zompist bboard

Lately I have been hearing people using "may have" in a sense that I am not used to hearing, but where I would always expect "might have" - namely in counterfactuals.

For example if a kid pushes something over but it doesn't break and the mother says "careful! You may have broken that".

To me that means that she is suggesting that it is possible that it is in fact broken (i.e. the same sense as "maybe you broke it"), whereas "might have" would have given the intended meaning of "you could have broken that". I've been hearing this in California, but I wonder if this is in fact a common use or if it is regional in some way.

I from Ontario and am used to them being used interchangeably so it can't just be a California thing. I have little doubt that distinction you understand was once more common.

SSBE speaker here - to me, that sounds very odd indeed. "You may have broken the vase" always, for me, implies that it is possible that you may have broken the glass.

[But the opposite is not true. "You might have broken the glass" can mean either "you may have broken the glass" (possibility) or "you could have broken the glass" (counterfactual), or sometimes even "you should have broken the glass"]

I've often heard both used both ways, but may is used much less than might in total for counterfactuals. My spoken English is mostly some American variety (with a lot of British phrasing and pronunciation) while my written English is mixed (I try to write in Commonwealth spellings on the board and in personal stuff, while I use American spellings in other realms of my life).

Texan here...hm, I don't think the distinction exists here. I could definitely say "you might've broken that" to mean "it's possible that you have now broken it", while "you may have broken that" would usually mean...actually, the same thing, honestly.

Honestly, I'm not seeing the supposed distinction you're mentioning here. Both "you could have broken..." and "it's possible that you have broken..." mean pretty much the same thing.

Chagen wrote:Honestly, I'm not seeing the supposed distinction you're mentioning here. Both "you could have broken..." and "it's possible that you have broken..." mean pretty much the same thing.

I *believe* he's making a distinction between a counterfactual (you could've broken it, but you didn't) versus possibility (it's broken, and it could've been you that did it), which is not a distinction I have for may/might.

Vancouverite here.

There are three senses of "You might have broken the vase" that I can immediately think of:
1. Your actions endangered the vase but didn't break it.
2. I suggest that breaking the vase was a good idea (c.f. "You might have handled that more delicately.")
3. It's possible that the vase is broken, but I'm not sure.

"You may have broken the vase" is identical in meaning except for 2, which can only be expressed by "You might have broken the vase."

Chagen wrote:Texan here...hm, I don't think the distinction exists here. I could definitely say "you might've broken that" to mean "it's possible that you have now broken it", while "you may have broken that" would usually mean...actually, the same thing, honestly.

Honestly, I'm not seeing the supposed distinction you're mentioning here. Both "you could have broken..." and "it's possible that you have broken..." mean pretty much the same thing.

Situation 1:
A child runs past a vase, and knocks it; it wobbles, but does not fall down. The child's father breathes a sigh of relief and says, admonishingly: "careful, you ___ have broken that priceless vase!"
[meaning: you did not break it, but it wouldn't have been surprising if you did]

Situation 2:
A child runs past a vase, and knocks it to the ground, where it falls out of sight. It doesn't make a smashing sound, but there is a sound that might have been a crack. The child's father groans, and says "I said to be careful around that vase! Now you ___ have broken it!"
[meaning: it is possible that the vase is now broken because of you, although I have not yet checked to make sure]

For me, and I think standard English, "might" is used is both situations, but "may" can only be used in the latter, not the former. It's not an ironclad rule for me, come to think about it a little more, at least in casual speech, largely because the ontology of these situations is often not clearcut in the moment. But it's a rule nonetheless, and certainly one I would expect people to follow in writing.

So, for instance, "Our experiment may have disproven the theory of gravity" implies that it is possible that the theory of gravity has now been disproven, though it is not sure that this is the case. It CANNOT, for me, imply only that it WAS possible that the experiment WOULD disprove the theory (but as it turned out it didn't).



"Our experiment may have disproven the theory of gravity" - is the speaker saying that they think it possible that the theory has been disproven? Or just that it could have been but wasn't?
"The child may have broken the vase" - is the speaker saying that they think it possible that the vase HAS been broken by the child? Or just that it could have been but wasn't?
"We may have seen the last of his kind" - is the speaker saying that they think it possible that no more of that kind WILL be seen? Or just that had things been otherwise, that might have been the case?
"I may have misspoken" - is the speaker saying that they think it possible that they misspoke? Or just that it WAS possible to misspeak, but they DIDN'T?

Michigan here. I'm with Sal, the sense of "you may have broken that" is always that there's a chance it's broken. May and might are not interchangeable.

Same as Viktor77, Buran and Sal, now that I think about it.

Well, that is what I was used to as well. Of course you are right that might permits both readings - but here the odd usage is that of may as a counterfactual when we know it is not broken but it could have been, which is the sense I heard it in twice here in Northern California yesterday.

I'm with Sal, Viktor Buran, and mèþru here.

