Use of “may” or “might” and their inherent semantic difference












0















Under the American Heritage Dictionary's usage note for the verb "might" it says:




Usage Note: May or might? In many situations, the choice between these two verbs can be clarified by remembering that might is the past tense form of may, and that in English, a past tense form is used to refer not just to events that occurred in the past (She left yesterday), but to hypothetical, counterfactual, or remotely possible situations (If you left now, you'd get there on time.)




It's emphasizing that in the following:




If you left now, you'd get there on time.




We use the past tense "left" for a hypothetical, conterfactual, or remotely possible situation.



If I don't use the past tense "left" and instead use the present tense:




If you leave now, you'd get there on time.




I feel that this has the same meaning. Am I wrong?



Further:




Thus, the past tense form might is appropriate in this sentence about a future event that is a remote possibility: If I won the lottery, I might buy a yacht, which contrasts with the present-tense version that indicates an open possibility: If I win the lottery, I may buy a yacht.




The first example it describes as a "remote possibility", and the second is described as an "open possibility". Is this implying that "might" is used when there is lower likelihood in the conditional statement? In the following examples:




  • If I won the lottery, I might buy a yacht.


  • If I won the lottery, I may buy a yacht.


  • If I win the lottery, I might buy a yacht.


  • If I win the lottery, I may buy a yacht.



I struggle to see a significant difference in their meanings, if any at all. All of them mean to me something like:




  • If in the future I win the lottery, I may/might by a yacht.


I don't consciously see any difference between "remote possibility" or "open possibility", or any distinction in probability. Am I wrong?



It then explains that when using "might" and "may" to denote past counter-factual or conditional situations their usage panel generally disapproves of "may" and favors "might":




Since about the 1960s, however, people have started using may have where might have would be expected (as in, If he hadn't tripped, he may have won the race). Although this usage is common in casual speech, it is considered unacceptable by the majority of the Usage Panel. In our 2012 survey, 97 percent of the Usage Panelists found the sentence If John Lennon had not been shot, the Beatles might have gotten back together acceptable. Only a third of the Panel (32 percent) approved of the same sentence with may have replacing might have.




So I understand its disapproval by their usage panel. Next it says another thing that I also don't understand:




Using may have for a past counterfactual situation instead of might have is not only frowned upon by the Panel but can also lead to confusion, since may have is best suited for a different kind of situation: present uncertainty about a past situation. Keeping the two forms distinct reduces ambiguity. He may have drowned, for example, is best used to mean that it is unknown whether the man drowned, not that the man narrowly escaped drowning.




Again, as far as I can tell both:




  • He may have drowned.

    or


  • He might have drowned.



In my opinion, could be read as:




  • He may have drowned, he may be dead.

    or


  • He might have drowned, he may be dead.

    or


  • He may have drowned, he's lucky to be alive.

    or


  • He might have drowned, he's lucky to be alive.



The very last sentence I would say is probably one where "might" sounds a bit strange, and "may" fits better. But the main point is that using "may" or "might" in the bare sentence:




  • He may/might have drowned.



To me doesn't necessarily distinguish between two meanings, nor do I think it suggests it (by itself at least).



Later in the explanation it says that it's actually been suggested that "might" carries a lesser probability than "may", but I don't personally see this, at least in the examples I've seen.



So how wrong am I? I'm completely blind to nearly all of the distinctions drawn in the dictionary's usage note. Is it that I don't understand the real nuances, or is it that largely they've become interchangeable (a point it also mentioned in the usage notes).




When may and might are used to indicate possibility or probability, as in He may lose his job or We might go on vacation next year, the two words are used almost interchangeably.











share|improve this question



























    0















    Under the American Heritage Dictionary's usage note for the verb "might" it says:




    Usage Note: May or might? In many situations, the choice between these two verbs can be clarified by remembering that might is the past tense form of may, and that in English, a past tense form is used to refer not just to events that occurred in the past (She left yesterday), but to hypothetical, counterfactual, or remotely possible situations (If you left now, you'd get there on time.)




    It's emphasizing that in the following:




    If you left now, you'd get there on time.




    We use the past tense "left" for a hypothetical, conterfactual, or remotely possible situation.



    If I don't use the past tense "left" and instead use the present tense:




    If you leave now, you'd get there on time.




    I feel that this has the same meaning. Am I wrong?



    Further:




    Thus, the past tense form might is appropriate in this sentence about a future event that is a remote possibility: If I won the lottery, I might buy a yacht, which contrasts with the present-tense version that indicates an open possibility: If I win the lottery, I may buy a yacht.




    The first example it describes as a "remote possibility", and the second is described as an "open possibility". Is this implying that "might" is used when there is lower likelihood in the conditional statement? In the following examples:




    • If I won the lottery, I might buy a yacht.


    • If I won the lottery, I may buy a yacht.


    • If I win the lottery, I might buy a yacht.


    • If I win the lottery, I may buy a yacht.



    I struggle to see a significant difference in their meanings, if any at all. All of them mean to me something like:




    • If in the future I win the lottery, I may/might by a yacht.


