct) legal definition of in loco parentis.

Don't go into dictionaries.
That's all I'm saying.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It seems it's time for an English lesson. I think we can all learn something from this - especially Speakpigeon.

Let's compare two dictionaries from opposite sides of the ditch, on the definitions of "may" and "might".

may
Oxford English Dictionary (OED): The OED notes that "may" is a modal verb. As its first two meanings, the OED gives:
1. Expressing possibility (e.g. "That may be true.")
2. Used to ask for or give permission (e.g. "May I ask a few questions?")

Mirriam-Webster (MW) gives the following primary meanings:
1a. (archaic) have the ability to.
1b. Have permission to; be free to.
1c. Used to indicate possibility or probability.
----

Notice at this point that the OED says nothing about whether the probability is high or low or in between when using "may" to indicate possibility or (in the case of MW) probability.
----

might
OED:
1. past tense of "may".
1.1 Used in reported speech, to express possibility or permission.
‘he said he might be late’
1.2 Expressing a possibility based on an unfulfilled condition.
'we might have won if we'd played better’
1.3 Expressing annoyance about something that someone has not done.
‘you might have told me!’
1.4 Expressing purpose.
‘he avoided social engagements so that he might work’

2. Used tentatively to ask permission or to express a polite request.
‘might I just ask one question?’
‘you might just call me Jane, if you don't mind’
2.1 Asking for information, especially condescendingly.
‘and who might you be?’

3 Used to express possibility or make a suggestion.
‘this might be true’
‘you might try pain relievers

MW:
past tense of may.

1 —used to express permission, liberty, probability, or possibility in the past
'The president might do nothing without the board's consent."
2 —used to say that something is possible
We might get there before it rains.
I might go, but then again, I might not.
3 —used to express a present condition contrary to fact
If you were older you might understand.
4a —used as a polite alternative to may
Might I ask who is calling?
b —used as a polite alternative to ought or should
You might at least apologize.
I might have known she'd be late.
---

Notice that neither dictionary says anything about a low probability being attached to "might".

Notice also that both the OED and MW give the primary definition of "might" as the "past tense of 'may'".
Thus (and these are my examples now):

'I may go to the football today.'
'I might have gone to the football yesterday.'
'He says he may be late for the meeting this afternoon.'
'He said he might be late for yesterday's meeting.'
​

However, both dictionaries also recognise that most people don't follow the "rule" that "might" is only to be used to refer to past events. In practice these days, many people use "might" interchangeably with "may", to express present possibility.

The OED has a helpful explanatory article on when to use "may" vs "might", and how they are used. It can be found here. Quoting that article:

"In practice, this distinction [between present-tense and past tense use of 'may' and 'might'] is rarely made today and the two words are generally interchangeable:

I might go home early if I’m tired. He may have visited Italy before settling in Nuremberg." ​

The OED does note one exception to this interchangeability, concerning events in the past that were possible at the time but did not actually occur:

"But there is a distinction between may have and might have in certain contexts. If the truth of a situation is still not known at the time of speaking or writing, either of the two is acceptable:

By the time you read this, he may have made his decision. I think that comment might have offended some people.​

If the event or situation referred to did not in fact occur, it's better to use might have:

The draw against Italy might have been a turning point, but it didn't turn out like that."
​

---
In this context, let us compare Speakpigeon's preferred usage of "may" and "might" with mine. Here's Speakpigeon:
Clearly, Speakpigeon is wrong to say that "nobody" uses "may" to mean "might", because, as both dictionaries agree, in current general usage the words are interchangeable. According to the dictionaries cited, Speakpigeon is also wrong to say that "might" signals a low probability. Since it is largely interchangeable with "may", it merely signals possibility, with no particular estimate of probability. Neither dictionary makes any mention of a level of probability in the definition of either word, although interestingly the MW does list both "possibility" and "probability" in the definitions whereas the OED mentions only "possibility".

What this means, of course, is that for the purposes of the current thread, whether any given poster uses "may" or "might" to refer to possibility is irrelevant, since the two words are effectively interchangeable in the context of Speakpigeon's "logical proof".

As for my position, I said I prefer to use "may" in the sense of permission, and "might" to indicate possibility. The OED has a separate article on the proper usage of "can" vs "may", highlighting the difference between ability and permission. I won't post that here, since it is not really relevant to the thread topic, and the matter is explored sufficiently by arfa brane anyway, just above this post.

It is clear that my personal usage of the words "may" and "might" is not inconsistent with the usage of those words given in both of the quoted dictionaries, whereas Speakpigeon's usage - and his insistence on how "everybody" uses the two words - is inconsistent with both of those sources.

