Re: Help!

--- "John L. Leland" <CountSirJehan@...> wrote:
> On might:
> At least within recent memory, there was a useful
> distinction of may/might in
> regard to the past: may meant something could, asa
> matter of fact, have
> happened in the past,
> but thespeakerwas uncertain whether it had or not.
> Might meant a possibility
> hadexisted in the past, which was now no longer a
> possibility:
> Thus:
> JFK may have been killed by L.Harvey Oswald. (The
> speaker is uncertain of the
> past fact).
> If JFK had not been killed, he might have been
> reelected. (The possibility
> existed in the past, but no longer exists.)
> This distinction was observed in formal written
> English in my lifetime,but
> nowadays I
> frequently see "may"used in the second situation,
> which feels wrong to me,
> though if the usage has become sufficiently popular
> it may now be standard. I
> regret the loss of the distinction, which I
> considered useful.
> John Leland

That distinction still exists for me.

Adam