|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Grammatical infelicities
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
AND!
Still on the subject of subject-verb agreement...
Abuse of "each" is bad enough (e.g. Janina Ramirez in the programme on mediaeval manuscripts on BBC4 just now said something like "...each of the knights were aware...") but abuse of "none" irritates me beyond measure.
"Which film do you think should win the Oscar?"
"It's difficult to say; none of them are very good." Waaaaaaa! ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
people have always done it."
That's rather what acceptable means when it comes to the English language. Or perhaps it's only acceptable when the right people do it?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I want to register a complaint about "is a thing." As in, "indoor skydiving is a thing." Meaning it exists, I guess. Perhaps it's meant to be the answer to the question "Is there such a thing as indoor skydiving"? Anyway I don't like it.
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
"Which film do you think should win the Oscar?"
"It's difficult to say; none of them are very good." Waaaaaaa!
What a pity "nary" has dropped out of common parlance.
[ 30. August 2016, 19:51: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's rather what acceptable means when it comes to the English language.
You may think so. There are lots of ways people "have always" spoken; that doesn't make them "acceptable" English.
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
The Cotswold Tourist Partnership would beg to differ here (scroll down to the third paragraph), as does the map here.
There are quite a lot of opinions as to precisely what area comprises the Cotswolds, but this thread is not one of those areas. Unless, of course, a single Cotswold by itself is prone to grammatical misuse.
Ariel
Heaven Host
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cornflower
Shipmate
# 13349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
Rather like splitting infinitives and ending sentences with a preposition, people have recently decided "Oh, it doesn't really matter, because people have always done it."
Both those things are "rules" invented by people with an obsession with Latin grammar. Despite their best efforts, English isn't Latin, has never been Latin, and there's no reason to pretend that it is Latin.
Both "rules" are reasonable guidelines - it is usually better not to split an infinitive, and it is often better not to end a sentence with a preposition. But, as an example, trying to un-split "the number of split infinitives used in these pages is expected to more than double this week" does not aid clarity, and is nonsense up with which I will not put.
Perhaps part of the problem lies in the way English has changed over the centuries. For example, perhaps once, one would have said 'whither goest thou?' where now we say 'where are you going to?'.
Posts: 111 | From: uk | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cornflower
Shipmate
# 13349
|
Posted
Sorry, don't know how to edit, but suddenly realised that 'where are you going to' is probably wrong anyhow..it should be, presumably, simply 'where are you going?'
Actually, where I live , people often say 'where you to?' meaning where are you presently located, rather than 'where are you?'
Oh, I've just discovered how to edit now!
[ 30. August 2016, 21:52: Message edited by: cornflower ]
Posts: 111 | From: uk | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's rather what acceptable means when it comes to the English language.
You may think so. There are lots of ways people "have always" spoken; that doesn't make them "acceptable" English.
Acceptable to whom?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's rather what acceptable means when it comes to the English language.
You may think so. There are lots of ways people "have always" spoken; that doesn't make them "acceptable" English.
Acceptable to whom?
Your sub-editor. Have you tried arguing a point of grammar or style with a sub-editor?
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Your sub-editor. Have you tried arguing a point of grammar or style with a sub-editor?
I don't have a sub-editor. This just says it's not acceptable for people who have sub-editors. Whoever they are. Not that it's not acceptable for people in general.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Isn't 'The government comprises' better?
Perhaps. "Is comprised of" has a long pedigree in English, for all that the purists tend to poke at it, but "comprises" is certainly OK.
I don't see it as a long pedigree. Perhaps I'm showing my age.
The Government is composed of
or
The government consists of
or
The government comprises
While I'm here, I liked the report of the wanted criminal who 'turned himself into police'.
And while, like all retired English teachers, I acknowledge that language does change, we all have some pet hates for changes that have resulted in a loss of an important distinction. Even competent novelists miss this next one
Which of these two women in still alive?
Seat belt may have saved woman's life.
Seat belt might have saved woman's life.
Glad to get that off my chest.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
I don't see it as a long pedigree. Perhaps I'm showing my age.
