Can / Could and Will / Would

Share on Facebook

MrPedantic

#77967 Thu, 03 Mar 05 02:07 AM

If they were synonynous, I would not be able to distinguish between these two sentences:

1. I may have gone sailing last week.
2. I might have gone sailing last week.

But as they stand, I know that:

1. = it is possible that I went sailing last week.
2a. = it is possible that I went sailing last week, but not so possible as #1.
2b. = it was possible for me to go sailing last week, but I didn't, because something else prevented me from going sailing.

Meanings 1 and 2b are quite distinct. I can discern them without further context. Where does that distinction reside?

MrP

MrPedantic

Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004

Veteran Member (12,053)

...opella forensis / adducit febris...

CalifJim

#77977 Thu, 03 Mar 05 02:35 AM

Hi, equivocal,

I think Mr. P. has a different reading of "I might have gone sailing" than you do.

You are thinking of "may", "might", and "could" as synonyms for "it is possible that". So your reading of it is something like this:

I [may / might] have gone sailing, I don't know. I have a terrible memory.
It is possible that I went sailing.

Mr. P. is thinking of "might" (and possibly "could", but not "may") as synonyms for "I had the [ability / possibility / opportunity] to go sailing". In other words, he sees "I might have gone sailing" as something akin to "I could have gone sailing" or "I would have been able to go sailing" or, more loosely, "I missed a chance to go sailing". Try putting "And to think" in front of it if you want to see a little better what I mean. Or even "instead" at the end as well.

"And to think I might have gone sailing instead!"

I don't read that as "And to think it is possible that I went sailing instead!" It reads more like "And to think I had an opportunity (which I failed to follow up on) to go sailing ..."

Stated differently, I think you are interpreting "might" as an epistemic modal in that context and Mr. P and I are interpreting it as a dynamic modal.

equivocal, Mr. P. Let me know if I've got this wrong. I don't want to put words in your mouths.

CJ

CalifJim

Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004

California

Veteran Member (16,968)

"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche

Modals, Synonyms

equivocal

#77978 Thu, 03 Mar 05 02:36 AM

I believe that the reading of 2b is extracted based on extrenal knowledge of the use of 'might'. 'Might' in itself carries no such reading, so a learner of English would be unable to disambiguate between the two. Native tend to favour certain constructions where their nuances are concerned. So 2b would be a reading that you have learnt not as part of the grammar, but part of the stylistic use of language.

With that stylistic distinction in place, a difference in the constructions arise. However the differences do not reside in grammar and they are certainly not tensal ones but instead they are differences of stylistic use.

Would you personally choose constructions 1 & 2 over a construction like:

3. I would have gone sailing last week

This would seem to be the neutral and unmarked construction. You wouldn't use 1 & 2 unless you had something special to convey. I might be wrong though, it could be a dialectal preference. Best way to find out, ask around Smile [:)]

equivocal

Joined on Tue, Mar 1 2005

Junior Member (58)

Constructions, Grammar

equivocal

#77979 Thu, 03 Mar 05 02:38 AM

Stated differently, I think you are interpreting "might" as an epistemic modal in that context and Mr. P and I are interpreting it as a dynamic modal.

Dear CJ,

It is likely, but I will argue that the epistemic reading is the unmarked one while the dynamic reading is the stylistic one. Either way, tense has no bearing on the semantics of modals.

eq

equivocal

Tenses, Modals

CalifJim

#77988 Thu, 03 Mar 05 03:03 AM

eq,

Do you think the deontic modal is marked/stylistic, too?

"I asked if I might sit beside the mayor."

Also, do you mean to draw a distinction between "marked" and "stylistic"?

Jim

CalifJim

Modals

MrPedantic

#78035 Thu, 03 Mar 05 08:04 AM

Hello CJ and equivocal

Interesting territory.

CJ's analysis of my examples is correct – I hear the 'may' sentence as 'positive', and the 'might' sentence as 'negative', even without context.

I'm still slightly confused about 2 things:

First, we devise the logical model on the understanding that 'may' and 'might' are synonymous (so the 'may' model can stand for the 'might' model). Yet we then use that model to demonstrate that – 'might' and 'may' are synonymous. Isn't that a circular reference?

Second, the argument goes that 'may' is not to be distinguished grammatically from 'might'. The difference is contextual or stylistic. But isn't grammar that which we extract from all the contexts in which something is used?

(That for instance is how we write the grammar of a previously unknown language.)

MrP

MrPedantic

Grammar, Negatives

CalifJim

#78043 Thu, 03 Mar 05 09:03 AM

tense has no bearing on the semantics of modals

I'm trying to analyze this sentence, especially in terms of its ramifications.

Which of the following are consistent with that sentence?

No modal verb expresses tense.
No modal verb expresses a relationship in time.
When determining the meaning of a modal (separate from its use in a sentence), tense is irrelevant, i.e., no tense is carried within the modal itself.
When determining the meaning of a modal as used in a particular sentence, tense is irrelevant, i.e., nothing about the modal word determines what tense the sentence is in.
Modals are in effect adverbs, although they have a different grammar.
The meaning of a modal verb contains no information about tense or time.
Modals do not even express "present tense" by default; nor are they ever ambiguous in terms of tense; they simply have no tense whatseoever. They are neither past, nor present, nor future.
Modals are never the "main verb" of a sentence; the non-finite verb which follows the modal is to be considered the "main verb".
A sentence with a modal has no tense whatsoever, not even "present tense" by default; nor is the tense of such a sentence even ambiguous; the sentence simply has no tense at all. "I could read for hours", for example, is not ambiguous as to tense, depending on our reading of it; it simply "has no tense".
"I should have brought my wallet" is a tenseless sentence.
"I should have brought my wallet" is in the present tense because "have" is a present tense form.
"I should have brought my wallet" is in the past tense because "brought" is a past tense form.

CJ

CalifJim

Verbs, Tenses, Modals, Grammar, Past tenses, Adverbs, Present tenses, Modal verbs

CalifJim

#78047 Thu, 03 Mar 05 09:21 AM

eq,

I know I am just plaguing you with questions, but your ideas are so novel and unorthodox (for me, anyway) that I'd like to understand better what you're saying.

I believe that the reading of 2b is extracted based on extrenal knowledge of the use of 'might'.

What does "external knowledge of the use" of a word mean?
Are we to infer that there is also "internal knowledge" of the use of a word? If so, maybe you could explain what that means, too? Smile [:)]

a reading that you have learnt not as part of the grammar, but part of the stylistic use of language

So you are saying there's a difference between the grammatical use of language and the stylistic use of language? Sorry, but I don't get it! Do you mean something like idioms when you say stylistic?

CJ

CalifJim

Grammar, Difference between, Idioms

equivocal

#78181 Thu, 03 Mar 05 09:43 PM

delete this please

equivocal

1 2 3 4 5