must vs might vs may

[ostap77]

1)"Joe must have read the book."

OR

2)"Joe might have read the book."

OR

3)"Joe may have read the book."

What would be your opinion on the sentenses given below?

1) I've seen Joe reading it twenty times. So he must have read it.

2)I've seen Joe reading it, shall we say, 7 times. So he might have read it.

3) I've seen him reading it twice. So he may have read it.

 

[Barb_D]

If you saw him reading it, even once, you just say "Joe read this book." There is zero uncertainty and no logical deductions you have to make.

Joe was quoting passage from the book and was able to discuss all the characters at great length. Although I haven't seen him with the book in his hands, Joe must have read it. (I infer he read it as the only logical conclusion.)

This seems like the type of book Joe likes. He may/might have read it.

(I don't see any difference between may and might.)

 

[youandcorey]

I believe your answers could be more accurate by adding: "all".


1) I've seen Joe reading it twenty times. So he must have read it all.

2)I've seen Joe reading it, shall we say, 7 times. So he might have read it all.

3) I've seen him reading it twice. So he may have read it all.

I hope this helps.

c

 

[ostap77]

I believe your answers could be more accurate by adding: "all".


1) I've seen Joe reading it twenty times. So he must have read it all.

2)I've seen Joe reading it, shall we say, 7 times. So he might have read it all.

3) I've seen him reading it twice. So he may have read it all.

I hope this helps.

c

Am I correct with it?

How would you grade them? I'd put more than 70% for must, might and could up to 45% and may less than 25%?

 

[5jj]

(I don't see any difference between may and might.)

That’s part of the problem Some don’t see any difference, and for others may does not really exist.For a 65-year old Southern Englishman, (i.e. me) might is very clearly less certain than may.

Am I correct with it?

How would you grade him? I'd put more than 70% for must, might and could up to 45% and may less than 25%?

It’s impossible to answer this with any degree of useful accuracy, because it varies from speaker to speaker. All we can say with some degree of confidence is that for nearly all native speakers, will is more certain than must and that both are more certain than may and might; for some speakers, may is more certain than might. I have not been very helpful, but I am not alone:

“ …the use of the modal verbs is one of the more problematic areas of English, and one of the area where many studies have been made.”
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartik, Jan (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman

”The fact that different scholars have dealt with modals and modality is so many different ways is a clear indication of the complexity of the issues involved and of the difficulty of arriving at any completely simple and completely convincing analysis.”
Palmer, FR (1979) Modality and the English Modals (2nd edn, 1990), Harlow: Longman.

 

[TheParser]

1)"Joe must have read the book."

OR

2)"Joe might have read the book."

OR

3)"Joe may have read the book."

What would be your opinion on the sentenses given below?

1) I've seen Joe reading it twenty times. So he must have read it.

2)I've seen Joe reading it, shall we say, 7 times. So he might have read it.

3) I've seen him reading it twice. So he may have read it.

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

(1) As the other posters have already told you:

I will come. = 99% certain.

I may come. = 70% (?) certain.

I might come. = 40% (?) certain.

"Might" is also a nice way to say "No."

Your boss: I am having a party. Are you coming?

You: (You do not want to go to his party, but you are

afraid to say no) Oh, thank you, sir. I do not know what

my schedule will be tonight. I might come.

*****

From your posts, I know that you are a very serious student of

English. So here is something that is very important. It even

confuses many of us native speakers.

(1) There was a mine explosion. The miners may have all died.

(2) There was a mine explosion. The miners might have all died if

help had not come in time.

My books tell me:

(1) There was an explosion. Maybe the miners are alive; maybe they

are dead. We do not know yet.

(2) There was an explosion. The miners did not die (because help

did come in time).

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

 

[ostap77]

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

(1) As the other posters have already told you:

I will come. = 99% certain.

I may come. = 70% (?) certain.

I might come. = 40% (?) certain.

"Might" is also a nice way to say "No."

Your boss: I am having a party. Are you coming?

You: (You do not want to go to his party, but you are

afraid to say no) Oh, thank you, sir. I do not know what

my schedule will be tonight. I might come.

*****

From your posts, I know that you are a very serious student of

English. So here is something that is very important. It even

confuses many of us native speakers.

(1) There was a mine explosion. The miners may have all died.

(2) There was a mine explosion. The miners might have all died if

help had not come in time.

My books tell me:

(1) There was an explosion. Maybe the miners are alive; maybe they

are dead. We do not know yet.

(2) There was an explosion. The miners did not die (because help

did come in time).

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

What about the "reading the book sentences"?
I would appreciate it, if you could give advice on the post "speak of/speak about".

 

[5jj]

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

So here is something that is very important. It even

confuses many of us native speakers.

(1) There was a mine explosion. The miners may have all died.

(2) There was a mine explosion. The miners might have all died if

help had not come in time.

My books tell me:

(1) There was an explosion. Maybe the miners are alive; maybe they

are dead. We do not know yet.

(2) There was an explosion. The miners did not die (because help

did come in time).

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

Your books reflect my own usage. However, in our #1 situation, many native speakers would use might have all died.

The #2 explanation is correct, but I am increasingly reading such sentences as:

(3). If Gore had sounded less boring, he may have beaten Bush.

To me that is unacceptable. Gore did not beat Bush, and so might is required. But, if enough people are writing it, perhaps the language is changing with respect to may and might. What do others think?

 

[riquecohen]

(3). If Gore had sounded less boring, he may have beaten Bush.

To me that is unacceptable. Gore did not beat Bush, and so might is required. But, if enough people are writing it, perhaps the language is changing with respect to may and might. What do others think?

In fact, Gore did beat Bush, but that`s altogether another story.
I agree that may is improperly used in that context and should not be considered acceptable.