In his "Essay toward the Theory of the Ideal or Intelligible World," John Norris of Bemerton writes
quote:
For so tho' a Triangle in the most simple and precise Conception of it be only a Figure comprised of three right Lines, yet these three Lines will necessarily make three Angles, and these three Angles will be equal to two right ones, &c.
That was published in 1704.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
I don't see it as a long pedigree. Perhaps I'm showing my age.
In his "Essay toward the Theory of the Ideal or Intelligible World," John Norris of Bemerton writes
quote:
For so tho' a Triangle in the most simple and precise Conception of it be only a Figure comprised of three right Lines, yet these three Lines will necessarily make three Angles, and these three Angles will be equal to two right ones, &c.
That was published in 1704.
I accept the correction, O learned colleague. But I wouldn't use it. Maybe that's an illustration of changing usage?
But NB
The English section of dictionary.com says The use of 'of' after comprise should be avoided: 'the library comprises (not comprises of) 500 000 books and manuscripts', while the US segment refers to 'comprised of' as an idiom but admits that 'The United States of America is comprised of 50 states.These later uses are often criticized, but they occur with increasing frequency even in formal speech and writing.'
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jacobsen
seeker
# 14998
|
Posted
My bugbear has always been the there is/there are
divide. When I was growing up, a thousand years ago, the difference was strictly enforced. Now, however, "there's fifty people in the hall..."
I am only partially reconciled to the change after living in Belgium and Germany, and realising that most European languages use their equivalent of "there's" for both singular and plural items/people etc. But "there's" followed by a plural whatever still feels counter-intuitive to me.
[ 31. August 2016, 11:47: Message edited by: jacobsen ]
--------------------
But God, holding a candle, looks for all who wander, all who search. - Shifra Alon
Beauty fades, dumb is forever-Judge Judy
The man who made time, made plenty.
Posts: 8040 | From: Ćbleskiver country | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Your sub-editor. Have you tried arguing a point of grammar or style with a sub-editor?
I don't have a sub-editor. This just says it's not acceptable for people who have sub-editors. Whoever they are. Not that it's not acceptable for people in general.
Don't get hung up about it. I used "sub-editors" because they are arbiters of style and grammar in the professional sphere. As you say, you don't have one and few do.
(edit: and after that I post then notice a glitch.)
[ 31. August 2016, 12:22: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
I have two particular peeves at the moment! One is the lack of 'ly' at the end of a word when it is being used as an adverb. This is probably, says she sniffily, because those concerned do not know what adjectives and adverbs are.
Another is when BBC (radio 4) news readers say, There's been a meeting....' when they mean, There has been...' I have written several times over the past few years, since the saving of time in using the abbreviation cannot be more than a milli-second. I am shocked that my pointing this out seems to have had no effect!
(Checked through carefully several times for errors; I hope I have not missed something! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Another is when BBC (radio 4) news readers say, There's been a meeting....' when they mean, There has been...' I have written several times over the past few years, since the saving of time in using the abbreviation cannot be more than a milli-second.
I agree entirely about the adverbing of adjectives (I mentioned my objections to "eat healthy" earlier.)
On the use of "there's" as a contraction of "there has", I can't agree with you. If you're concerned about time saving, the difference between "there's" and "there has" is no different from the difference between "there's" and "there is", so that is no reason to object to one contraction but not the other.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
My visit yesterday to Kew Gardens was not enhanced by reading the following in the complimentary leaflet provided for visitors:
"Enhance your visit to Kew Gardens at one of the four distinct dining experiences across the site. Pavilion Restaurant ... is open during the warmer months when diners can enjoy an alfresco style food offering."
Cafes? Outdoor meals?
(A small bit of the Cotswolds is in Wiltshire. The majority of Wiltshire is not in the Cotswolds.)
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
If I were to go to Kew Gardens (and we used to be Friends), I could take off my glasses and so enjoy an extremely indistinct "dining experience".
But I might end up dropping food all down my shirt. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
On a completely different matter: I get annoyed when "disinterested" is used to mean "uninterested".
[ 31. August 2016, 15:52: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
On the use of "there's" as a contraction of "there has", I can't agree with you. If you're concerned about time saving, the difference between "there's" and "there has" is no different from the difference between "there's" and "there is", so that is no reason to object to one contraction but not the other.
