What we might have done instead

A revisiting of history on the presidential campaign trail provides an occasion for reviewing may and might.

Nati Harnik/AP
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks in Council Bluffs, Iowa.

Historical revisionism may have gotten a boost last month on the presidential campaign trail. A candidate made what were interpreted as approving noises in reference to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

This internment is widely seen as one of the great American public policy blunders of the 20th century, and a blot on the record of President Franklin Roosevelt, who ordered it. But one of the leading presidential contenders is not so sure. In an interview touted as “exclusive,” he said he didn’t know whether he would have supported or opposed the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. 

And so “the news” out of the interview was that the man did not say unequivocally that the internment was a bad thing. This led to an article whose headline – as it appeared in some contexts, at least – was “[Candidate] May Have Backed Japanese Internment During WWII.” 

The copy-editing world was briefly abuzz over this – not on the politics of the issue, at least not overtly, but on the grammar of it. The candidate wasn’t born until after the end of World War II and thus couldn’t have “backed” anything during it. The situation was a “counterfactual” or hypothetical rather than an open possibility. And so the headline should have read, according to the traditional view, “[Candidate] Might Have Backed Japanese Internment During WWII.”

And the headline did appear that way in some online contexts

Headline writers everywhere, though, are squeezed for space and time, and so they have an incentive to regard may and might as synonymous. The may/might distinction is under pressure.

These two words are examples of “modals,” or modal verbs. That’s the term for must, should, and similar words used to “express ideas such as obligation, permission, possibility, and intention,” as the Macmillan dictionary puts it. You may have learned these as “auxiliary” or “helping” verbs. They cover situations that are not in the straight “indicative” mood – e.g., “Jack is walking the dog.”

In the present tense, may and might serve to express possibility, with, to my mind, may suggesting greater probability. Grammar Girl Mignon Fogarty seems to agree with me; she offers a helpful mnemonic: “I remember the difference by thinking that I should use might when something is a mighty stretch”; that is, less likely.

The American Heritage Dictionary has a long “Usage Note” on may and might in which it disagrees with Grammar Girl and me on the probability issue: “In practice ... few people make this distinction.”

The dictionary is in favor, though, of “might” rather than “may” in situations like the presidential candidate’s utterances on the Japanese-Americans’ internment. 

To quote further from the Usage Note: “Keeping the two forms distinct reduces ambiguity. ‘He may have drowned,’ for example, is best used to mean that it is unknown whether the man drowned, not that the man narrowly escaped drowning.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.