The tenseless modals verbs of English

JTT wrote: I have read Professor Lawler's offerings a number of times and I'm still reading and cogitating on the one you offered. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

You're very welcome.

Have you viewed http://www.orlapubs.com/AL/L39.html, or is that what you're working from?

With regards to dialect variation (re: may versus might), sheesh, I don't know what came over me. I was completely in the wrong: there isn't a variation across those dialects. My apologies and, as a peace offering, I shall replace it with something a tad more palatable:

Uses of May and Might Avoid confusing the sense of possibility in may with the implication of might, that a hypothetical situation has not in fact occurred. For instance, let's say there's been a helicopter crash at the airport. In his initial report, before all the facts are gathered, a newscaster could say that the pilot "may have been injured." After we discover that the pilot is in fact all right, the newscaster can now say that the pilot "might have been injured" because it is a hypothetical situation that has not occurred. Another example: a body had been identified after much work by a detective. It was reported that "without this painstaking work, the body may have remained unidentified." Since the body was, in fact, identified, might is clearly called for. Read more here. . . Source: http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/auxiliary.htm#may

Thanks for the links, Casi. Very interesting.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were something in what you say about dialect variation.

Previous threads have shown that different people hear conditional and modal verbs slightly differently.

And it's no advantage to MrX to feel 'pastness' in might, and to MrY not to feel 'pastness'. The same is true of whether they regard 'might' and 'may' as the same verb or not.

For instance, it might seem conclusive that 'might' and 'may' derive from the same original verb; that 'might' is substituted for 'may' in subordinate clauses; that 'may' and 'might' are very close in meaning. Duck head+duck body+duck feet usually = duck.

But if someone says 'that's not a duck at all; the feet have one function, the body has another, and the head yet another; it's three different kinds of bird stuck together' – how can we demonstrate otherwise?

I suppose we might say, can those parts function independently? But then independent action will be ruled out as a criterion.

It's not even a case of tomato and tomato. It's 'I say tomato, you say pineapple'.

Mysterious.

MrP

Mr P:
Thanks for the links, Casi. Very interesting.

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

You couldn't have done more than glanced at the box "May/might", at the 'commnet' site, Mr P. If you had, you'd have noticed the glaring inconsistencies that show "that different people DO NOT hear conditional and modal verbs slightly differently.

Some just analyse them badly and think they are describing English. That's precisely what you've done.

1. 2003 - GWB: The Iraqis are going to hold elections in Iraq in January 2005. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr P: In #1, GWB situates the intention in the present. JTT: No it doesn't Mr P. GWB's speech clearly situates the intention in the future, "January 2005" to be exact. You have mistaken the time of speaking and the effect of that speech.

MrP:
If the 'intention' is in the future – January 2005 – how come GWB knows about that intention in 2003?

JTT: These tangents, Mr P and the nonsense! Everyone, including you, knows that "be going to" is a structure used in English to describe a future event. GWB knows because the Iraq election was planned ahead of time. An election doesn't just spontaneously happen one day!

{Do you ever read a newspaper or watch any news?}

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

The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course

b. "be going to" is used for the following:

Future certainty based on current conditions or present evidence:

Pauline's going to have a baby.

It's going to rain today.


JTT: Pauline intends to have a baby. = Pauline is going to have a baby. ?????

It intends to rain. = It's going to rain. ??????

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

MrP:
When we say 'I am going to do XYZ', we mean: 'at this moment (now) I intend to do XYZ (then)'. 'NOw' is when the 'intention' starts. It continues till the 'thing intended' is completed.

Thus GWB means: 'the Iraqis now (in 2003) intend to hold elections in 2005'.

JJT: That leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that a report of GWB's speech is not about a past action, despite the use of a past tense FORM.

Proof:

1. A report of the identical situation can be made with quotations [direct report]. How can a direct report be about a future action but an indirect report be about a past action?