 

[ostap77]

Your books reflect my own usage. However, in our #1 situation, many native speakers would use might have all died.

The #2 explanation is correct, but I am increasingly reading such sentences as:

(3). If Gore had sounded less boring, he may have beaten Bush.

To me that is unacceptable. Gore did not beat Bush, and so might is required. But, if enough people are writing it, perhaps the language is changing with respect to may and might. What do others think?

Hope I'm not driving you up the wall. So what I got from your posts is that "may" comes before "might" on a "being sure" scale. Correct?

If know that a person has been reading the book for a while so I would say 1)"He must have read the book." Correct?

Suppose I've seen him reading it for several times so I would asy

2)"He may have read the book." Correct?

If I saw him flipping over the pages so I would say

3)"He maght have read the dook." Correct?

 

[TheParser]

Your books reflect my own usage. However, in our #1 situation, many native speakers would use might have all died.

The #2 explanation is correct, but I am increasingly reading such sentences as:

(3). If Gore had sounded less boring, he may have beaten Bush.

To me that is unacceptable. Gore did not beat Bush, and so might is required. But, if enough people are writing it, perhaps the language is changing with respect to may and might. What do others think?

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


(1) If possible, get a copy of Language is Power by John Honey

(1997). He was very upset by sentences such as your "Gore/Bush"

sentence. From what I have read, Mr. Honey was criticized by many

people in the United Kingdom for his view that all people should speak

standard English. Some critics felt, I believe, that he was belittling other

"varieties" of English. He gives many examples of how many well-

educated people no longer understand the difference between "may have

X" and "might have X." Mr. Honey felt that standard English confers real

"power" on people -- regardless of their class or race.

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

 

[TheParser]

What about the "reading the book sentences"?
I would appreciate it, if you could give advice on the post "speak of/speak about".

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


(1) Thank you for your note.

(2) I cannot comment on your "reading the book" and

"speak of/about" sentences because I, too, need others to

explain them to me. This website does not want non-teachers such as I

to comment unless they are reasonably certain that their

answers are correct. I agree with that policy 100%.

Thank you for your posts. By reading the answers from others,

I always learn a lot.

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

 

[5jj]

(1) As the other posters have already told you:

I will come. = 99% certain.

I may come. = 70% (?) certain.

I might come. = 40% (?) certain.

Actually, other posters didn't write that, though some may have implied it.

That sort of analysis is what many teachers present; I used to myself. I now believe that such an analysis suggests that it is scientific and can be relied on. Not so. The whole thing appears to me to very subjective.

Incidentally, TheParser, that implies no criticism of you. From someone who is not a teacher, your postings are sometimes more perceptive and helpful than those of some teachers. ;-).

 

[ostap77]

Actually, other posters didn't write that, though some may have implied it.

That sort of analysis is what many teachers present; I used to myself. I now believe that such an analysis suggests that it is scientific and can be relied on. Not so. The whole thing appears to me to very subjective.

Incidentally, TheParser, that implies no criticism of you. From someone who is not a teacher, your postings are sometimes more perceptive and helpful than those of some teachers. ;-).

Ok

 

[5jj]

Hope I'm not driving you up the wall. Not at all. It's the modals themselves that drive me up the wall.

So what I got from your posts is that "may" comes before "might" on a "being sure" scale. Correct? In that it is more certain, yes - for me and some other speakers, but not for all.

If know that a person has been reading the book for a while so I would say 1)"He must have read the book." Correct? It is possible for you to say that.

Suppose I've seen him reading it for several times so I would [STRIKE]asy[/STRIKE] say

2)"He may have read the book." Correct? Once again. It is possible for you to say that. A paraphrase is: It is possible that he has read the book. It is also possible that he has not read the book.

If I saw him flipping over the pages so I would say

3)"He m[STRIKE]a[/STRIKE]ight have read the [STRIKE]d[/STRIKE]book." Correct? It is possible for you to say that.

I think you might find life easier if you were to stop asking what you would say, and start thinking about what you could say. The reason I have not given a clear YES in response to your questions is because the words used will depend on how you view the situation at the moment of speaking. Another speaker, viewing the situation in a slightly different wway, might use a different contruction, and this would be equally correct/appropriate/acceptable.

 

[youandcorey]

Am I correct with it?

How would you grade them? I'd put more than 70% for must, might and could up to 45% and may less than 25%?

Those percent would vary according to one's own perspective.
Personally, I'd judge them must-100% might-70%, and may-60%.

 

[philo2009]

Hope I'm not driving you up the wall. So what I got from your posts is that "may" comes before "might" on a "being sure" scale. Correct?

Yes, for some speakers/at times, this may be the case, but note that might have Ved has two possible meanings:

(1) perhaps Ved
(2) would perhaps have Ved

compared with only one for may have Ved (=(1) above), making only the former acceptable in the main clause of a 3rd conditional.

Hence, as others have already pointed out,

If Gore had sounded less boring, he might have beaten Bush.

(not *...may...)

 

[youandcorey]

What do you think?

1)"Joe must have read the book."

OR

2)"Joe might have read the book."

OR

3)"Joe may have read the book."

What would be your opinion on the sentenses given below?

1) I've seen Joe reading it twenty times. So he must have read it.

2)I've seen Joe reading it, shall we say, 7 times. So he might have read it (all).

3) I've seen him reading it twice. So he may have read it (all).

 

[Tdol]

Hence, as others have already pointed out,

If Gore had sounded less boring, he might have beaten Bush.

(not *...may...)

Though this distinction seems to be fading and possibly even endangered in some places. :-|

 

[philo2009]

Though this distinction seems to be fading and possibly even endangered in some places. :-|

I think that it is scrupulously observed, however, in all the best places!