The tenseless modals verbs of English

historical dialogues

I think you'll find history mostly relates to the past, JT.

---

1. He may fail his exam.
2. You said he might fail his exam.

Modal verbs modify other verbs: here, 'fail'.

'May' in #1 denotes present recognition of the possibility of failure.

'Might' in #2 denotes past recognition of the possibility of failure. (If the exam has not yet taken place, that possibility is still open.)

The 'pastness' of 'might' in #2 resides in its relation to the time of speaking.

(Naturally, many 'may/might' sentences relate to events that never take/took place: it is a verb of possibility.)

MrP

Jim: I think we are all still puzzled by your analysis of examples reported speech.

JTT: I certainly hope that 'all' are not still puzzled, Jim but I understand that you are.

Here's a direct reply to you, Jim, in another thread, that might help you get a better handle on this reported speech thing. The pertinent posts are the last two; one from you and one to you.

[link]

If you had stuck with it then, you probably wouldn't now be puzzled.

Mr P wrote:
I think you'll find history mostly relates to the past, JT.

JTT: A given, Mr P. But within that past, some aspects point to the future. After explaining yourself so well in that post, you're back to your glib responses. These don't help at all, Mr P. They are, as I've mentioned, designed to obscure not enlighten.

You have failed to address those examples, YOUR examples wherein I showed you that they were not past tense examples as you mistakenly believed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr P:
1. He may fail his exam.
2. You said he might fail his exam.

Modal verbs modify other verbs: here, 'fail'.

'May' in #1 denotes present recognition of the possibility of failure.

'Might' in #2 denotes past recognition of the possibility of failure. (If the exam has not yet taken place, that possibility is still open.)

JTT: You are misanalyzing this, but it should be noted, you are misanalyzing it following the traditional prescriptive manner.

Jim: He may fail his exam.
Mr P: {turns to Mr M} Jim said he [some 'he' known to the three] might fail his exam.

How can you suggest that Mr P's reply "denotes past recognition of the possibility of failure". It's not even your choice to express the likelihood of failure because it is NOT your opinion. You are merely telling Mr M that you're not quoting Jim exactly.

If you want to give an accurate portrayal of the likelihood, then you have to quote directly. By quoting directly, even if it comes a long time after the moment of speaking, it doesn't "denote past recognition of the possibility of failure", does it, Mr P?

--------------------------------

Mr P wrote:
The 'pastness' of 'might' in #2 resides in its relation to the time of speaking.

JTT: That's been the traditional, prescriptive tale but she warn't true, I'm afraid.

CGEL:
An ordinary preterite, as in "She loved him for several years", normally locates the situation of her loving him at a time prior to the time of speaking, but that is not what a backshifted preterite does.

[emphasis added is mine]

If as you say, Mr P, "The 'pastness' of 'might' in #2 resides in its relation to the time of speaking", then quoting 'he' directly, as in,

He said, "I may fail my exam."

must also make 'may' a past tense. Is this what you're suggesting, Sir?

Some people respond to every argument with a quotation from the Book of Leviticus, others with a passage from the CGEL. (Not that there's anything wrong with uncritical awe, I hasten to add. )

---

1. 2003 - GWB: The Iraqis are going to hold elections in Iraq in January 2005.

2. Faux News - Same day, 2003 - In news today, GWB said that the Iraqis were going to hold elections in January 2005.

---

In #1, GWB situates the intention in the present.
In #2, Faux News reports on GWB's reporting of that intention. It therefore situates the intention in the past.

In #1, we are to assume that the intention still holds.
In #2, we assume that the intention still holds, though it began in the past; if we wanted to say that it no longer held, we would add a clarifying phrase:

3. Faux News - Same day, 2003 - In news today, GWB said that the Iraqis were going to hold elections in January 2005. However, an Iraqi spokesman later said they'd changed their minds.

In relation to the time of speaking:

a) in #1 the intention is situated as contemporary;
b) in #2 the intention is situated in the past, but the thing intended is still open;
c) in #3, the intention is situated in the past, and the thing intended is closed.

The use of the past tense shows when the intention began. It doesn't show when it stopped.

MrP

Regarding CJ's last examples: if 'might' contains no 'pastness', how do we explain the fact that 'might' here can't be replaced with 'may'?

MrP

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

Could you please try to be more specific in your references Mr P.