might

Status
Not open for further replies.

aysaa

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Turkish
Home Country
Turkey
Current Location
Turkey
Hi,

I have been told that when the main clause is in the past, the following subordinate clause will have might. For example:

-She knew that he might travel to Italy next year.

Howerver, I have seen a sentence narrated in past tense in this internet site, and I would like to ask if the usage of 'might' is OK or not. If not, must I use 'could' instead of it?

Medieval Towns

-Towns were dirty places to live in. There was no sewage system as we would know it today. Many people threw toilet waste into the street along with other rubbish. Rats were very common in towns and cities and lead to the Black Death of 1348 to 1349. Towns might use pigs to eat what rubbish there was. Water was far from clean as a local river would have been polluted with toilet waste thrown into it from villages both upstream and downstream.

Thanks.
 

Grumpy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
Hi,

I have been told that when the main clause is in the past, the following subordinate clause will have might. For example:

-She knew that he might travel to Italy next year.

Howerver, I have seen a sentence narrated in past tense in this internet site, and I would like to ask if the usage of 'might' is OK or not. If not, must I use 'could' instead of it?

Medieval Towns

-Towns were dirty places to live in. There was no sewage system as we would know it today. Many people threw toilet waste into the street along with other rubbish. Rats were very common in towns and cities and lead to the Black Death of 1348 to 1349. Towns might use pigs to eat what rubbish there was. Water was far from clean as a local river would have been polluted with toilet waste thrown into it from villages both upstream and downstream.

Thanks.

Using "might" there is fine. Or you could phrase it as "Some towns used pigs to....".

However, I can't see how any town's local river could have been polluted with toilet waste thrown into it from downstream.
 

aysaa

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Turkish
Home Country
Turkey
Current Location
Turkey
'Might' can be used as past tense of 'may' because this sentence was narrated ib past, am I right? What I mean is that we cannot use 'might' without any context narrated in past like this:

-You might visit your parents yesterday.

It is wrong, but in a context used past tense:

-Towns were dirty places to live in. There was no sewage system as we would know it today. Many people threw toilet waste into the street along with other rubbish. Rats were very common in towns and cities and lead to the Black Death of 1348 to 1349. Towns might use pigs to eat what rubbish there was.

It is OK. Am I right?
 

aysaa

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Turkish
Home Country
Turkey
Current Location
Turkey
:oops::oops:Please, it is very important to me, because I haven't ever seen this usage of 'might' in the grammar books I read.
 

Esredux

VIP Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Member Type
Other
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Have you checked this thread?
 
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
Have you checked this thread?
Well spotted/remembered, Esgaleth.

I think my 'implied reported speech' there might work here:

In some parts of the world today, towns may use pigs to eat what rubbish there is.,
In the fourteenth century, towns might use pigs to eat what rubbish there was.

However, as aysaa suggested, this works only with a suitable past-time narrative context. Thus we can say:

Luke did not know what he was going to do yesterday when he woke up. He might visit his parents, or he might spring-clean his flat.

Note that we could use 'would' instead of 'might' in the first sentence to suggest greater certainty that this happened. We can't in the second, because there is no certainty, but we could say:

Luke made up his mind as soon as he woke up: he would visit his parents.


However, Luke might/would visit his parents yesterday does not work. We have insufficient context to prepare us for the 'it was possible/certain that he would ...' idea.
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
However, I can't see how any town's local river could have been polluted with toilet waste thrown into it from downstream.

It only says the river was polluted by waste thrown from villages, which were situated upstream and downstream. It doesn't mean waste necessarily travels upstream. It means villages all along the river, both north and south of here, contribute to the pollution.
 

Grumpy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
It only says the river was polluted by waste thrown from villages, which were situated upstream and downstream. It doesn't mean waste necessarily travels upstream. It means villages all along the river, both north and south of here, contribute to the pollution.

In that case, why include "..both upstream and downstream" at all? Why not just say "a local river would have been polluted with toilet waste thrown into it from villages"? If the "upstream and downstream" are not relevant, they should not be mentioned.
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
Towns both upstream and downstream pollute the river. Perhaps people who live on a river think in those Cartesian terms. It's no more redundant than most conversational English.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top