When to use May and Might?

[engee30]

Originally Posted by greegorush

I've got some questions then:

Do you clearly separate these two words? I mean in real life do you think over which word to use in different situations? As an example: if somebody's asking you, "Might I use the office phone?", does it sounds more polite to you than if he's used may or you don't pay attention at all? May be there are some circumstances in which we should use only might (the age or position of the man I'm speaking to or somewhat else)?

Thanks in advance.

Simple question, really.
And the answer is just as simple. May and might differ a little from can, and this is what you should consider while asking for something - can is more colloquial; besides, can conveys not only a sense of possibility, but also a sense of ability.
So, while trying to get something from someone you'll sound more polite by using may/might. That's all about it.

[David L.]

Modal Auxiliaries

English has two tenses by which verbs are inflected: a non-past tense (Present Tense) and a Past Tense. (What we refer to as the 'future tense' is indicated with a modal auxiliary, not verbal inflection.)

It is important to direct our attention to the observation that both the Present and Past Tenses deal with fact, or something that the person regards as a fact:
Water boils at 100° Celsius. –scientific fact
My train leaves from Paddington at 5p.m. next Thursday.- an event that I regard as a definite fact.

Again, in the Past Tense, an action/event either did or didn’t happen, yes or no:
He came yesterday.
He didn’t come yesterday.

With the modal auxiliaries, we are able to talk about a non-factual, imaginary, hypothetical world – we can think about events, not as definite concrete facts, but as they ‘might be, could be, should be, would be if’.

So – as opposed to the objective, black and white facts expressed by verbs in the Present and Past Tenses, the modal auxiliaries express the speaker’s subjective view of the world and that this subjective point of view involves a hypothetical degree of possibility; or desirability, obligation, and permission.

The difference between the factual world, and the hypothetical, can be seen when we consider: Why is there no ‘past tense’ form of the modal auxiliary ‘must’?

“I must go to the shop for milk before it closes.”
“I have to go to the shop for Granny before it closes.”
and in the past:
“I had to go to the shop for milk before it closed.”
“I had to go to the shop for Granny before it closed.”

Importantly, modal auxiliaries express the speaker’s opinion or judgment at the moment of speaking, NOW. It is as if we are prefacing what we say with, “The way I see things at this moment, in the present circumstances…”.
So, “I must...” expresses the speaker’s subjectively experienced sense of necessity ‘to go to the shop’. ((‘have to’ refers to some outside, objectively perceived necessity e.g. legal :”I have to go to prison” as opposed to some bizarre aberration: “I must go to prison.”)

But as soon as I refer to this in the past tense, it moves from the realm of the subjective and hypothetical into the objective factual world of ‘did it or did it not happen?’ – did you act on your sense of necessity or not? Hence, when I refer to a completed action, I cannot use 'must', but shift to 'had to'.

This idea of the subjective hypothetical of the present versus objective fact (past and present) conflicts with the idea we are taught, that ‘could’ is a past tense form (of ‘can’). (This would suggest that modal auxiliaries are actually modal auxiliary verbs, which they are not – they do not behave as full verbs do.)

So – what is really happening when we have this kind of conflict:
He couldn’t come yesterday. - 'could' as a reference to the past
I can’t come today, but I could come next Sunday. – 'could' in a reference to the future.

It seems to be to do with the naturally ego-centric way we structure events in the objective world. Fundamentally, this is one of two ways: those that I consider of immediate relevance to my life NOW, and those that are not. The latter are seen as remote, and outside this circle of ‘relevant to me NOW’.

We then divide up these remote events into those that have happened – finished, completed actions/events (termed ‘Past Tense’); and those that are still to come, haven’t happened yet (termed ‘Future.’)

This idea of ‘past ‘ or 'future' as remoteness, at a distance compared to NOW, is seen in the sentences:
“I could ride a bike when I was a kid, but I haven’t done so for years”
and
"I can’t come today, but I could come next Sunday."
where we refer to remoteness in time, one looking retrospecitvely, one looking forward in time.
I could equally say:
"Sorry I couldn't come yesterday, but I could come next Sunday."
An example of remoteness of a logical possibility would be:
“You could have left it at home.”

The two areas I’ve touched on – speaking about hypothetical events, and remoteness - come together if we return to that contentious sentence from another thread:
"I would never do anything that is/went against my conscience.”
and also raised today by daemon99 in his query:
They would take our jobs away if we just sit back and do nothing about it.

Shouldn't it be,

They would take our jobs away if we just sat back and did nothing about it.

The moment I say, “I would never do…”, I am referring to an imagined circumstance, some hypothetical situation AND distancing myself from it as not ‘me’, not relevant to me as it is not part of my character or my ‘repertoire of behaviours’.

Why then, in determining the verb of choice in the next clause, would I simultaneously remove the distance at which I am viewing this so remote a possibility, and bring it into my NOW world as if it does have relevance to me; and why would I cease to see it as hypothetical and make it as if a current fact by using Present tense?

Hence, it seems far more logical and therefore appropriate to say:
"I would never do anything that went against my conscience.”
And
They would take our jobs away if we just sat back and did nothing about it.

That still leaves us to come up with something about 'may/might'...which may not be easy.

[greegorush]

Thanks engee30 for your simple answer.
Thanks David L. for the detailed answer...I've read it but couldn't say I've got it so I'll ask you more about that if I have questions.