My apologies - I should have remembered to say it is the way it is said - as if it is 'there is been', with three syllables, instead of 'there's been' as two. Next time I hear it, I'll try and make a note
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
Ohgod the Experience experience. Visitor centre in Perthshire offers The Macbeth Experience - what? Regicide? Hallucination? Insomnia? Nihilism? Violent death? Not my idea of a good day out.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
My apologies - I should have remembered to say it is the way it is said - as if it is 'there is been', with three syllables, instead of 'there's been' as two. Next time I hear it, I'll try and make a note
To be consistent, shouldn't you have written "I will try"?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Next time I hear it, I'll try and make a note
No, you will not. You will try to make a note.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jedijudy
Organist of the Jedi Temple
# 333
|
Posted
The word that gets my dander up is the use of the word myself when it is not reflecting the pronoun of the person speaking. This happens on TV all the time. I guess they think it will make them sound more educated instead of the opposite.
--------------------
Jasmine, little cat with a big heart.
Posts: 18017 | From: 'Twixt the 'Glades and the Gulf | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jedijudy:
The word that gets my dander up is the use of the word myself when it is not reflecting the pronoun of the person speaking.
I recently "experienced" a man on the telephone who said: "I'll send the form out to yourself; if you complete it and send it straight back to myself, I'll action it straightaway and you can just send the payment to ourselves as soon as it's convenient." Quite impressive to get three different misuses of the same grammatical construct in one sentence, I thought!
[ETA Indeed, I was so stunned by it, that I didn't even have chance to complain about his use of "action" as a verb - something else I hate!]
[ 31. August 2016, 18:24: Message edited by: Teekeey Misha ]
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Don't get hung up about it. I used "sub-editors" because they are arbiters of style and grammar in the professional sphere. As you say, you don't have one and few do.
I'm not so much hung up as unanswered. Who gets to say what is or is not acceptable in everyday speech? Teekeey Misha seems to think that there is some divine authority saying which locutions may or may not be used. But won't say who has the right to make that call. You kinda got caught in the crossfire. But I am still unanswered.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ugh! what I hate hate HATE is the tendency to have direct objects perform the verb, as in "the new book released last Wednesday." No, it didn't, you dumbass, the publisher released it. What precisely do you think books release, pages? hot air?
I don't see the problem. "Released" is not there the verb in a sentence. The complete sentence has not been quoted. You can think of it two ways:
A Released is not grammatically a verb in that phrase, but the past participle of a verb used as an adjective modifying "the new book".
B The phrase is a contraction of "the new book (that was) released yesterday".
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cornflower
Shipmate
# 13349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Isn't 'The government comprises' better?
Perhaps. "Is comprised of" has a long pedigree in English, for all that the purists tend to poke at it, but "comprises" is certainly OK.
I don't see it as a long pedigree. Perhaps I'm showing my age.
The Government is composed of
or
The government consists of
or
The government comprises
While I'm here, I liked the report of the wanted criminal who 'turned himself into police'.
And while, like all retired English teachers, I acknowledge that language does change, we all have some pet hates for changes that have resulted in a loss of an important distinction. Even competent novelists miss this next one
Which of these two women in still alive?
Seat belt may have saved woman's life.
Seat belt might have saved woman's life.
Glad to get that off my chest.
GG
Yes, there is a difference I feel, but those two words seem so interchangeable, it can be hard to know which to use. I actually looked this up in a grammar book a few years ago as I find it rather confusing (we weren't taught any proper usage of those words at school). Anyhow the grammar book wasn't really much help in the end. I also looked up the usage of 'shall' and 'will' and that was somewhat inconclusive too. The different usages seem to be quite subtle...what, for example is the difference between'I may go into town tomorrow' and 'I might go into town tomorrow'? To me, 'may' in that sentence seems more doubtful, hesitant. 'Might' seems more positive or definite but I'm not really sure.
Often, in books, I've seen a sentence where someone asks 'Might I go borrow your book?' or conversely 'May I borrow your book?'. I honestly don't know which of those is correct...maybe they both are.
There are a couple of things which really irritate me and one is when people say 'I'm fed up of' rather than 'fed up with' - again, perhaps either or both is correct, but when I was young, everyone I knew said 'fed up with'.
