Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 April 1

= April 1 =

Might/May
Hello. I'm new here, but I just stumbled across this reference desk stuff, and I must say, I'm freakin' ecstatic! Here's my question: the difference between "might" and "may", and if you could, please provide proof, (sorry; I don't want to be a skeptical jerk, but I like proof is all...). Thank you very much for your time! 72.85.144.149 04:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This has come up before, see here, although that discussion went a bit off topic. I think the general consensus is that they're pretty interchangeable, but it would depend on the context.  Can you provide an example of a sentence in which you want to use them?  Basically, they both refer to a possible future event.  If there's a difference, it's that 'may' implies that the event is more likely to happen than 'might'. --Richardrj talkemail 05:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... You're right; that discussion's ending isn't really satisfying. Nevertheless, I enjoyed it. I can't remember the exact sentence I was wondering about, except that it started like so: "Be that as it might..." I've always heard that transitional clause... thing (correct me if that's not what it is please) as "Be that as it may". I'm not sure if context matters here though, (sorry). If context is not an issue, are both these examples acceptable? (And you can go into trivial details if you want to/can... I love the subtleties of grammar and linguistics, although I'm a total novice with these disciplines at the moment.) 72.85.144.149 19:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh! This has been bugging me for some time too... My favorite band is They Might Be Giants. Is this use of "might" correct? Shouldn't it be "They May Be Giants" (technically, from a grammarian's POV)? (Although I love their name as is, and wouldn't want them to change it for all the grammatically correctness of the world!) 72.85.144.149 19:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine why "They might be giants" would be prescriptively "bad grammar", but if it is, don't blame it on the band, blame it on James Goldman, whose 1961 play is the origin of the band's name. —Angr 20:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Ya, I knew about them getting their name from that play, so I wouldn't blame them anyway) I was just wondering because, as they (the windmills from the play) are still "alive" or "being" (if you go along the same mind-tract of the character who thought the windmills were really giants), the present tense of that verb would be more acceptable. And if you go along with the popular belief that They Might Be Giants is referring to the two Johns of the band, wouldn't "may" make even more sense? 72.85.144.149 20:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that there is a separate issue of may/might confusion: as well as having its own sense as seen here, "might" is also the past tense of "may" -- or at least that's the standard usage, but today (at least in North America) we often see people using "may" in the past tense as well. In the standard usage, "Pat may have crashed the car" would be said if we know the was a crash and we're guessing who was driving; if we know Pat was driving and don't know whether there was a crash, it would have to be "Pat might have crashed the car".  But today many people use the first sentence with both meanings. --Anonymous, April 1, 2007, 20:45 (UTC).


 * There are some distinctions between "may" and "might". "Might" is not only the past tense of "may", it is the conditional mood of "may" as well.  For example, you can say "If you might lend me a hand, we could move the wagon."  You can't really say "If you may lend me a hand..."  You can say "Might you be so kind as to...", but you can't say "May you be so kind as to..." unless you mean that you want the person to be kind in the future.  There are also past-tense usages such as "Try as hard as he might, he could not move the boulder."  "Try as hard as he may," would not work with the succeeding past-tense clause.  Marco polo 21:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "consummate"
E.g. "a consummate professional". Most people in Australia (and, judging from tv/films, elsewhere as well) pronounce this word CON-syoo-mət. But occasionally I hear cən-SUM-ət, and I prefer that version myself.

Firstly, the word is spelled with a double m. Secondly, as the word has nothing to do with consuming anything, and everything to do with perfection of skills, or reaching the top of one's craft/profession (top = summit, from L. summus), I believe cən-SUM-ət is more in tune with the meaning than CON-syoo-mət is. Nevertheless, I accept that pronunciation of words is more governed by the mob's actual usage than by the theories of grammarians.

Whenever I say "cən-SUM-ət", people's eyebrows get raised. I'm perfectly happy to be a brow-raiser (I've been doing it all my life), but if I'm actually wrong (shock, horror), I could never forgive myself. Am I justified in continuing to say it this way, or should I just give in to the mob? JackofOz 07:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As a verb, consummate has first-syllable stress; as an adjective, it has historically had second-sylable stress, but a shift to first-syllable stress is in progress. Some other words have a similar situation: see initial-stress-derived noun.  (Yes, I know consummate is not a noun.  Maybe that page needs a name-change.) jnestorius(talk) 09:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't the verb consumate (one m), whereas the adjective is consummate (2 m's)? JackofOz 12:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It's spelled with two m's regardless of part of speech. And according to the OED, both the verb and the adjective were formerly stressed on the second syllable, but in both cases stress on the initial syllable is more prevalent now. —Angr 12:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, waddaya know. At first I thought this was an April Fools joke, but I checked my dictionary and you're dead right.  That's something I've learned today.  Thanks, Angr and Jnestorius.  JackofOz 13:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note incidentally that the verb and adjective are still pronounced differently, although with the same primary stress. The "-ate" in the verb is pronounced like the word "ate", with a secondary stress; in the adjective, it's unstressed and the vowel is short. --Anonymous, April 1, 2007, 20:34 (UTC).

Is a consummate professional a professional who consumes consommé ? :-) StuRat 17:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In a word, no. Go to your room without your supper.  :)  JackofOz 01:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be "was"?
Hello again. About this sentence: "The stranger, or whatever she were, remained standing..." (from Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Blithedale Romance, chapter IV). Shouldn't it be "... or whatever she was"? I thought "were" was reserved for either 1. a plural subject, or 2. Something along the lines of the Counterfactual conditional, (Correct me if I'm wrong about this please) (also check out here for this example that I think illustrates what I mean: "If she were [colloq. was] at work today, she would know how to deal with this client.") Thanking you for your time and patience, 72.85.144.149 20:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the subjunctive mood, which has died out for most of its uses in English, but apparently had more life to it in Hawthorne's days. To express that mood now, you could say: "whatever she might be". --Lambiam Talk  20:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)