Thank you Yankee, your example cleared my doubt regarding the usage of MIGHT.
And also thank you very much Bard_d, for your good words.
Thanks to all of the folks here at English-test.net forum.
Many would say it’s the opposite. As most, so called, past tense modals indicate a “weaker” (more remote) option, a lot of people feel that “might” follows suit. Still, I’ve heard a lot of AmEng speakers say that they use “might” as a stronger option.
Might and may are nearly exactly the same BUT… yes there is always a but …
Might can be used for ultimate politeness in a question … Might I use your telephone please? In this case it could be seen as being more polite than May I use your telephone please?
In the situation of possibility … might and may are the same … I may see him tomorrow, or I might see him tomorrow.
The main difference between “may and might” in questioning is that “may” has strong connections with permission …
For people starting to get accustomed the use of “may and might” I tend to tell then to start by using “may” for permission and “might” for possibility. BUT (yes another but) be open to the fact that you will/may/might (smile) hear both “may” and “might” being used in situations consisting only of possibility.
Answer these questions with “may or might” to see if you understand …
POLICEMAN: Sorry Sir, you ______ not park there! (permission)
FRIEND: ____ borrow your car today? (permission)
SPEAKING TO A FRIEND: My manager ______ let me finish work early tomorrow. (possibility)
ASKING TO USE THE TOILET: ____ use your toilet please? (permission)
Get the idea?
Now in which ones do you think both may and might can be used and why?
Not in my opinion. Many problems appear later due to oversimplified or incorrect explanations in the early stages of learning a language.
I was taught that all full-modals, apart from must, have a proximal and a remote use, even though those words were not used by my teacher. Modals are used in the same way as full-verbs in that each can express closeness or distance in TIME, POSSIBILTY and/or SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS. I think one should begin from there when teaching the basic semantic meaning of all verbs.
This is the difference Molly between teaching English to an English speaker and teaching English to a non English speaker !!!
There is a wide difference in opinion in how ESL should be taught, but I have found in over 35 years, that for ESL the best way is to teach them how to communicate effectively using all the tricks in the book to ease understanding and put them on a path to further progress.
After all, unless they want English perfection and can fully understand the language being used to teach the language they wish to learn, the effectiveness of going into every grammatical nitty gritty is basically useless!! Shoot me for it, but it is true. My explanation cannot be said by anyone to be oversimplified or incorrect for use by an ESL speaker.
Additionally, one must also appreciate that the ESL speaker, unlike a native English speaker, is not obliged to learn English, this means that any initial motivation can be quickly lost, due to those fully encompassing explanations out of the native English classroom. A balance must be achieved between what you want to teach them and what they need to know. Naturally we must also appreciate for what purpose they wish to learn the language, also a very important factor.
Only my opinion. Others will think differently, but I don’t intend to go to war with anyone. Everyone has the right to their own opinions.
That’s all fine, but even a 35-year-man can learn more about teaching and learning, can’t he? To me, and quite a few others -teachers and students alike - the idea of proximal versus remote forms is simple and effective and, more importantly, systematic. That way, that idea, allowed me to understand the use of modals and other verbs. Before all that, there had been many “explanations”, by many teachers who thought they were simplyfying things. Thing is, those teachers loved what they saw as simplyfying usage - mainly because it normally made the job easier at that moment - but the same teachers didn’t want to know about possible consequences of their attempts to simplify.