Posts: 111 | From: uk | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cornflower
Shipmate
# 13349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
My bugbear has always been the there is/there are
divide. When I was growing up, a thousand years ago, the difference was strictly enforced. Now, however, "there's fifty people in the hall..."
I am only partially reconciled to the change after living in Belgium and Germany, and realising that most European languages use their equivalent of "there's" for both singular and plural items/people etc. But "there's" followed by a plural whatever still feels counter-intuitive to me.
I have to admit that I am guilty of that, although I know it's wrong. It's lazy speaking really (at least for me). It depends on who I'm with and various factors. However, if I were ever to be standing up and giving a speech or a talk or lecture (not that I ever will), or if I am explaining something carefully to someone, then I'll tend to speak 'properly' as best I can, for clarity.
I lived on a housing estate once, where all the youngsters spoke really fast, very ungrammatically, dropping 'h's, 't's and 'g's all over the place and probably practically every other word was a swear word or a vulgarity. I had to listen fast! But when speaking to them, I also tended to speed up my speech and talk a bit more like them (apart from the swearing). Having lived in various places, I'd encountered all kinds of accents and ways of speaking and forgotten how people tended to speak where I grew up and also in my school. So, when I happened to visit the park where I used to play as a child, and also being reacquainted with some people I used to know, I was quite amazed...I'd forgotten how deliberately, almost slowly they spoke by comparison. (And I assume I used to speak like that too).
Posts: 111 | From: uk | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Teekeey Misha seems to think that there is some divine authority saying which locutions may or may not be used. But won't say who has the right to make that call.
Perhaps reading ridiculous comments like that makes people even less inclined to provide an answer.
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
The Government is composed of
or
The government consists of
or
The government comprises
But not - as all too frequently - "The Government comprises of".
By the way, thinking of the thief who turned himself into police - what about the packets one sees in supermarket shelves which, on closer inspection, contain "reformed ham"? What misdemeanours did such ham commit when it was still part of a real, live pig?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cornflower:
Often, in books, I've seen a sentence where someone asks 'Might I go borrow your book?' or conversely 'May I borrow your book?'. I honestly don't know which of those is correct...maybe they both are.
Part of the difference is that might is the past tense of may when expressing possibility.
E.g. If there are any sandwiches, I may have one with my tea later but If there had been any sandwiches, I might have had one with my tea earlier.
The difference I remember being taught as a child is that might expresses less likely possibility.
E.g. I may have a sandwich with my tea if I'm seriously considering it but I might have a sandwich with my tea if I have vaguely considered it but probably won't do it. I confess I didn't find that awfully convincing as a boy and don't find it any more convincing now.
If one is talking about possibilities in the past tense (such as Granny's seat belt example) either may or might is fine, except if one is talking about a past possibility that one knows didn't actually come to pass. E.g. When I threw my tea at the mouse, someone might have been hurt.
In terms of asking permission (as per your example) either may or might is fine, but might is more formal (and for that reason probably less widely used.)
That's may and might as I understand them; others may disagree.
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
[Not actually ETA because I missed the window whilst re-reading what I'd written but...]
ETA for clarity: My first paragraph above refers to "what used to be"; I think nowadays they are generally used more in terms with my third paragraph!
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothlorien
Ship's Grandma
# 4927
|
Posted
I nearly fell off my chair last night to hear a newsreader on a commercial channel say, "Neither was..." Grammar on such channels is ogten very poor and even the ABC makes some terrible mistakes.
--------------------
Buy a bale. Help our Aussie rural communities and farmers. Another great cause needing support The High Country Patrol.
Posts: 9745 | From: girt by sea | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
By the way, thinking of the thief who turned himself into police - what about the packets one sees in supermarket shelves which, on closer inspection, contain "reformed ham"? What misdemeanours did such ham commit when it was still part of a real, live pig?
Just as you don't want to know how sausages are made (or laws, as the saying goes), you really don't want to know how ready-packed ham comes to be in such convenient slices.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cornflower
Shipmate
# 13349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by cornflower:
Often, in books, I've seen a sentence where someone asks 'Might I go borrow your book?' or conversely 'May I borrow your book?'. I honestly don't know which of those is correct...maybe they both are.