{I've asked both you and CJ this a couple of times but you two ignore issues that rock your safe but errant prescriptive world}

2. When the reporting verb stays in the present tense FORM, no past tense FORM verb is used. SAME EVENT, yet again, Mr P and Jim want us to believe that somehow, this same event is magically divided into two and one is finished and one hasn't happened yet? :s :s

3. The Grammar Book: What is most important to notice is that the tense in the reported clause bears no necessary relationship to whether the actual event described is in the past at the time the spoken or written report is made. That is, if one says on March 11, "She said today that she was leaving on March 15," the listener will interpret the woman's date of departure to be IN four days -- that is, four days in the future from the listener/speaker's perspective -- rather than a March date in some previous year.
------------

JTT: In the English language, for most cases, indirect reported speech uses a past tense FORM [historical past tense FORM in the case of modals] ONLY to show that it is indirect reported speech and NOT a direct quote.

Following the prescriptive approach [of CJ and MrP] puts the English language in the untenable position of not being able to state certain things.

Big sister: [to little sister] Seven plus four is twelve.

Little sister -LS: [to her mom] Seven plus four is twelve. {LS believes this to be a general truth, hence she uses 'IS']

Mom: No it isn't dear, it's eleven.

LS: Kathy told me that seven plus four IS twelve.

Mom: Nope, that's not right, Darlin'.

LS: [to big sister] You told me that seven plus four WAS twelve.

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

Here little sister is addressing the actual fact, the mistake of Big Sister, so she uses "WAS".

Traditional grammar, hidebound to the erroneous 'sequence of tenses' would cause an ESLer to miss the intended meaning. This 'concord/sequence of tenses' is, by and large, arrant nonsense. We ENLs make verb choices to effect meaning and as there are many different nuances, there are different choices.

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

CGEL:

Converting into indirect reported speech ... is not a matter of applying rules of grammar that are specific to this purpose. When I make an indirect report of {someone's} speech, I purport to give the content of what she [he] said - as opposed to quoting the actual wording, which is direct reported speech.

This is how backshift is to be interpreted, not as converting one tense into another.


[final sentence emphasis added by JTT:]

Casi:

By the by, the 'comment' you refer to is a prescriptivist account (or view) on how one should use English. 'may' and 'might' are in the process of merging; they are in the process of change. And that's why sources, like the one I dropped off, mentions how to use, or rather how not to confuse 'may' versus 'might'. It's a present day prescriptivist account, and one, I might add, that you are subscribing to. The variation is within a given dialect, not across dialects as I had orginally, yet incorrectly said. {Are you paraphrasing or quoting, Casi?}

JTT: I wholeheartedly agree with the first part; it's prescriptive and loaded with errors.
I disagree with the last part. It is my belief that this is not a variation within a 'given dialect'; I've never seen that "dialect" described. You should provide your sources for these things you state. I believe that this is the mistaken notion of some older prescriptivists and I don't see it supported in the language.

I'm not at all sure just what it is you think it is that I'm "subscribing to". There is almost nothing that I agree with in the 'commnet' box on 'May/might'. {thread to follow]

May and might may one day merge but they are not there yet.
--------------------------------------------
Casi:
But now you see why I chose not to continue on arguing that point. (I was trying to avoid bringing to light that your stance is one based in prescriptivism, the very camp you're arguing against. )

Mr P's comment is based on description, on how speakers actually use 'may' and 'might'. It's called speaker intuition and it's a valid point, one worth adding to the discussion. Or would you rather argue prescriptivism, or what a source indirectly dictates about how one should use 'may' and 'might'? (Native) speakers already know how to use it.


JTT: No need to apologise. I think you're mistaken here too. Mr P's comments are, to my mind, and my arguments will follow, not based on description; they are based on an inaccurate reading of language. That's like saying, "I asked a bunch of prescriptivists if it was okay to split an infinitive." Their answers were, "No, it's not all right".

Descriptions of language and how it actually works are based on what people do in natural language situations; not what they regurgitate after being told some errant rule. I have no problem with Mr P or anybody, adding anything to any discussion but it has to stand up to scrutiny.

That can only happen with discussion.