021 IS 'MIGHT' PAST TENSE OR FUTURE TENSE?

Question What 'part of speech' is 'might' ?
'Might' was originally a past tense of the auxiliary verb 'may'.
It was particularly useful in reporting speech, where the reporting verb was in past tense.
e.g. : He said that he might come.
The reporting verb 'said' is in past tense. The verb in the reported clause 'may' , became 'might'.

---

Question : What is the implication of 'Might' as a modal verb?
'Might' indicates 'a probability of 50% , a la its basic form 'may'.
We can use the analogy of 'a coin tossed into the sky' , to estimate the implications of 'might' or 'may'.
A coin thrown into the sky , say a 100 times, when it (coin) falls may show up 50 times heads and 50 times tails, with about a 10% deviation on either side.
He 'may come' - this sentence carries an implication that he 'may not come' . It indicates a near 50% probability on either side.




Question : Is it reasonable to say 'He might come'?
This usage is quite common and it has become acceptable.
The present tense form of 'may' seems more appropriate, because the event (of his coming) is yet to take place.

Question : Can 'might' be used in simple past tense?
This is taking place in reported speech (indirect speech).
Example : He said that he might come. (Past tense).
Example : He says that he may come (Present tense).
It is difficult to trace a stand alone usage for the 'might' past tense usage. We can see the 'present perfect tense usage' everywhere:
Example : He might have come.
This sentence augurs well with the implication of 50% probability of the event in the immediate past. The speaker is estimating/forecasting/guessing.

Question : Is it reasonable to say 'Might you try some coffee?'
We can find some current usage.
The speaker seems to intend a 50% probability.
Use of 'might' as a form of past tense , has been given a 'bye'.
We can probably use : 'May you please try some coffee?' .
But, some interpreters say that use of 'may' in seeking permissions is too formal.

Question : Doesn't 'might' mean ability and power?
We can say that there are two mights. This 'might' , we can call 'might 2'.
Example : Money is might.

Question : Is it reasonable to say 'It might rain tomorrow?'
It may be difficult for us to accept this usage, if we go by the literal interpretations that 'might' refers to past tense and 'tomorrow' refers to future tense.
The usage has come to stay.
Some grammarians say that 'It might rain tomorrow' is less positive than 'It may rain tomorrow'. Can we say that this interpretation implies: 'It may rain' refers to a 50% probability and 'it might rain' refers to a 40% probability?

Question : Is it reasonable to say 'You might pay a little attention to your weight.' ?
Some grammarians say that 'might' can be used to convey 'a degree of dissatisfaction'.
The usage has come to stay.
I, personally prefer the usage 'You may please pay....' construction.

Modal verbs are supporting verbs (also called auxiliary verbs). They indicate the manner in which the speaker intends the action of the verb used by him is to have its effect. The verb may indicate a duty, ethical obligation, possibility, impossibility, probability, necessity, compulsiveness etc.

020 VARIED USES OF THE MODAL VERB 'COULD'

'Could' is the past tense of the modal verb 'can'.
'Could' like its present tense 'can' should ordinarily express 'ability'
'Could' acquired a slightly distant meaning, over decades and centuries of use.
'Example #1'
Usage of 'Could' in making polite requests:
'Could I speak to Mr.....?'
This is said to be a politer form than--
'Can I speak to Mr.....'.
How? It is not clear. Usage, probably justifies the 'politeness'.
Another funny thing is : 'Could' is a verb of past tense. How it is being used in a request which refers to a future action which depends on granting of permission by the other person?
'Example #2'
'Could' represents ability, isn't it? Let us now see, how it gained a meaning of 'having ability, but not doing it' .
We could come out of the emergency exit, when the coach caught fire. (This according to interpreters, means: We had the ability to come out of the emergency window, but we did not use that ability.)

They suggest the following alternatives:
1. We 'were able to come' out of the emergency window ....etc.
2. We 'managed to come' out of the emergency window ...etc.

The interpreters are willing to accept the negative usage:
We 'could not' come out of the emergency window. Its latch was too rigid to open.

Some interpreters consider 'could' as less positive than 'can' and 'may'
'Example #3'
I could attend the wedding. (This is said to be less positive than 'I can attend the wedding'.)
'Could attend' should actually refer to a thing of past. But, it is not clear how some speakers are using it to refer to future ability/possibility/probability.

'One observation on the development of usage of 'could' to seek permission or grant permission
'Example #4'
The Manager nodded his head and said to the employee: "You can go."
The Manager nodded his head and told the employee that he could go.
We can deduce an interpretation here: The employee was earlier not enabled to go. He is now enabled by the Manager, to go. We can also justify the use of past tense 'could' here, because the verb in the reported clause is to be in line with the reporting verb 'told'.



Another example of negative connotation of 'could'
He 'could have accepted ' the job.
We get here, a negative implication that he has not accepted the job.