Part of the difference is that might is the past tense of may when expressing possibility.
E.g. If there are any sandwiches, I may have one with my tea later but If there had been any sandwiches, I might have had one with my tea earlier.
The difference I remember being taught as a child is that might expresses less likely possibility.
E.g. I may have a sandwich with my tea if I'm seriously considering it but I might have a sandwich with my tea if I have vaguely considered it but probably won't do it. I confess I didn't find that awfully convincing as a boy and don't find it any more convincing now.
If one is talking about possibilities in the past tense (such as Granny's seat belt example) either may or might is fine, except if one is talking about a past possibility that one knows didn't actually come to pass. E.g. When I threw my tea at the mouse, someone might have been hurt.
In terms of asking permission (as per your example) either may or might is fine, but might is more formal (and for that reason probably less widely used.)
That's may and might as I understand them; others may disagree.
OK, thanks, I think it may/might have been that sort of explanation I read in the book (only it was a long time ago, can't quite remember).
Posts: 111 | From: uk | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
It's really in the past tense that the may/might distinction becomes important.
'might' implies a significant 'if' – if the woman had worn a seatbelt her life might have been saved.
Or, she survived the accident, probably because she was wearing her seatbelt: the seatbelt may have been what saved her.
In my schooldays I noticed that English speakers used 'shall' more often than we did. I was taught that 'I will' expressed determination while 'I shall' was a simple statement of intention; and that in the second or third person, the opposite was the case – 'You shall do it (whether you like it or not).
But my support worker, from Sri Lanka, asked where he could work on his English, because he knew from lessons back home that the difference between 'shall' and 'will' was important and he didn't know if he'd got it right. My thought was, that I didn't know whether anyone still made that distinction, and what he needed was probably a conversation class.
GG
Edited because I hit the wrong button.
[ 01. September 2016, 00:55: Message edited by: Galloping Granny ]
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
It's really in the past tense that the may/might distinction becomes important.
'might' implies a significant 'if' – if the woman had worn a seatbelt her life might have been saved.
Or, she survived the accident, probably because she was wearing her seatbelt: the seatbelt may have been what saved her.
In my schooldays I noticed that English speakers used 'shall' more often than we did. I was taught that 'I will' expressed determination while 'I shall' was a simple statement of intention; and that in the second or third person, the opposite was the case – 'You shall do it (whether you like it or not).
But my support worker, from Sri Lanka, asked where he could work on his English, because he knew from lessons back home that the difference between 'shall' and 'will' was important and he didn't know if he'd got it right. My thought was, that I didn't know whether anyone still made that distinction, and what he needed was probably a conversation class.
GG
Edited because I hit the wrong button.
Re-edited because I made the same mistake– I meant to say that of course I too am a native speaker of English; it was those brought up in England who used 'shall' where in speaking I would use 'will' or probably 'I'll'
I shall have a post-prandial nap to rest my brain.
[ 01. September 2016, 01:08: Message edited by: Galloping Granny ]
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Another -ed travesty on a restaurant menu just now: mash potatoes.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
During cricket season we often hear the announcement that the team has produced another centurion. I realise that cricket has been around for a long time, but surely not in Roman times, despite some test innings seeming to last forever. The player should be described as a century maker or having scored a century, never a centurion.
While on the subject of cricket, why do we hear the term the England team rather than the English team. Other countries playing cricket don't do this eg Australian team, South African team. It sounds very strange to my ear.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
During cricket season we often hear the announcement that the team has produced another centurion. I realise that cricket has been around for a long time, but surely not in Roman times, despite some test innings seeming to last forever. The player should be described as a century maker or having scored a century, never a centurion.
While on the subject of cricket, why do we hear the term the England team rather than the English team. Other countries playing cricket don't do this eg Australian team, South African team. It sounds very strange to my ear.
This is a fairly new (and to my ear strange) thing: using the name of a country as the adjective, rather than the adjectival form of the name. Thus we now have "Canada geese" and not "Canadian geese." I don't like it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Ugh! what I hate hate HATE is the tendency to have direct objects perform the verb, as in "the new book released last Wednesday." No, it didn't, you dumbass, the publisher released it. What precisely do you think books release, pages? hot air?
