Teacher Discussion Forums

Many American English speakers would say that "might could" is incorrect usage. I, a British English speaker would say that the American English use of "Did you see the new Clooney film" (when it's still in theatres) is incorrect. So, which of us is right? Are both "might could" and that AE use of the past simple, where BE speakers would use the present perfect, incorrect?

As a third party, for me, 'migth could' is incorrect, but not AE use of past simple.

In the case of might could, instead of seeing it as incorrect, perhaps it should be seen as substandard, or not standard American. I guess it is as incorrect as ain't, which is a word that can still be put to good use in satire or for emphasis or whatever — so it may be correct in some situations, but "incorrect" in most normal, standard situations.
In the case of the past simple, instead of saying it is incorrect, maybe is should be said to be not British.
I don't think the key is in categorizing things as correct or incorrect, but rather as most effective or most hindering communication tool. If you belong to a group of people, for which those words help you belong, then they are probably correct; if those words hinder your professional prospects, like say in a job interview, then they are probably incorrect for that situation. (in the case of might could, not the British-American difference).

Anuradha Chepur wrote:As a third party, for me, 'migth could' is incorrect, but not AE use of past simple.

Why?

'might could' is correct usage in many dialects of English. It probably has not yet caught on in the dialect known as Standard American English.

Your example of the past simple is a bad one. "Did you eat today?" would be a better example. That is simply a difference between British and American varieties of English.

jotham wrote: If you belong to a group of people, for which those words help you belong, then they are probably correct; if those words hinder your professional prospects, like say in a job interview, then they are probably incorrect for that situation. (in the case of might could, not the British-American difference).

I probably wouldn't give a teaching job to an AE speaker who used the past simple where the present perfect should be.

'might could' is correct usage in many dialects of English. It probably has not yet caught on in the dialect known as Standard American English.

Do you think it ever will? If not, why not?

Your example of the past simple is a bad one. "Did you eat today?" would be a better example.

Why a bad one?

That is simply a difference between British and American varieties of English.

And the difference between "might could" and "might be able to" is simply a difference between varieties, isn't it?

I agree totally with jotham on this one. Which of us is right? is simply the wrong question. We're talking about differences in usage here. It's no different from asking whether the "correct" pronunciation of bath has a long or short vowel.

The thing to do with "nonstandard" forms is to say "Some people use it, others regard it as incorrect, so have some sensitivity for your audience". Hardly earth shattering stuff.

It was a spontaneous response based on intuitions, metal.
To my ears, 'might could' rings weirder than the Afro-American double-negative.

And the difference between "might could" and "might be able to" is simply a difference between varieties, isn't it?

Correct

Why a bad one?

Because there are plenty of contexts in which it would be perfectly correct in British English.

Do you think it ever will? If not, why not?

Doubt it; there is a definite prejudice against combining auxiliaries in Standard English. I might enter the language as a set phrase 'might could' in the same way we have 'maybe' and 'perhaps'.

lolwhites wrote:
The thing to do with "nonstandard" forms is to say "Some people use it, others regard it as incorrect, so have some sensitivity for your audience".

You could say the same for Standard forms in certain contexts, right?

Hardly earth shattering stuff.

To far too many people it is.

"Standard English lacks the syntax, grammar, and idiom necessary for the full expression of this Caribbean woman's experience. ..."

muse.jhu.edu/journals/modern_fiction_studies/v044/44.1gadsby.html

This has stimulated much discussion and the general view is that our dialect is alive, well and in no real danger from southern standard English that is less expressive and lacks the bite and body of Northumbrian.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/northeas ... lect.shtml

You could say the same for Standard forms in certain contexts, right?

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's lacking, for the reasons I have spelled out before. No language or dialect is going to be perfect for every situation.

I can't log in to the first article to read your quote in context, but it may just be that SE is insufficient for the woman in question as she is not sufficiently well versed in SE to express herself in it. Note I'm not saying there's any reason she should be, but the problem may not be with SE.

Your second quote doesn't even come from the original article, but from a comment submitted by a reader, with no supporting evidence to back his claim up. So, clearly a totally objective, well researched and reviewed fact there, then. Remember what I said on another thread about anyone with an internet connection?

You'll have to come up with something a little more substantial than that. What's the definition of "bite and body" anyway? It's woolier than a sheep in a Fair Isle jumper.

I can't log in to the first article to read your quote in context, but it may just be that SE is insufficient for the woman in question as she is not sufficiently well versed in SE to express herself in it. Note I'm not saying there's any reason she should be, but the problem may not be with SE.

May be not, but it's odd that you've had the same line all through these discussions. You seem to continually feel that the speaker lacks something if he/she states that Standard English is lacking.

Same attitude here:

Your second quote doesn't even come from the original article, but from a comment submitted by a reader, with no supporting evidence to back his claim up. So, clearly a totally objective, well researched and reviewed fact there, then. Remember what I said on another thread about anyone with an internet connection?

I'm surprised that in all your years of using Standard English, you've nev
er found it lacking in any area. Are you a native Standard English speaker, Lolwhites? Are you mono-dialectal?

Isn't it true that Standard English lacks non-finite forms of modal auxiliaries; i.e., there are only non-finite aspectual
auxiliaries in that dialect?

As I have repeatedly pointed out, just because a concept can be expressed more easily or succinctly in dialect A than dialect B, it doesn't follow that dialect B is "lacking" in any way as an articulate speaker can find a way of getting his or her idea across.

There's nothing "odd" about having the same "line", as I still believe what I did when you started the thread(s). I still feel that anyone should be very careful before saying that SE (or any other dialect) is lacking simply because they find that sometimes they can express themselves more easily in their own dialect. It doesn't take a genius to realise that such value judgements are totally subjective and should be taken with a pinch of salt.