[quote=DBP]M56:
In his chapter on modal auxiliaries in The English Verb, Michael Lewis lists what he thinks are the basic semantic meanings for each. I cite those meanings below and ask if you agree with them.

Please remember, we are talking about the basic semantic meaning. In context, these auxiliaries take on wider meanings, but it is the basic meaning I want to discuss.


Paraphrased.

Can = I assert that it is possible that ...
Could = I assert that it is "remotely" possible that ...

I don't think that "assert" fits very well here because 'can/could' can be epistemically very weak. This is especially notable in speech where intonation strengthens or weakens 'can/could'.

That caaaaaan happen. OR That cooooould happen.

Also, while 'could' is used to discuss remote/impossible events, it can also be used as a near equivalent of 'can'.

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

May = If I have anything to do with it, it is possible that ...
Might = If I have anything to do with it, it is "remotely" possible that ...

I wonder why Mr Lewis has prefaced all these, eg. "If I have anything to do with it". I'd say that 'may' and 'might' have a discernible range of possibility, so they don't simply mean "it's possible that" and "it's remotely possible that".

Those are more the meanings of 'can' and 'could', which only express "possibleness" but don't express any discernable range of possibility.

'may' & 'might' express how certain a speaker is. They don't simply address that the speaker thinks something is possible.

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

Mr Lewis would say that possibility is the basic semantic meaning of many modals. They take on other, added, meanings in context, but possibility is the base.

What do you think?