0
MrPedantic Posted 20 years ago
Linguistics Studies
"He may come" vs "He might come"
Two sentences:
1. He may come tomorrow.
2. He might come tomorrow.
Some would state that "might" indicates less likelihood than "may", in such cases. Some might even attempt to assign probabilities in terms of percentages.
How reasonable is this?
We know that for event E, the sum of the probabilities of all possible outcomes must equal one (or 100%).
For instance, if E = a fair roll of a fair die, there are 6 possible outcomes, each with a probability of 1/6. Their sum = 1 = 100%.
Now take this example:
3. He may come tomorrow. But then again, he may not.
There are two sentences. Each sentence embodies one outcome. Each outcome is presented as of equal probability. Each therefore has a probability of 1/2 = 50%.
Now take another sentence:
4. He might come tomorrow. But then again, he might not.
Again, we have two sentences, and two possible outcomes of equal probability. So again, each outcome has a probability of 50%.
But how can that be, if "might" indicates less likelihood than "may"?
_________
Perhaps we need to be more flexible. Suppose the probability values of "may" and "might" are indeed different, but vary from event to event. In that case, we would expect to see many instances of these two structures:
5. He may do X; but then again, he might not.
6. He might do X; but then again, he may not.
Here, for instance, "may" might express a 67% likelihood, and "might" a 33% likelihood, the sum of which would = 100%.
If that were the case, in #5, X would be twice as likely as not-X; while in #6, X would be half as likely as not-X.
That sounds plausible; and it accords with received "may"/"might" wisdom.
Yet the strange thing is, we don't see many sentences of this kind. If you google on
7. "he may * but then again he might not"
you'll find very few examples, by comparison with
8. "he may * but then again he may not"
The latter (#8) is the common form; the former (#7) is the exception.
If "might" and "may" can express differing likelihoods, why don't we combine them to do so more frequently, after the model of #7?
MrP
1. He may come tomorrow.
2. He might come tomorrow.
Some would state that "might" indicates less likelihood than "may", in such cases. Some might even attempt to assign probabilities in terms of percentages.
How reasonable is this?
We know that for event E, the sum of the probabilities of all possible outcomes must equal one (or 100%).
For instance, if E = a fair roll of a fair die, there are 6 possible outcomes, each with a probability of 1/6. Their sum = 1 = 100%.
Now take this example:
3. He may come tomorrow. But then again, he may not.
There are two sentences. Each sentence embodies one outcome. Each outcome is presented as of equal probability. Each therefore has a probability of 1/2 = 50%.
Now take another sentence:
4. He might come tomorrow. But then again, he might not.
Again, we have two sentences, and two possible outcomes of equal probability. So again, each outcome has a probability of 50%.
But how can that be, if "might" indicates less likelihood than "may"?
_________
Perhaps we need to be more flexible. Suppose the probability values of "may" and "might" are indeed different, but vary from event to event. In that case, we would expect to see many instances of these two structures:
5. He may do X; but then again, he might not.
6. He might do X; but then again, he may not.
Here, for instance, "may" might express a 67% likelihood, and "might" a 33% likelihood, the sum of which would = 100%.
If that were the case, in #5, X would be twice as likely as not-X; while in #6, X would be half as likely as not-X.
That sounds plausible; and it accords with received "may"/"might" wisdom.
Yet the strange thing is, we don't see many sentences of this kind. If you google on
7. "he may * but then again he might not"
you'll find very few examples, by comparison with
8. "he may * but then again he may not"
The latter (#8) is the common form; the former (#7) is the exception.
If "might" and "may" can express differing likelihoods, why don't we combine them to do so more frequently, after the model of #7?
MrP
Top answer
<4. He might come tomorrow. But then again, he might not.
- <4.
- He might come tomorrow.
- But then again, he might not.
- Again, we have two sentences, and two possible outcomes of equal probability.
- > Because in each case it is the speakers perception of, stance toward, the likelihood (modal) and not the actual likelihood (real world) itself that is being expressed.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
9 Answers
0
<4. He might come tomorrow. But then again, he might not.
Again, we have two sentences, and two possible outcomes of equal probability. So again, each outcome has a probability of 50%
But how can that be, if "might" indicates less likelihood than "may"?>
Because in each case it is the speakers perception of, stance toward, the likelihood (modal) and not the actual
Again, we have two sentences, and two possible outcomes of equal probability. So again, each outcome has a probability of 50%
But how can that be, if "might" indicates less likelihood than "may"?>
Because in each case it is the speakers perception of, stance toward, the likelihood (modal) and not the actual
00
<5. He may do X; but then again, he might not.
6. He might do X; but then again, he may not.>
Two levels of liklihood there. "May" can expresses a close possibility and "might" a distant one there, but also it could be expressing the level of commitment the speaker has to his/her statement.
The creation of space in this type of modality is also abou
6. He might do X; but then again, he may not.>
Two levels of liklihood there. "May" can expresses a close possibility and "might" a distant one there, but also it could be expressing the level of commitment the speaker has to his/her statement.
The creation of space in this type of modality is also abou
00
<"he may * but then again he may not">
Speaker and listeners love balanced statements more than asymmetrical ones?
And remember that "may" appears more in written form (e.g. Google) than "might" does.
He may, but he may not. = There's an equal chance of both things happening.
He might, but he might not. = There's an equal chance of both things ha
Speaker and listeners love balanced statements more than asymmetrical ones?
And remember that "may" appears more in written form (e.g. Google) than "might" does.
He may, but he may not. = There's an equal chance of both things happening.
He might, but he might not. = There's an equal chance of both things ha
00
Milky<4. He might come tomorrow. But then again, he might not.
Again, we have two sentences, and two possible outcomes of equal probability. So again, each outcome has a probability of 50%
But how can that be, if "might" indicates less likelihood than "may"?>
Because in each case it is the speakers perception of, stance toward, the likelih
00
Yes; it's a way of pencilling in a judgement.
I want to cover my ***
MrP
00
MrPedantic.Absurd indeed.
And, in your opinion, are attempts to assign a percentage to the likelihood in these cases (e.g. must = 99% certainty, "may" = 50% certainty, etc.) slightly absurd, however well intended?
MrP
00
We seem to have agreed on three points.
Had to happen some time, I suppose.
MrP
Had to happen some time, I suppose.
MrP
00
0
the explanation above is really clear.. I think math and grammar really has a broad relationship. Math makes Grammar easier to understand. This idea is great. I hope all people could explain this way..
0
Related Questions