    I don't consciously see any difference between "remote possibility" or "open possibility", or any distinction in probability. Am I wrong?



    It then explains that when using "might" and "may" to denote past counter-factual or conditional situations their usage panel generally disapproves of "may" and favors "might":




    Since about the 1960s, however, people have started using may have where might have would be expected (as in, If he hadn't tripped, he may have won the race). Although this usage is common in casual speech, it is considered unacceptable by the majority of the Usage Panel. In our 2012 survey, 97 percent of the Usage Panelists found the sentence If John Lennon had not been shot, the Beatles might have gotten back together acceptable. Only a third of the Panel (32 percent) approved of the same sentence with may have replacing might have.




    So I understand its disapproval by their usage panel. Next it says another thing that I also don't understand:




    Using may have for a past counterfactual situation instead of might have is not only frowned upon by the Panel but can also lead to confusion, since may have is best suited for a different kind of situation: present uncertainty about a past situation. Keeping the two forms distinct reduces ambiguity. He may have drowned, for example, is best used to mean that it is unknown whether the man drowned, not that the man narrowly escaped drowning.




    Again, as far as I can tell both:




    • He may have drowned.

      or


    • He might have drowned.



    In my opinion, could be read as:




    • He may have drowned, he may be dead.

      or


    • He might have drowned, he may be dead.

      or


    • He may have drowned, he's lucky to be alive.

      or


    • He might have drowned, he's lucky to be alive.



    The very last sentence I would say is probably one where "might" sounds a bit strange, and "may" fits better. But the main point is that using "may" or "might" in the bare sentence:




    • He may/might have drowned.



    To me doesn't necessarily distinguish between two meanings, nor do I think it suggests it (by itself at least).



    Later in the explanation it says that it's actually been suggested that "might" carries a lesser probability than "may", but I don't personally see this, at least in the examples I've seen.



    So how wrong am I? I'm completely blind to nearly all of the distinctions drawn in the dictionary's usage note. Is it that I don't understand the real nuances, or is it that largely they've become interchangeable (a point it also mentioned in the usage notes).




    When may and might are used to indicate possibility or probability, as in He may lose his job or We might go on vacation next year, the two words are used almost interchangeably.











    share|improve this question

























      0












      0








      0








      Under the American Heritage Dictionary's usage note for the verb "might" it says:




      Usage Note: May or might? In many situations, the choice between these two verbs can be clarified by remembering that might is the past tense form of may, and that in English, a past tense form is used to refer not just to events that occurred in the past (She left yesterday), but to hypothetical, counterfactual, or remotely possible situations (If you left now, you'd get there on time.)




      It's emphasizing that in the following:




      If you left now, you'd get there on time.




      We use the past tense "left" for a hypothetical, conterfactual, or remotely possible situation.



      If I don't use the past tense "left" and instead use the present tense:




      If you leave now, you'd get there on time.




      I feel that this has the same meaning. Am I wrong?



      Further:




      Thus, the past tense form might is appropriate in this sentence about a future event that is a remote possibility: If I won the lottery, I might buy a yacht, which contrasts with the present-tense version that indicates an open possibility: If I win the lottery, I may buy a yacht.




      The first example it describes as a "remote possibility", and the second is described as an "open possibility". Is this implying that "might" is used when there is lower likelihood in the conditional statement? In the following examples:




      • If I won the lottery, I might buy a yacht.


      • If I won the lottery, I may buy a yacht.


      • If I win the lottery, I might buy a yacht.


      • If I win the lottery, I may buy a yacht.



      I struggle to see a significant difference in their meanings, if any at all. All of them mean to me something like:




      • If in the future I win the lottery, I may/might by a yacht.


      I don't consciously see any difference between "remote possibility" or "open possibility", or any distinction in probability. Am I wrong?



      It then explains that when using "might" and "may" to denote past counter-factual or conditional situations their usage panel generally disapproves of "may" and favors "might":




      Since about the 1960s, however, people have started using may have where might have would be expected (as in, If he hadn't tripped, he may have won the race). Although this usage is common in casual speech, it is considered unacceptable by the majority of the Usage Panel. In our 2012 survey, 97 percent of the Usage Panelists found the sentence If John Lennon had not been shot, the Beatles might have gotten back together acceptable. Only a third of the Panel (32 percent) approved of the same sentence with may have replacing might have.




      So I understand its disapproval by their usage panel. Next it says another thing that I also don't understand:




      Using may have for a past counterfactual situation instead of might have is not only frowned upon by the Panel but can also lead to confusion, since may have is best suited for a different kind of situation: present uncertainty about a past situation. Keeping the two forms distinct reduces ambiguity. He may have drowned, for example, is best used to mean that it is unknown whether the man drowned, not that the man narrowly escaped drowning.




      Again, as far as I can tell both:




      • He may have drowned.

        or


      • He might have drowned.



