tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post401278011921228605..comments2024-02-19T07:51:46.118-05:00Comments on Throw Grammar from the Train: The life cycle of a peeveJanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03173219179480606941noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-19093855909434708652012-03-20T05:51:01.184-04:002012-03-20T05:51:01.184-04:00Yule and other linguists talk about the "past...Yule and other linguists talk about the "past" forms as being remote, which with the modals leads to unlikely or irrealis readings.<br />So, "I will do it" presents the act as quite likely while "I would do it" presents the act as unlikely or contingent upon some other event.<br />Is the same true of may and might? I think that "it may happen" and "it might happen" retain only a hint of that distinction because they both suggest that the likelihood is sort of 50/50.<br />But the larger problem with "may help" and "might help" is that the distinction has to do with what happens to Santorum. The modals don't actually say anything about what Gingrich did.<br />As others have mentioned, a definite/indefinite NP would clear things up - "a Gingrich withdrawal" says he hasn't withdrawn while "the Gingrich withdrawal" suggests that he has.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14658289115041922636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-43375879472118705652012-03-20T01:01:23.251-04:002012-03-20T01:01:23.251-04:00Hmmm, not being on the front page does kind of kil...Hmmm, not being on the front page does kind of kill my theory :)Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01607046468663026271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-78458465512498692392012-03-19T18:06:19.270-04:002012-03-19T18:06:19.270-04:00Yeah, except it wasn't on page 1.
I did write...Yeah, except it wasn't on page 1.<br /><br />I did write the letter.Øhttp://voidplay.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-68737958259407115722012-03-19T14:41:46.738-04:002012-03-19T14:41:46.738-04:00It's funny. I was going to say that whether y...It's funny. I was going to say that whether you use "may" or "might", the sentence would still seem to give me the false impression that Gingrich's withdrawal was certain, but I didn't want to look like a fool again after the last post. I'm glad to see that I'm not alone.<br /><br />Obviously, newspapers word things this way for the sake of economy, but sometimes I think these newspapers almost make these things deliberately misleading to grab your attention. "What!? Gingrich is withdrawing!!??? Well, look like I'm gonna have buy the paper and read up on this over breakfast."Bryan Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01607046468663026271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-14205440767916447132012-03-19T11:09:48.642-04:002012-03-19T11:09:48.642-04:00A good example of a peeve that's more or less ...A good example of a peeve that's more or less accepted now is "normalcy," attributed to President Harding back in 1920, as opposed to the "preferred" normality. Unless I miss my guess, and I haven't checked the corpora, the former is now probably more common.Marc Leavittnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-17973920951771893162012-03-18T21:32:39.301-04:002012-03-18T21:32:39.301-04:00I have a clear intuition about the example "&...I have a clear intuition about the example ""If Gingrich withdrew, that may not aid Santorum.". Which is that it is not acceptable. The "if" part is counterfactual, and means the same as "if Gingrich were to withdraw", and that assumes that he has not withdrawn. The "then" part is equivalent to "it is possible that the withdrawal will not aid Santorum", which is equally unacceptable. Instead, a subjunctive "would" form is needed: "it is possible that the withdrawal would not aid Santorum", which in turn is like "that (= the withdrawal) might not aid Santorum.<br /><br />So, just considering this example, it appears that "may" is equivalent to "possibly will" and "might" is equivalent to "possibly would".Gregory Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293280236115306205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-52385227773792345052012-03-18T18:39:35.764-04:002012-03-18T18:39:35.764-04:00The more I look at it, the harder it is for me to ...The more I look at it, the harder it is for me to explain myself. I haven't really got a good handle on this.<br /><br />But to me, "The Gingrich withdrawal might not aid Santorum" and "The Gingrich withdrawal may not aid Santorum" sound very nearly synonymous.<br /><br />And "A Gingrich withdrawal might not aid Santorum" and "A Gingrich withdrawal may not aid Santorum" do not sound synonymous. The latter is more ambiguous as to whether Gingrich is known to be withdrawing or whether one is speaking in a "what if" way..<br /><br />The lack of article in the headlines "Gingrich withdrawal might not aid Santorum" and "Gingrich withdrawal may not aid Santorum" leads to even more amibiguity.<br /><br />Are the following all grammatical, and how do they differ in meaning?<br /><br />"If Gingrich withdrew, that may not aid Santorum." <br /><br />"If Gingrich withdraws, that may not aid Santorum."<br /><br />"A possible Gingrich withdrawal may not aid Santorum."<br /><br />"A Gingrich withdrawal may not aid Santorum."Øhttp://voidplay.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-3367901459299514602012-03-18T16:13:40.694-04:002012-03-18T16:13:40.694-04:00I could follow this discussion better if I underst...I could follow this discussion better if I understood the difference you find, or want to find, between "may" and "might".Gregory Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293280236115306205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-7830843314447571622012-03-17T12:01:16.410-04:002012-03-17T12:01:16.410-04:00Ø, I had the same problem with that Globe headline...Ø, I had the same problem with that Globe headline; I thought Gingrich had dropped out and I'd somehow missed the news. Like you, I have the may/might distinction deeply embedded -- so deeply that I truly don't understand how so many people can't hear it. And yet, despite its usefulness in distinguishing fact from possibility, it seems to be disappearing rapidly. I don't think I go a week without seeing "may" (in a reasonably respectable publication) where my dialect requires "might."Janhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01579983806826643000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-11645198991041695402012-03-17T08:48:31.966-04:002012-03-17T08:48:31.966-04:00I'm not suggesting that therefore the may/migh...I'm not suggesting that therefore the may/might peeve is likely to live longer than, say, the fewer/less peeve, where there is little or no danger of confusion from the loss of distinction. But I think that may/might deserves to live. I could imagine caring much less about this.<br /><br />I might even write a letter to the editor. Or do I mean "may"?Øhttp://voidplay.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-12047959478962337252012-03-17T08:37:20.256-04:002012-03-17T08:37:20.256-04:00Here's a good exampl (a headline on page A6 of...Here's a good exampl (a headline on page A6 of today's edition of your own Boston Globe) of why the peevers who sweat distinctions sometimes have a point:<br /><br />"Gingrich withdrawal may not aid Santorum"<br /><br />I had to do a double take. Has Gingrich withdrawn? No, read "might" for "may".Øhttp://voidplay.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8811866763970314328.post-68864498837171196322012-03-17T02:01:55.871-04:002012-03-17T02:01:55.871-04:00Hoorah for your headline. I love it. Not only that...Hoorah for your headline. I love it. Not only that, I understood it.<br />What if I outlive my peeves? Is that good? Or if they outlive me? Is there no hope for me then?<br />Words, all words. Such fun.<br />KKay L. Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09966266404058177742noreply@blogger.com