I think there's a third option, which I hear a lot in American English from all over -- for the counterfactual option (Sal's #1): "You could have broken that vase!"

It frankly sounds more colloquial to me than "might have" in that context.

I'm with kuroda here - 'you might have broken it' has a possible counterfactual reading, but it feels a bit odd (at least without surrounding dialogue). I can't rule out that I use it, but 'could' definitely feels like the more likely option without context. I certainly wouldn't use 'may' in this sense in any case.

I would say both "could" and "might" can be either counterfactual or speculative.

"I'm so glad they got out in time! They could/might have died!"
"No one has heard from them in weeks. They could/might have died."

I keep going back and forth about whether one sense or the other is more common or more natural, which suggests that for me they have about equal standing.

(I never intentionally use "may" as a counterfactual, though, and would typically consider it an error, though if it becomes more common, or in dialects where it is already more common, it shouldn't be any harder to distinguish between the meanings than between the ways "might" and "could" can be used.)

Might is not synonymous with could to me here, as might may indicate counterfactuality whereas could indicates ability (even though such ability may never be exercised).

Travis B. wrote:Might is not synonymous with could to me here, as might may indicate counterfactuality whereas could indicates ability (even though such ability may never be exercised).

That's absolutely not my own (internal) understanding or observation of how it's used (by others around me), is all I can say. I definitely see the etymological kind of basis of that distinctin -- but I'm far from convinced that's in play, in actual use.

Counterfactual "You might have broken that!" sounds to me as marked literary/written English style, so when it appears in unscripted conversation (e.g., dealing with rowdy children around vases), I'd peg it as a sociological feature, not a semantic one.

K.

Could seems counterfactual when used with passive or non-volitional active verbs, but not with volitional active verbs, where it to me indicates the ability of the subject to do the action in question, whereas might to me can be counterfactual with all verbs.

Travis B. wrote:Could seems counterfactual when used with passive or non-volitional active verbs, but not with volitional active verbs, where it to me indicates the ability of the subject to do the action in question, whereas might to me can be counterfactual with all verbs.

Agreed, but since "die" is non-volitional, I feel like they're pretty synonymous in that example.

(But yes, "I might have bought a house if I'd had the money," is definitely not the same as, "I could have bought a house if I'd had the money." It makes sense to say, "I could have, but I wouldn't have," but not, "I might have, but I wouldn't have.")

Travis B. wrote:Could seems counterfactual when used with passive or non-volitional active verbs, but not with volitional active verbs, where it to me indicates the ability of the subject to do the action in question[...]

"You could have smashed that vase over his head, if he hadn't ducked" is not a counterfactual use of it to you?

kuroda wrote:

Travis B. wrote:Could seems counterfactual when used with passive or non-volitional active verbs, but not with volitional active verbs, where it to me indicates the ability of the subject to do the action in question[...]

"You could have smashed that vase over his head, if he hadn't ducked" is not a counterfactual use of it to you?

To me that you would have had the ability to smash the vase over his head had it not been for his ducking.

It is a counterfactual statement about ability. So yes, it is counterfactual, but no, it is not interchangeable with might.

Sorry for bumping this thread (it's short of two fortnights old). Though in addirion to weighing in on the debate, I do have a further related question (see at end)

In my idiolect of American English, which is sort of Great-Plainsy cum Texas (my father from Oklahoma pronounced 'l' in chalk and walk, and probably had cot/caught merger) I pronounce cot/caught/father with the same vowel, pull with a ʊʟ, and in Sal's examples, in the first instance, I would use "could", because I think in my very colloquial speech, "can I" and "may I" are interchangeable. I realize of course there is a real distinction, but informally, insisting on that distinction is viewed as very pedantic. In the second instance, I would use "may" but "might" is also possible, both indicating that there is a possibility that the vase is broken. In the first instance, "could" seems more natural, as in saying, "your childish behavior had the possibility AND ability to break the vase". Saying "your childish behavior might have broken the vase" is more theoretical (the child carelessly ran past the vase, though in so doing was not likely to break it), whereas "you childish behavior could have broken the vase" is more fact-based (the child carelessly ran into the table where the vase sat, but the vase did not tip over). Though in speaking to a child, I would likely use the more dire-sounding of the two choices, and go with "could".

Is "might" (preterite of "may") really the same word as "might"("and main") or "the might of god"? Which came first, the may-ish use or the strength-ish use?

garysk wrote:Is "might" (preterite of "may") really the same word as "might"("and main") or "the might of god"? Which came first, the may-ish use or the strength-ish use?

No. The preterite is ultimately from the PIE participle in *-to- (PGmc *mahtaz), while the noun is from the PIE verbal noun in *-ti- (PGmc *mahtiz).

*Mahtaz and *mahtiz are from the same root? If yes, what was the sense of that root?

Yes, the root is the same, and meant "to be able" in PGmc and PIE.