If...might

Metamorfose · Post by **Metamorfose** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:59 pm

Hello people

The other day I was studying if-clause sentences and then I came across:

(1) If I have time tomorrow, I will call you.

And grammar books say that we use if...will when we are sure or at least when we are almost sure about the probability of something to happen. Now, when it comes to more remote or more uncertain statements the books say we have to use if...might, as in (2):

(2) If I have time tomorrow, I might call you.

My doubt is, could I use may in (2)? Raymond Murphy in English Grammar in Use (Second Edition,page 60) says that we cannot use may if the situation is not real; (2) refers to a possibility that may be true, but a fellow teacher told me that we shouldn't use may in (2), what do you think?

Can I use any modals in if...clauses? Can anyone tell me what changes might occur if any other modals are used?

Thanks a lot

José

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 3:50 pm

In contemporary American usage, may is much more common in (2) than might, in spoken and even much written English. Schoolteachers used to tell us that may should be used only to give/request permission. This is not the case in actual usage today.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:42 pm

A clear promise: I'll call you tomorrow.
What might interfere with making this absolute promise? A lack of time.
So, the speaker can only promise he or she will call IF he or she has time.
Thus: I'll call you tomorrow IF I HAVE TIME.

The if-clause is what is important, and all that needs to be said to make it clear that the promise is not absolute; to use "might" or especially "may" is, to my ears, "functional overkill" that would make the speaker start sounding dismissive and snooty (like, why should they deign to call if they are at all busy!). So, please be wary of anyone who advises you that in "I will/may/might call you tomorrow, IF I HAVE TIME", the three modals all have and convey the same meaning (that is, that "may" is an acceptable "halfway house" between "will" and "might"); in my opinion, only "will" is entirely natural here (it is "unmarked").

This is all in contrast to:

I will/may/might call tomorrow, so please try to be at home or leave you answering machine on.

Now that I've cleared up "likely" versus "unlikely" (unlikely pragmatically!), how about "unreal"? Murphy seems to be right that "may" cannot be used with unreal situations. By the way, I imagine that in the if-clause in his example, the verb is "past", right?! (with all the constraints that imposes on the main clause); that is, both your first AND second examples do NOT concern unreal situations, so why have you alluded to Murphy at all?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:21 pm

If I have time tells you the situation is possible so you can use 'may' here instead of 'might'.

'may' is slightly more possible than 'might' (I explain it by saying 'may' is 50% and 'might ' is 40%).

Murphy's 'rule' is to cover the following type of case:
In your place I might do the same.
where we cannot use 'may' instead of 'might'.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:26 pm

If 'call' means 'call on the phone', then using either 'may' or 'might' would seem dismissive, but that is cultural, not linguistic..

On the other hand if 'call' means ''call round to see you', then 'may' or'might' would be perfectly reasonable.

Metamorfose · Post by **Metamorfose** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:46 am

Now that I've cleared up "likely" versus "unlikely" (unlikely pragmatically!), how about "unreal"? Murphy seems to be right that "may" cannot be used with unreal situations. By the way, I imagine that in the if-clause in his example, the verb is "past", right?! (with all the constraints that imposes on the main clause); that is, both your first AND second examples do NOT concern unreal situations, so why have you alluded to Murphy at all?

Yes, you are right, the example in the book is past, I just allued to Murphy to colour my example, just trying to show that may is not possible for unreal situations and not the examples I gave (which my fellow teacher told me that one couldn't use may, but I guess you would have noticed this if you had read a bit more carefully

)

The if-clause is what is important, and all that needs to be said to make it clear that the promise is not absolute; to use "might" or especially "may" is, to my ears, "functional overkill" that would make the speaker start sounding dismissive and snooty (like, why should they deign to call if they are at all busy!). So, please be wary of anyone who advises you that in "I will/may/might call you tomorrow, IF I HAVE TIME", the three modals all have and convey the same meaning (that is, that "may" is an acceptable "halfway house" between "will" and "might"); in my opinion, only "will" is entirely natural here (it is "unmarked").

I see, but if you say that what really matters, couldn't one say that anything else is just detail, so no-one should be dismissive and snooty, in the end, wouldn't everything boil down to the fact that the modal choice would be irrelevant?

José

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:41 am

Oh, I noticed what the other teacher had said all right, Jose, and indirectly agreed with that teacher in the advice I gave ("use 'will', not 'may' or 'might' ") regarding the "likely" vs (pragmatically) "unlikely" (did your fellow teacher say, like me, that "may" would sound "dismissive " here?), but I avoided explicitly addressing what that teacher had said because it wasn't clear from what you had written if the teacher was (or you also were) overextending from, or confusing unreal with unlikely situations; that is, I think your question should just have been, "Can I use 'may' in 'If I have time tomorrow, I...call you' ", without the "irrelevant" detail from Murphy.

The modal choice is not irrelevant, it is actually very important, and we need to take account of frequency (as Richard points out) and cultural factors (unlike what Stephen seems to be saying, I don't think as teachers rather than Chomskyan linguists that we can divorce "culture" from "language", if we want to help our students make functionally appropriate choices), and then arrange whatever items we have selected for our courses in ways that hopefully complement each other, rather than conflict or confuse.

The only sense, therefore, in which I could agree that modal choice is irrelevant would be if, in any eventual course, such choices had been made so clear as to be no longer a relevant (urgent) problem. I imagine that "will" would come out as the clear, number-one choice for these contexts where a quick, offhand, not-too-considered assurance is what is needed (similar to?: A: Mr Jones is having a heart attack! B: OMG! I'll call an ambulance (on my mobile)! ?I may/might call...); "might" would be useful for conveying doubt rather than certainty in "thinking" or "decision-making": Hmm, I might go to the pub later...then again, I might just stay home, I could do with an early night...