019 Usage of the modal verb 'would'

What part of speech is 'would' ?
'Would' was originally a past tense of the auxiliary verb (supporting verb) 'will'.
It was particularly useful in reporting speech, where the reporting verb was in past tense.
e.g. : He said that he would come.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Would' is a modal verb.
'Would' indicates past habit. 'Would' here, nearly means = 'used to'.
He would, during his adolescence, go to a free library and read volumes of old newspapers for hours together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it correct to say : "I would like to speak to Mr....."
The speaker, is indicating his preference here. He is expressing his desire or wish. A simple present tense usage like :
"I wish to speak to Mr....."
"I desire to speak to Mr...."
seems to be sufficient. The wish or desire is to get fulfilled at some time later, say some minutes.
"I shall like to speak to Mr....." may, perhaps, be sufficient.
But "would - the past tense form of 'will' " has entered the arena to express a wish.
------>>'Shall like to speak to Mr.', 'will like to speak to Mr.', 'would like to speak Mr. ...' etc. have some condescending tone. This may probably go well when a superior speaks to some subordinate.
------->> A more polite approach appears to be, to say : 'Please permit me to speak to Mr.....'. We can also go for other choices such as : 'May I speak to Mr.... ', 'Can I speak to Mr. ....' etc.

Compare the usage of 'would be' with the attributive adjective 'prospective'.
The attributive adjective 'prospective' has a positive connotation. It indicates the future prospects.
We can use would-be also as an attributive adjective. But, somehow, this adjective has derived a negative connotation of frustration and non-fulfillment.
e.g. 'would-be holliwood film star'. (Somebody wanted to go to holliwood and become a star; but apparently did not succeed.)

How about the usage of 'would have been' ?
'Would have been' too has a similar negative connotation. We get an indication of non-fulfillment.
e.g. Ms. Clinton would have been the President of United States, had she succeeded in getting the Democratic Nomination.

Modal verbs are supporting verbs (also called auxiliary verbs). They indicate the manner in which the speaker intends the action of the verb used by him is to have its effect. The verb may indicate a duty, ethical obligation, possibility, impossibility, probability, necessity, compulsiveness etc.

018 Should I use 'shall' or 'will' ?

Should I use 'shall' or 'will'?

Traditional principles *Use 'shall' to indicate simple future intention, when the subject is in first person. e.g.: I shall come, we shall come. (There is no certainty or determination.) *Use 'will' to indicate simple future intention, when the subject is in second or third person. e.g.: You will come, he will come, she will come, it will come, they will come. *Use 'will' to indicate certainty or determination, when the subject is in first person. e.g.: I will come, we will come. *Use 'shall' to indicate certainty or determination, when the subject is in second or third person. e.g.: You shall come, he shall come, she shall come, it shall come, they shall come The degree of determination and certainty is slightly less than 'should'. 'Should' imposes a duty. When somebody says 'you shall come' , he means that he is speaking with such a degree of certainty that it becomes a near-duty for the other person to come. Current usage 'Will' has lost its certainty in all the persons. It, nowadays indicates just simple future. e.g. I will come. (The 'will' has lost its 'will power' in current usage.) We cannot find any definiteness or determination in today's conversations. Suggestion I feel that it will be better for us to adhere to the traditional principles of 'shall - will ' distinction. Usage 'should' 'Should' was originally the past tense of 'shall'. Some people use it in the same sense even now, particularly in indirect speech (reported speech). 'Should' is gradually settling itself in the meaning of a duty.

012 USE OF 'MIGHT' TO CONVEY REPROACH, HOW FAR CORRECT?

Modal Verb 'Might'

*'May' and 'might' both are modal verbs.
* Modal verbs indicate 'mode' of the action.
* Probability, possibility, certainty, duty and obligation, intensity of duty are some modes.
*'Might' is the past tense of 'may'.
*'May' indicates probability.
*'Might' should indicate 'probabilities' in past tense.

E.g.: The murder might have taken place at 12.00 noon yesterday.

'Might' here clearly indicates a probability.

Please, now see, the following sentence:

You might pay a little greater attention to your dress.

It is difficult to find probabilities, here. The speaker, probably, is giving freedom to the receiver either to pay or not to pay more attention to dress.

We may revise the sentence as under, if we want to be puritan about correctness of tense:

You, may please, pay a little greater ....

We can even communicate directly, though the meaning changes a little:

Please, if you do not mind, pay a little greater ....

I propose the use of two terms here:

1. Active grammar: Grammar which we use in our outward communications.

English has approximately 100 pure grammar rules. Following these rules, improves the clarity of our communication. We can write, reasonably correct English, following these rules.

2. Passive grammar: Grammar which we use in deciphering and interpreting our inbox messages.

English has approximately 500 grammar usages. Some of these usages, are against traditional grammar rules. The usages have become acceptable, owing to their continuous usage or popularity, and when others use them we have to accept them in their popular sense, leaving aside the pure grammar rules.

E.g.: 'If I were the Prime Minister of Britain....' . .

'Were' is a supporting verb of 'past tense'. Speakers are using it today to indicate 'impossibilities' and 'subjunctive mood'.