2

He was ecstatic to receive an email from the company asking to come in for an interview. It was the dream job he had been working so hard for. With some luck, he might actually get hired. He could then work with some of the best engineers in the world, and might even be able to afford a nice house. The possibilities dazzled him.

Would you say the word "might" is used correctly in the passage above?

Many grammar books and style guides say "might" should not be used as the past tense of "may" in Modern English, and suggest using completely different phrases (e.g. "He [might -> was allowed to] ask questions." and "It was possible that the volcano was still active") or replacing "might" with "might have," depending on the context.

4
  • 2
    My personal opinion is that it is used correctly. Commented Feb 27, 2019 at 16:43
  • 2
    Which grammar books and style guides say that? I have always used might as the past tense of may, and I believe this was explicitly taught in whatever grammar books we used when I was in school. Of course, some would argue that all the modal verbs are non-inflectional so may/might, will/would, can/could, shall/should, etc., are all internally unrelated; they would naturally disagree. But not everyone agrees with this view (I do not, for one). Commented Feb 27, 2019 at 16:54
  • You need to distinguish the different meanings of "might", work out what you want to say, and then see if "might" is appropriate. Auxiliary verbs are challenging, but if you work out exactly what you are trying to say (and not trying to say), then you can choose an appropriate one. (Getting the auxiliary that is most idiomatically appropriate is harder, but people differ a lot, so it is less important.)
    – Stuart F
    Commented Nov 13, 2022 at 16:12
  • Grammar books targeted at foreign learners are hardly exhaustive. Sure, phrases like He might ask questions or The volcano might still be active do most definitely NOT refer to the past. But there's more to it. Speaking about the past from a present standpoint is not the same as speaking about the past in the context of a narration, which seems to be the case in the example you've provided... I'll leave the details to the natives...
    – m.a.a.
    Commented Nov 13, 2022 at 18:01

3 Answers 3

2

Sidney Greenbaum (The Oxford English Grammar - OUP 1996 - 5.24) treats may/might among modal auxiliaries. He says this:-

Most of the modals have present and past forms: e.g. can/could.

After can/could 5.24 item A, item B is may/might. So he clearly thinks might functions as past of may, though he does not include an example of its use in this way.

Your passage, however, gives just such an example, and it is correct.

1
  1. "Sadly, the horse died after the first 100 yards, or it may have gone on to win the race." WRONG.

  2. "Sadly, the horse died after the first 100 yards, or it might have gone on to win the race." CORRECT.

In Ex. 1, 'may' tells us it is possible that the horse actually won the race—but that is a clearly impossible outcome. The 'or' dictates that the first circumstance made the result unachievable anyway. Only Ex. 2 can be correct, where 'might' suggests an outcome that would have been possible only had the earlier event not happened. [I am British English]

-1

I would not use 'might' for the past.

May and might are both used to talk about the present and the future. They tell us about possible actions or happenings.

I may/might go to Canada. (=Perhaps I will go to Canada.)

For the past we can use may have + past participle or might have + past participle

She may/might have left the umbrella in the shop. (= Perhaps she left it in the shop.)

He may/might have broken his leg. (=Perhaps he broke his leg)

She may/might have lost her way. (= Perhaps she lost her way)

1
  • None of your examples is applicable in the OP's context.
    – m.a.a.
    Commented Nov 13, 2022 at 18:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .