Question about 'may'. Reported Speech. Unit 7

Question

Hi Teachers,Are these explanations correct?Direct SpeechIf the original uses may (possibility), substitude it with might.Eg. Tom said, 'I may study English'.     Tom said (that) he might study English.If the original uses may (permission), substitude it with could.Eg. Tom said, 'May I study English'.     Tom said (that) If he could study English.Another question please:Can I call 'might' and 'could' past modals in this case?Thanks in advance

Cool Breeze · Accepted Answer

Language isn't math and therefore giving "rules" that supposedly always apply is risky. There are some problems with your sentences, TS.

My versions:

Tom said, "I may study English."

Tom said [that] he might study English.

Tom said/asked, "May I study English?"

Tom asked if/whether he could / [would be allowed/permitted to] study English.

As for calling might and could past modals, I see no justification for that. They refer to the future.

CB

Tenacious Learner · Answer

Hi Cool Breeze,

Thank you so much for your reply.

Language isn't math and therefore giving "rules" that supposedly always apply is risky.

I completely agree with you, but students always ask for them.

As for calling might and could past modals, I see no justification for that. They refer to the future.

I've seen it somewhere that's why I've asked. So I was completely wrong.

The same thing for 'would' in reported speech, it refers to the future too. There is no way I can call it 'past modal' at all, right?

TS

Cool Breeze · Answer

Thinking SpainI've seen it somewhere that's why I've asked. So I was completely wrong.
The same thing for 'would' in reported speech, it refers to the future too. There is no way I can call it 'past modal' at all, right?

I don't think I have seen the term "past modal" anywhere. (That doesn't of course mean that no one has ever called some modals that!

) Actually, I learned to call these verbs defective auxiliaries at Helsinki University. I probably learned the term from George O. Curme'sSyntax, which was one of the many grammar books I had to study for my exams.

Of course nearly all modals can refer to the past with the perfect infinitive:

He may have seen us yesterday.

He might have seen us yesterday.

He would have seen us yesterday.

Reference to the past is far less common with the present infinitive, but it can occur:

When he was young, he would go / used to go for long walks in the morning.

CB

Tenacious Learner · Answer

Hi Cool Breeze,

Thank you for your reply.

Of course nearly all modals can refer to the past with the perfect infinitive:

He may have seen us yesterday.

He might have seen us yesterday.

He would have seen us yesterday.

That's not the case with the ones I was referring to:

Tom said (that) he would study English.

Tom said (that) he could study English.

Tom said (that) he might study English.

Tom asked if he could study English.

As you previously told me, all of them refer to the future.

Thank you once again for sharing your knowledge. I should try to find this book George O. Curme's Syntax.

You teachers do a great job here. I think you don't really know how helpful you really are. If it wasn't for this web and you, most of my doubts, even though sometimes are silly, will never have an answer.

Best,

TS

Cool Breeze · Answer

"Hi Cool Breeze,

Thank you for your reply.

Of course nearly all modals can refer to the past with the perfect infinitive:

He may have seen us yesterday.

He might have seen us yesterday.

He would have seen us yesterday.

That's not the case with the ones I was referring to:

Tom said (that) he would study English.

Tom said (that) he could study English.

Tom said (that) he might study English.

Tom asked if he could study English.

As you previously told me, all of them refer to the future."

None of your sentences has a perfect infinitive either. Study is a present infinitive.

As to Curme's Syntax, I don't think you can find it in many bookshops. It's very old. I think it was first published in the 1930s. Also, it is a very scholarly presentation of English grammar. I think you'll find many good grammar books that are easier to understand. If you insist, Curme's Syntax is available for a price online [url=http://www.questia.com/library/book/syntax-by-george-o-curme.jsp]here.[/url] There may not be much point in paying for it, though. As I said, it's meant for very advanced students of English.

When my studies were at what I might call an intermediate stage, I found grammar books written by my compatriots, Finns, the most useful. A blingual grammarian knows what causes problems for a speaker of his native language and can draw the student's attention to the right things. This is of course only possible if the grammarian has an excellent command of both his native language and the target language, English.

No Finn has ever written such a comprehensive grammar of English as Curme's Syntax is, and consequently all advanced Finnish students and scholars of the English language have had to resort to it and other equally thick volumes to perfect their grammatical and syntactic knowledge of English.

Tenacious Learner · Answer

Hi Cool Breeze,

I have looked on the Internet for this book and yes it was first published in the 1930s. Though I won't buy it if it is for very advanced students of English. That's not my case. Anyway, thanks a lot for your time, help, and information.

Take care,

+

Question about 'may'. Reported Speech. Unit 7

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions