4

Do I always have to use might when talk about the past and may does not belong there?

I may beat him now / tomorrow.

I may might beat him a year ago.

3

The past-tense forms of the modal auxiliaries can, may, shall and will are always used in sentences with past reference. But they are used in different ways. That is because these verbs have dual uses which present a special problem.

  1. Just like the past-tense forms of other verbs, they are used to represent present-tense forms 'backshifted' into the past:

     You are going to fight. I think     You were going to fight. I thought   
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     you can beat him.                ⇨ you could beat him.
     you may beat him.                ⇨ you might beat him.  
    ?you shall beat him.              ⇨ you should beat him. (this use of 'shall' is dying) 
     you will beat him.               ⇨ you would beat him.  
    
  2. But these auxiliaries, unlike ‘lexical’ verbs also employ their past-tense forms with present or future reference. This is particularly visible in so-called 'first conditional' constructions: non-past conditionals in which the condition is regarded as possible:

     If the fight is fair, I think      If the fight is fair, I think 
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     you can beat him.             AND  you could beat him.
     you may beat him.             AND  you might beat him.  
     you shall beat him.           AND  you should beat him.
     you will beat him.             ?   you would beat him. 
                                       (This one's a bit iffy; but it would certainly be acceptable
                                        in a context like "If the contests are fair, I think you
                                        would beat him sixty times out of a hundred.") 
    

    In many cases, the difference between 'present-reference/present-tense' and 'present-reference/past-tense' use is so slight that the simple past form may be used for either when the sentence is backshifted to past-reference—for instance, in a backshifted ‘first conditional’ (we might call it a ‘one-and-a-halfth conditional’):

    Back in '06 I thought that if the fight was fair you could / might / should / would beat him.

    In the case of higher-level conditionals, however—what are sometimes called counterfactual or irrealis conditionals, in which the condition is regarded as impossible—this does not suffice. These constructions must be strongly marked with a past-tense form.

    When an irrealis sentence has present reference, the so-called ‘second conditional’, this marking is accomplished by casting the verb into a past-tense form undifferentiated for person, what used to be called the past subjunctive:

    If the fight were fair, you could / might / should / would beat him.

    But now all the verb sequences have been cast into past-tense forms. How, then, do you backshift this sentence into past reference?

    The workaround which English has evolved is to mark both sequences with a HAVE + past participle construction. This marker is placed on the finite verb which heads each verb sequence if it is capable of taking it. But modal verbs are 'defective', they have no past participles with which this marker can realized; so the marker is moved to the next verb in the sequence:

    PRESENT: If the fight [  were  ] fair you [might    beat    ] him, but it’s not;
                          past ↓                 ↳   →
                        marker ↓                (oops!)  ↴ 
    PAST:    If the fight [had been] fair you [might have beaten] him; but it wasn’t.
    

The last sentence looks like a perfect construction, but it’s not. It's the form taken by a subjunctive past with past reference. You must be careful to distinguish this from such sentences as:

He may have won; I'm not sure and its past version
He might have won; I wasn't sure.

He may have been cheated; I'm not sure and its past version
He might have been cheated; I wasn't sure.

These are true perfect constructions, with current (past or present) reference, designating his current state of "championship" resulting from his past action winning or of "cheatedness" resulting from somebody's past action of cheating him. They are cast into infinitive form because they are headed by the modal MAY, indicating uncertainty. They are thus equivalent to:

It is possible that he has won ... and
It was possible that he had won.

It is possible that he has been cheated ... and
It was possible that he had been cheated.

18
  • I’m wondering how many of these questions this guy can ask. They’re really all the same at the heart of it. – tchrist Jun 23 '13 at 23:34
  • 1
    @tchrist So far on ELL use of verbal constructions -- tenses (whatever you use that to mean), modals, aspects -- seems to be the most difficult matter for learners to grasp. And many of the questioners keep coming back to it, because every time you think you've got it pinned down you run into what appears to be a counterexample. – StoneyB on hiatus Jun 23 '13 at 23:48
  • 2
    @Graduate Reviewing your question I see I missed something. "I might beat him a year ago" doesn't work. "I may beat him", even with "now", refers to a future beating, not a present one; so when you backshift into a past context, "I might", you need something that provides a "future-in-past" context: either something like "A year ago I said to myself that I might beat him", which provides an explicit past 'springboard' from which to jump forward, or something like "I might beat him the next day", which provides a future towards which you are jumping. – StoneyB on hiatus Jun 25 '13 at 0:06
  • 1
    @ZhanlongZheng Sure. It just puts a little more pastness into what you're saying, gives thereby a little more sense of habituality. – StoneyB on hiatus Jul 25 '14 at 15:44
  • 1
    @KinzleB That's the meaning of '60 times out of a hundred', yes; it's a sort of "covert" condition implied by the manner of expressing likelihood as a statistical percentage rather than a certainty. – StoneyB on hiatus Oct 3 '14 at 13:58
6
  • Might + have + past participle

    to express an action that didn't happen in the past. May is not used in this way.

If I had been as fit as I am today, I might have beaten him a year ago.

Another example:

A: (in the car) Careful! There's a cat crossing the road!

B: Yes, don't worry. I saw it.

A: No, you didn't. You might have killed it!

B: But I didn't.

.

  • May + have + past participle
  • Might + have + past participle

to express possibility in the past. Both may and might can be used this way.

1)

A: Where's Derek, he should be here by now?

B: He's always been a late riser, he may / might have missed the train.

2)

A: I had to take the bus to work today.

B: Why? Don't you have a car?

A: Yes, but I couldn't find the keys anywhere.

B: You may / might have left them in the gym locker. You did the last time.

3
  • This is a good description, but I think this answer would be more complete if you also described how may is used in the past. – snailplane Jun 23 '13 at 13:35
  • 1
    Also, this is changing in modern English. Many speakers find may acceptable in counterfactual sentences, and it'll probably be Standard English eventually. – snailplane Jun 23 '13 at 13:36
  • 1
    @snailboat (no.1) You think so? Oh, all right then. If you insist. – Mari-Lou A Jun 23 '13 at 13:48
0

It feels more natural, but I don't think it is a strict requirement.

Counter-example in The Independent:

He may have been coached, but was Sir David Nicholson ready for these Reservoir Dogs?

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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