I don't see the problem. "Released" is not there the verb in a sentence. The complete sentence has not been quoted. You can think of it two ways:
A Released is not grammatically a verb in that phrase, but the past participle of a verb used as an adjective modifying "the new book".
B The phrase is a contraction of "the new book (that was) released yesterday".
You say, "The complete sentence has not been quoted." That is a charitable but wrong understanding (I know because I worked for the publisher in question!). The marketing folks were forever writing "Such-and-such a book released on Friday, and you can buy it on our website" and similar constructions. They clearly intended it to be a complete grammatical sentence, with "released" as the verb. I attempted to remonstrate with the copywriters, but got nowhere. To them, books release, in the same manner that an egg hatches or the sun rises. Grrrrrrrr.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
It's really in the past tense that the may/might distinction becomes important.
'might' implies a significant 'if' – if the woman had worn a seatbelt her life might have been saved.
One nitpicky correction--it isn't the past tense per se where the may/might choice matters--it's in the past tense conditional ("if/then" sentences). When you want to talk about something that never happened ("If Donald Trump had won the Mr. Sensitivity Award, then he might have gotten my vote") you use the past perfect forms (here, "had won" and "might have gotten").
If you want to talk about something that possibly happened but you're not sure, you use the simple past tense for the first part of the conditional ("won") and any verb tense you like for the second part, depending on your meaning:
"If Donald Trump won the Mr. Insensitivity Award, then he got what he deserved." ("won" = simple past, "got" = simple past)
"If Donald Trump won the Mr. Insensitivity Award, he will probably win Mr. Ridiculous next month as well." ("won" = simple past, "will win" = future)
"If Donald Trump won the Mr. Insensitivity Award, then he is doubtless celebrating as we speak." ("won" = simple past, "is celebrating" = present continuous)
"If Donald Trump won the Mr. Insensitivity Award, then he may have/might have been surprised." ("won" = simple past, "may have been/might have been" = the perfect tense for both forms, and in this example the may/might difference expresses only a difference in the degree of probability. However, the surprise is clearly not ruled out)
Geeking out here to avoid going to bed (shame on me). This is probably as clear as mud. Sorry.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Baptist trainfan and Ariel
I stand corrected.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"If Donald Trump won the Mr. Insensitivity Award, then he may have/might have been surprised." ("won" = simple past, "may have been/might have been" = the perfect tense for both forms, and in this example the may/might difference expresses only a difference in the degree of probability. However, the surprise is clearly not ruled out)
I would say that in those sentences 'may have been' implies that we don't know whether he won or not, whereas 'might have been' implies that he didn't win, but we're not sure whether, if he had, he would have been surprised. Thus "Police said that of the dead woman that wearing a seatbelt may have saved her life" is clearly wrong since the question of whether her life was saved is no longer an open one, whereas "Police said that of the dead woman that wearing a seatbelt might have saved her life" acknowledges the fact of her death, but leaves open the question whether a wearing a seatbelt might have (not may have) saved her life.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"Such-and-such a book released on Friday, and you can buy it on our website".... Grrrrrrrr.
Grr indeed. I took it to be part of something like "The book released on Friday is now available for purchase". Although that's a pretty silly thing to say, come to think of it. Being released means by definition it is available for sale.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
"It is now available from all good bookshops". Yes, and from quite a number of average-to-mediocre ones, too, I would guess!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Thus we now have "Canada geese" and not "Canadian geese." I don't like it.
Yes and no. Surely "Canada geese" defines a particular species (is that the right word?) of said bird, while "Canadian geese" could refer to any kind which happened to have flown across the border to the US of A?
Returning to sport, I accept that an "England" footballer has to be English (though the rules as to who is and who isn't "English" are complex). On the other hand, a "Chelsea" player could come from virtually anywhere, not just southwest London - and probably does!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
"We are trialling a new focus group."
No, you're not trialling it. It's here to stay, it's not a temporary measure and it's not "on trial". If anything, you're beta-testing it (though I haven't heard of anyone alpha-testing anything).
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
The Observer's Book of Birds (revised 1962) calls them Canada Geese.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
