Is this the subjunctive? - Page 2

Yes, that's one (prescriptivistic) definition of can. But it is also used just like may. I read somewhere that even Shakespere used it like that sometimes, so it's not a new thing.

I understand.

Can you translate "Anything you may need" to Spanish?, please.

It is as Luna Azul says here:

My objection was not the translation, but the direct correspondance may = puedas because strictly speaking, may is not 'correct'. Well it wasn't 30 years ago, but now everybody uses it. This is a good example of the erosion of nuances in a language - there used to be a clear difference between may and might.

Got it.

So, strictly speaking "Anything you might need" is correct for both present and past tense.

Ok. Thank you.

No :banghead: :D The present tense, yes. The past tense would be

Anything you might have needed :rolleyes:

Not to worry. We'll evolve more nuances in other areas of the language.

Well, let me know when you find one. Why destroy the ones we have?

Ok, then I guess you're having fun? :)

Would you please tell me what "may" translated to 30 years ago?

And please tell me how "Anything you may need" translated 30 years ago.

Thanks :)

Who is "we"?

What?

You mean to tell me you don't recognize yourself in that "we".


tsk, tsk, tsk...:rolleyes:

No. I'm not, honest.

It used to mean, and still does mean, a possibility:

Missing man may still be alive
= It is possible that the missing man is still alive.

In a hypothetical situation, you revert to the subjunctive:

Missing man might still be alive ....if he had taken a map with him and not fallen off a cliff.

No I can't, because it is (was) grammatically incorrect, and should be with might. :)

The matter is, does the original holder do? then, how? That's still my question.

Certainly there are popular etymology and popular grammar, but I'm not playing Chinese whispers here.

Lo siento. No entiendo qué pasó. :thinking:

I simply meant that although English was losing things like a clear distinction between may and might, over time, new distinctions will appear in other aspects of the language. We = English speakers over the years

But, are you contributing to maintain and develop the English language?

Frankly, the whole thing strongly sounded to me like "if I break it, my old people will buy me a new one", no matter it is a skate or a modal auxiliary verb. I find not to be an acceptable approach to waste resources -be it natural gas or language- just because there is more of that or given enough time it'll regenerate.

Some parts of the debate sounded to me like implying that "Me neither" has displaced "Neither do I" until the last became extinct, what is not true, so I took several movie scripts and subtitles, both from US and Britain -international or local- and scanned them for can's, could's, may's and might's, and it seems the writers are applying mostly "the old rules" unless they are trying their characters to sound very "popular".

What on earth are you talking about?

I was just saying how American English is spoken, not how someone says it ought to be spoken. In informal to semi-formal American English (or at least in my idiolect), there is no difference between may and might. I would use them interchangeably: "Anything you may need" and "Anything you might need" mean exactly the same thing. There is no distinction in meaning to me. If I were writing an academic paper, I still wouldn't distinguish them. It could be that 30 years ago, spoken American English did have a distinction between them, but I wasn't around 30 years ago, so I have no idea. If I read an old book, I still wouldn't perceive any differences between the two words in a sentence like that. It could also be that certain dialects still retain a distinction between them. Just like I wouldn't hear if someone pronounced "Cot" and "Caught" differently, because we have the cot-caught merger in this part of the country.

"Neither do I" is simply a more formal way of saying "Me neither". I don't see why it would die out anytime soon. It is actually similar to "I agree" and "I concur." There is absolutely no difference in meaning of the two, except "concur" is most likely directly from Latin, and thus sounds more formal. Personally, I have never heard anyone say "I concur" in real life, besides in an old movie. That's not to say that nobody ever uses it ever anymore.

I don't know why you think concur (L. concurrere) is more like Latin than agree (L. ad + gratus) :)

It looks like those "I see no difference between X and Y -or Y is just more formal than X-" and its Spanish counterpart are increasingly common. Where is the boundary? Not clearly stated: historic the same as historical, especially the same as specially, further the same as farther, etc. How about "if I was you", "I ain't", "I don't have no money" or "a whole nother apple"? Some of them should be laughable so the rest of them can go on unnoticed?

The fact is that they are not different within the conceptual range that different groups of speakers manage, so they're kind of setting the limitations of that groups, not the limitations of the language. By the other hand, there's a limit on how strict and splendid a language user can come to be, as there's a risk of become yet another blog, somebody speaking with him or herself and a few ones more. There's some aurea mediocritas there and nobody is the owner of the truth, but I prefer to sin of excessive aurea and not excessive mediocritas -this one, we are flooded with sinners nowadays-. Al least, the first one would be the only tolerable sin of both in an academic forum.

Well, actually, I speak more formally and "correctly" than 90% of people my age. But I don't use certain forms for the same reason you wouldn"t go around saying "Llamome Alec" ;)

Then please write the correct way for 30 years ago for "Lo que pueda necesitar"

Nos estamos dando vuelta en el agua?

:rolleyes:

Oh, you lost me, you are WAY more intelligent for me.

Thanks anyway.