Having said that, because I have learned from my research on this topic, from now on I will probably make a few little changes in how I personally use those two words, though not in a way that makes any difference to the discussion in this thread.

---
Here endeth the lesson.

Derail.
End of Do you have a relevant point lesson.
Short, but to the point.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Good, I think I know all I was interested knowing.
Thanks to all those who contributed, however unwillingly, and I can confirm I did learn something here about human nature and the parochial realities of life.
EB

 

[arfa brane]

Not much to say this time eh?

 

[arfa brane]

Don't go into dictionaries.
That's all I'm saying.

pathetic.

 

[Yazata]

Being a native speaker of the language in question I can assure you that you can sensibly use either in almost any context where it is appropriate. There are a few guidelines, not rules per se, such as using "may" when asking for permission.

Yes, the same thing is true here in California too. Around here, in casual situations where things are less formal, one often asks permission by saying "Can I..." rather than "May I...", because the latter sounds affected somehow. If one is a guest, saying "May I..." communicates respect more than familiarity. Relaxing with friends, one would be more likely to say "Can I...".

It's becoming common usage despite all the English teachers telling kids that it's wrong. It's kind of interesting how kids will start a change in language usage and a few decades later the adults are doing it too (since they used to be the kids).

E.g. if you're asked of the chances of your team winning, you would tend to say "we might win" rather than "we may win", as the latter could sound as if you will win if you get the necessary permission to do so.

That's possibly part of what's driving the drift in favor of 'might'. 'Might' certainly doesn't seem to be associated with past-tense any longer. "Will you be going to the store tomorrow? I might."

But most of the time, at least in good ol' Blighty, they are interchangeable, and a matter of what sounds better. It even differs by region: in the north of England they use "might" in more scenarios when in the south they may use "may"

They are effectively interchangeable here in California too. Like you, we go with whatever sounds better, and there might not be any formal rule governing that. It's more a matter of social custom.

There are regional variations in American English too, but I don't know if they extend to how 'may' and 'might' are used.

As has been expressed many times now, though, they both express possibility, irrespective of the level of probability one attaches to the words.

There is a usage that communicates probability with emphasis. "Will you be going to the store tomorrow? I might." The vocal emphasis on the 'might' indicates that it's iffy. One could do the same emphasis thing with 'may', so it isn't the word but rather the emphasis that's doing it.

So if one's concern is with regard possibility then either is acceptable, and to reject points made that use "might" instead of "may" is simply a red-herring and an attempt to avoid the points.

That's how it seemed to me.

 

[iceaura]

I'm inclined to think that regardless of the subtleties of English usage and when it might sound better to the ear to use one or the other, 'may', 'might', 'could be' and 'could have' can all be symbolized in formal logic by the modal possibility operator.

The only relevance of English usage to the OP argument is in figuring out what the OP poster meant. Once having done that, we see that the poster is not in difficulty due to aberrant English but aberrant logic - poor reasoning.
See post 26, for example.
Or post 28.
Or the comment, in another thread, that this entire schtick of his has a name: the "Modal Fallacy".
- - - -
As far as usage, "may" or "might": one go-to authority would be Gardner's "Modern American Usage":

These words occupy different positions on a continuum of possibility - - - might expresses a stronger sense of doubt - - -

Difficulties are especially common in negative forms, - - {esp. involving future possibilities}

Misusing might for may runs contrary to the tendency to suppress SUBJUNCTIVES in modern English. But it does occur - - - -

 

[arfa brane]

If I may, I might mention that The Kid is given a condition, the verb tenses of "may" and "might" are then subjunctive.

The question "Might I go outside?" means Th'Kid is expecting a subjunctive response.
No fool this Kid.

As "Might I drive your car?" depends on some condition or set of conditions, "May I drive your car?" is dependent.
A response to either question that goes, "Probably", is incongruent with the whole concept of a subjunctive tense.

Unless before it, the responder lists a set of conditions, "If you put some gas in the tank, if you have a driver's license, if you have personal liability coverage, . . .
then probably."

Latin is specific about the form a subjunctive "takes", English is a big mess thanks to being mashed around with an early Celtic, Latin, Anglo-Saxon, Norman French, Danish, and that's only up to the 11th century. English isn't a good choice for framing logical arguments, nor is French or most of the others.

Hence a symbolic "language" where the symbols can be read as being like connectives, or "if-then-else" constructions; it might have a distinction between, say, implication and material implication. But what it has is what it "needs to have", a concise or precise method, free of linguistic ambiguities.