may have been lost or might have been?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ostap77

Key Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Ukrainian
Home Country
Ukraine
Current Location
Ukraine
"They even admitted that papers may have been lost or misfiled."

I was wondering if the speaker used it because he already thought of "may have been" as a past tense construction not the one that should have been shoved into the past tense?
 

magdalena

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
"They even admitted that papers may have been lost or misfiled."

I was wondering if the speaker used it because he already thought of "may have been" as a past tense construction not the one that should have been shoved into the past tense?

I don't quite understand the question:) I think the speaker is guessing what could have happened. Normally the gradation of likelihood is : could-may-might have happened but in your example we have reported speech, where may usually changes into might? Maybe I should read up on my grammar :roll:
 

ostap77

Key Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Ukrainian
Home Country
Ukraine
Current Location
Ukraine
I don't quite understand the question:) I think the speaker is guessing what could have happened. Normally the gradation of likelihood is : could-may-might have happened but in your example we have reported speech, where may usually changes into might? Maybe I should read up on my grammar :roll:

I guess that it might well have been changed to" might have been"? I mean backshifting?
 

magdalena

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
Polish
Home Country
Poland
Current Location
Poland
yep, it could:) if it should I do not know but it definitely could;)
 

ostap77

Key Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Ukrainian
Home Country
Ukraine
Current Location
Ukraine
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
There is no 100% clear answer here because:
1. some speakers appear to make no distictinction between may and might.
2.
even speakers who do make a distinction appear to be less precise sometimes in talking aboutpresent and past conjecture on past happening.
3. backshifting is not always obligatory in reported speech.
 

TheParser

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
"They even admitted that papers may have been lost or misfiled."

I was wondering if the speaker used it because he already thought of "may have been" as a past tense construction not the one that should have been shoved into the past tense?


***** NOT A TEACHER *****


(1) As usual, you have asked an excellent question.

(2) Mr. John Honey wrote a 1997 book entitled Language is Power/ The Story of Standard English and its Enemies (London and Boston: Faber and Faber).

(3) He was severely criticized because he felt that there is correct English

and incorrect English. At that time in his country (the United Kingdom),

some people thought that he was wrong to insist that everyone learn

standard English.

(4) One thing that upset him was the fact that many educated people

do not understand the difference between might have been and

may have been.

(5) I hope that I can explain his views correctly.

(6) Professor Honey says that (generally speaking) might have been =

something could have happened but it didn't!!!

(7) Professor Honey says that (generally speaking) may have been =

something could have happened, but we do not know yet!!!

(8) These are only my examples, so I cannot guarantee you that they are

correct:

TV announcer: Terrible news!!! There has just been an earthquake in city

X. 100, 000 people live there. We are getting reports that maybe

as many as 10,000 people may have died (but WE DO NOT KNOW YET).

***


TV announcer: There was a terrible airplane accident in country Y. When

the plane crashed, all of the 100 passengers were immediately taken

by ambulance to the hospital. Now they are all OK. Those 100 passengers

might have died if there had not been those ambulances waiting to rush

them to the hospital (but WE KNOW THAT THEY DID NOT DIE -- thanks to

those waiting ambulances).

(9) Based on my reading of Professor Honey's book, IF I am correct,

your sentence "They admitted that papers may have been lost" =

They do not yet know whether the papers have been lost or have not

been lost. They are now checking.

("They admitted that papers might have been lost" would =

The papers were NOT lost. For example: the papers were in a big

box. The custodian/janitor picked up the box to take it to the

trash container. But a good security guard told him: Don't touch those

papers!!! They are important!!! So we can say:

They admitted that papers might have been lost if the security guard

had not stopped the custodian. But the security guard DID stop the

custodian and the papers were NOT lost. Therefore, use "might have

been.")
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I use the words in the way Professor Honey describes. However, I often see and hear such things as "Obama may have lost the election" (if certain voters had not been mobilised). To me that carries a nonsensical meaning (because Obama did not lose the election), but its use appears to becoming so common that perhaps I may have to accept that the language is changing.

The reported speech of Ostap's, "They even admitted that papers may have been lost or misfiled" complicates matters further.

Let us assume that their original words were "Papers may have been lost or misfiled," very roughly equivalent in meaning to, "It is possible that papers were/have been lost ...".

We can report this in two ways:

1. We can suggest that there is still, at the time of reporting the admission, the possibility of the loss of the papers:

They even admitted that it is possible that the papers were/have been lost ... .
They even admitted that the papers may have been lost.


2. We can report that there was, at the time of admission, the possibility of the loss of the papers. without suggesting that the possibility still (at the time of reporting) exists:

They even admitted that it was possible that the papers had been lost... .
They even admitted that the papers might have been lost... .
 

ostap77

Key Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Ukrainian
Home Country
Ukraine
Current Location
Ukraine
I use the words in the way Professor Honey describes. However, I often see and hear such things as "Obama may have lost the election" (if certain voters had not been mobilised). To me that carries a nonsensical meaning (because Obama did not lose the election), but its use appears to becoming so common that perhaps I may have to accept that the language is changing.

The reported speech of Ostap's, "They even admitted that papers may have been lost or misfiled" complicates matters further.

Let us assume that their original words were "Papers may have been lost or misfiled," very roughly equivalent in meaning to, "It is possible that papers were/have been lost ...".

We can report this in two ways:

1. We can suggest that there is still, at the time of reporting the admission, the possibility of the loss of the papers:

They even admitted that it is possible that the papers were/have been lost ... .
They even admitted that the papers may have been lost.


2. We can report that there was, at the time of admission, the possibility of the loss of the papers. without suggesting that the possibility still (at the time of reporting) exists:

They even admitted that it was possible that the papers had been lost... .
They even admitted that the papers might have been lost... .

How would you interpret it, if the speaker said "might well have been"="may have been lost"? Or it would be a bit sronger than just "might have been lost"?
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
How would you interpret it, if the speaker said "might well have been"="may have been lost"? Or it would be a bit sronger than just "might have been lost"?
If the actual words were, "The papers might well have been lost", I would interpret th words as implying a stronger possibility of loss than that implied by both 'may have been lost' and 'might have been lost'.
 

ostap77

Key Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Ukrainian
Home Country
Ukraine
Current Location
Ukraine
If the actual words were, "The papers might well have been lost", I would interpret th words as implying a stronger possibility of loss than that implied by both 'may have been lost' and 'might have been lost'.

If you thought bad things about a person but he turned out to be a nice guy, would you rather say "I guess I might have been wrong about him." or " I guess I was wrong about him."?
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
If you thought bad things about a person but he turned out to be a nice, would you rather say "I guess I might have been wrong about him." or " I guess I was wrong about him."?
"I guess I might have been wrong about him." suggests to me that I admit the possibility that I was wrong - but reserve the right to believe that I was not.

"I guess I was wrong about him." is an inconceivable statement for me. It suggests that I was wrong.;-) (And I never say 'I guess'.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top