      In my opinion, could be read as:




      • He may have drowned, he may be dead.

        or


      • He might have drowned, he may be dead.

        or


      • He may have drowned, he's lucky to be alive.

        or


      • He might have drowned, he's lucky to be alive.



      The very last sentence I would say is probably one where "might" sounds a bit strange, and "may" fits better. But the main point is that using "may" or "might" in the bare sentence:




      • He may/might have drowned.



      To me doesn't necessarily distinguish between two meanings, nor do I think it suggests it (by itself at least).



      Later in the explanation it says that it's actually been suggested that "might" carries a lesser probability than "may", but I don't personally see this, at least in the examples I've seen.



      So how wrong am I? I'm completely blind to nearly all of the distinctions drawn in the dictionary's usage note. Is it that I don't understand the real nuances, or is it that largely they've become interchangeable (a point it also mentioned in the usage notes).




      When may and might are used to indicate possibility or probability, as in He may lose his job or We might go on vacation next year, the two words are used almost interchangeably.











      share|improve this question














      Under the American Heritage Dictionary's usage note for the verb "might" it says:




      Usage Note: May or might? In many situations, the choice between these two verbs can be clarified by remembering that might is the past tense form of may, and that in English, a past tense form is used to refer not just to events that occurred in the past (She left yesterday), but to hypothetical, counterfactual, or remotely possible situations (If you left now, you'd get there on time.)




      It's emphasizing that in the following:




      If you left now, you'd get there on time.




      We use the past tense "left" for a hypothetical, conterfactual, or remotely possible situation.



      If I don't use the past tense "left" and instead use the present tense:




      If you leave now, you'd get there on time.




      I feel that this has the same meaning. Am I wrong?



      Further:




      Thus, the past tense form might is appropriate in this sentence about a future event that is a remote possibility: If I won the lottery, I might buy a yacht, which contrasts with the present-tense version that indicates an open possibility: If I win the lottery, I may buy a yacht.




      The first example it describes as a "remote possibility", and the second is described as an "open possibility". Is this implying that "might" is used when there is lower likelihood in the conditional statement? In the following examples:




      • If I won the lottery, I might buy a yacht.


      • If I won the lottery, I may buy a yacht.


      • If I win the lottery, I might buy a yacht.


      • If I win the lottery, I may buy a yacht.



      I struggle to see a significant difference in their meanings, if any at all. All of them mean to me something like:




      • If in the future I win the lottery, I may/might by a yacht.


      I don't consciously see any difference between "remote possibility" or "open possibility", or any distinction in probability. Am I wrong?



      It then explains that when using "might" and "may" to denote past counter-factual or conditional situations their usage panel generally disapproves of "may" and favors "might":




      Since about the 1960s, however, people have started using may have where might have would be expected (as in, If he hadn't tripped, he may have won the race). Although this usage is common in casual speech, it is considered unacceptable by the majority of the Usage Panel. In our 2012 survey, 97 percent of the Usage Panelists found the sentence If John Lennon had not been shot, the Beatles might have gotten back together acceptable. Only a third of the Panel (32 percent) approved of the same sentence with may have replacing might have.




      So I understand its disapproval by their usage panel. Next it says another thing that I also don't understand:




      Using may have for a past counterfactual situation instead of might have is not only frowned upon by the Panel but can also lead to confusion, since may have is best suited for a different kind of situation: present uncertainty about a past situation. Keeping the two forms distinct reduces ambiguity. He may have drowned, for example, is best used to mean that it is unknown whether the man drowned, not that the man narrowly escaped drowning.




      Again, as far as I can tell both:




      • He may have drowned.

        or


      • He might have drowned.



      In my opinion, could be read as:




      • He may have drowned, he may be dead.

        or


      • He might have drowned, he may be dead.

        or


      • He may have drowned, he's lucky to be alive.

        or


      • He might have drowned, he's lucky to be alive.



      The very last sentence I would say is probably one where "might" sounds a bit strange, and "may" fits better. But the main point is that using "may" or "might" in the bare sentence:




      • He may/might have drowned.



      To me doesn't necessarily distinguish between two meanings, nor do I think it suggests it (by itself at least).



      Later in the explanation it says that it's actually been suggested that "might" carries a lesser probability than "may", but I don't personally see this, at least in the examples I've seen.



      So how wrong am I? I'm completely blind to nearly all of the distinctions drawn in the dictionary's usage note. Is it that I don't understand the real nuances, or is it that largely they've become interchangeable (a point it also mentioned in the usage notes).




      When may and might are used to indicate possibility or probability, as in He may lose his job or We might go on vacation next year, the two words are used almost interchangeably.








      conditionals semantics future






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 10 mins ago









      ZebrafishZebrafish

      9,24431333




      9,24431333






















          0






          active

          oldest

          votes











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "97"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481889%2fuse-of-may-or-might-and-their-inherent-semantic-difference%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          0






          active

          oldest

          votes








          0






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes
















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481889%2fuse-of-may-or-might-and-their-inherent-semantic-difference%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Morgemoulin

          Scott Moir

          Souastre