Mr Pedantic wrote:

The OED's 'may/might' entry takes us back to Fortiter's thread:

1. If that were true, he would be wearing a nasturtium in his buttonhole.
2. If that was true, why wasn't he wearing a nasturtium in his buttonhole?

If we were to apply the logic of earlier posts in this thread, 'were' and 'was' would have to be classed as different verbs here, since the subjunctive 'were' in #1 shows 'diminished possibility', while the indicative 'was' in #2 shows fact.

Or do we redefine the subjunctive as inhouse modality?

MrP

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

JT

That is completely illogical, Mr P. You're grasping at straws. Modal verbs and the 'be' verb are more than slightly different.

It's obvious that 'was/were' are past tense forms of the 'be' verb. These forms clearly perform past tense procedures in English,

He was there. We were there. They were taken to jail. I was once a JHS student.

But these past tense FORMS also perform other jobs in language.

1. If they were there, why weren't they wearing nasturtiums in their buttonholes.

2. If what Mr P has said above was true, we wouldn't have millions of examples in use of counterfactual 'if S was'.

Now we have 'were' showing 'fact' and 'was' showing counterfactuality. Flexible little devils, these past tense FORMS.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.orlapubs.com/AL/L86.html

Many [grammarians] that one encounters have a static outlook that cannot envision a re-structuring--the frequent occurrence in grammar of a former category's developing (i.e. simplifying or else growing more complex) into a new structure, or perhaps simply being replaced by another structure for reasons that in principle are predictable.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,

Now we have 'were' showing 'fact' and 'was' showing counterfactuality. Flexible little devils, these past tense FORMS.

Do you mean like this?

Counterfactual: I wish I was at home. (opposite of fact: I'm not at home)

If so, I have to politely disagree:

I wish I was at home. (it's actually possible; factual)
I wish I were at home. (it's impossible; counterfactual)

Casi, if you're at the grocery store and you utter, "I wish I was at home", how can this be, I quote, "actually possible; factual"?

Uhm, . . . let me think. . .

Ah! Here we are: one can make it possible by actually going home?

Was that a trick question, JTT.

With "were", there is no possibility of going home; that's why the speaker uses "were".

I wish I were at home. (meaning, I can't go home; it's not a possibility at this time.)
I wish I was at home. (meaning, I can go home, but it's not a possibility at this time.)

OK. Shall we return to the topic, now, specifically my question to you?

My examples did not relate to 'subjunctive versus indicative', but 'subjunctive and indicative.

In other words, they have nothing to do with our old friend 'if I was/if I were'. I use 'to be' simply because in 'to be' the subjunctive is more visible.

To start again:

---

1. If that were true, he would be wearing a nasturtium in his buttonhole.
2. If that was true, why wasn't he wearing a nasturtium in his buttonhole?

---

#1 has a subjunctive: 'were'. (Some people would say 'was'; but my point here is about the subjunctive, so that's irrelevant.)

#2 has an indicative: 'was'. (This 'was' may not be replaced with a subjunctive 'were'. The 'that' has been accepted as true.)

My point was that if 'may' and 'might' may be classed as separate verbs on the basis of 'diminished possibility' in the latter, so may these two parts of the verb 'to be', since in #1, the 'if that were' shows less possibility than the 'if that was' in #2.

But we know that 'diminished possibility' in this case is simply a function of the subjunctive.

Therefore if the distinction between 'may' and 'might' rests upon 'diminished possibility', as stated in the passage JTT cites in the may/might thread, that in itself is no reason to class them as separate verbs.

MrP

Mr P wrote:
My point was that if 'may' and 'might' may be classed as separate verbs on the basis of 'diminished possibility' in the latter, so may these two parts of the verb 'to be', since in #1, the 'if that were' shows less possibility than the 'if that was' in #2.

But we know that 'diminished possibility' in this case is simply a function of the subjunctive.

Therefore if the distinction between 'may' and 'might' rests upon 'diminished possibility', as stated in the passage JTT cites in the may/might thread, that in itself is no reason to class them as separate verbs.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

It's nice to see you explain your position, Mr P.

The point you need to consider is that 'might' always exhibits a diminished possibility in its epistemic role. It is a separate verb from 'may', should, must, will, probably will, could, can, shall, ought to, etc. It carries a meaning that is different from all of them. Some of them share the same area of meaning but they all express something different.

"If they were at the party" carries two meanings, a subjunctive one and an indicative one. The only way we can know which one it is, is by context. {So too with "If S was ..."}

"If she went to Harvard ..." can also have a "subjunctive" meaning or an indicative one. Are you now suggesting that we have to change the name of all these verbs?

I'm not really sure just what the connection or the point is that you're trying to make but if you and Jim get it, well that's fine.