Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:55:08 -0600 From: Natalie Maynor Subject: Bounced Mail **************************************************************** REMINDER: WHEN INCLUDING A PREVIOUS LIST POSTING IN SOMETHING YOU'RE SENDING TO THE LIST, BE SURE TO EDIT OUT ALL REFERENCES TO ADS-L IN THE HEADERS. **************************************************************** > Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 11:59:26 -0500 > From: "L-Soft list server at UGA (1.8b)" > Subject: ADS-L: error report from ACT.ORG > >The enclosed message, found in the ADS-L mailbox and shown under the spool ID >9130 in the system log, has been identified as a possible delivery error notice >for the following reason: "Sender:", "From:" or "Reply-To:" field pointing to >the list has been found in mail body. > >------------------- Message in error (52 lines) -------------------------- > Date: Tue, 19 Mar 96 10:59:52 CST > From: robinson[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE] > Subject: Re: may/might distinction > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Thanks for your comment on my question about the may/might distinction. > Of course, asking about whether or not your lack of a distinction was > "dialect" or "solecism" was a bit of a joke--the lack of a distinction > seems to be widespread among educated speakers in the English-speaking > world. > > I have collected over the past twenty years numerous print > examples from well-educated people of sentences like, > "If he didn't have to run against Anderson as well as Nixon, Hubert > Humphrey may have been elected president of the United States." Despite > my years of sensitivity training as a linguist who knows that "barbaric" > is not an appropriate term to use to characterize linguistic change in > progress, and not withstanding my realization that all sorts of > supereducated folks make > no may/might distinction, such sentences still strike me as ludicrous and > solecistic. > > I'm wondering if there is anyone else left on the planet (or at least on > this mailing list) who shares my linguistic prejudice--or even > understands the semantic difference between MAY and MIGHT in the example > given above. > > Though I'm not a linguist, I share your view, which could > hardly be considered a prejudice. The semantic > distinction couldn't be clearer. > > Pete Robinson > ACT > Iowa City