Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

“I warned you,” was his friend’s answer; “I said—be on your guard when you go near her. Besides, you might have waited till to-morrow, and had me with you: it was mere folly to attempt the interview to-night, and alone.” (Jane Eyre)

Are there ‘might have’ omitted before ‘had’? If yes, which is grammatical omitting all the two auxiliary verbs (might, have) or just the modal verb ‘might’?

share|improve this question

closed as unclear what you're asking by Ellie Kesselman, Mari-Lou A, Chenmunka, Edwin Ashworth, ScotM Jun 29 at 0:09

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

No. "Might have" has NOT been elided there.

The sentence as written is saying "waited and (definitely) had me with you." This use of "might have" has the meaning of "it would have been better if you had." It is not a simple conditional tense. And the "had" thereafter stands on its own; it is not intended as a conditional, either.

Try reading it this way: "It would have been better if you had waited until I was there with you."

Or: "You might have (it would have been good if you had) waited till to-morrow, and had (at which time you would have had) me with you."

Or: "You should have waited until tomorrow when I could be there with you."

I hope these variations help you see the accurate sense of the sentence.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.