Conversation started Aug 23, 2014 at 16:49.
Damkerng T.
Damkerng T.
Aug 23, 2014 16:49
A nice answer is needed here guys! Thanks in advance. — Arrowfar 1 min ago
I have what I consider an answer for myself but it's not good enough for ELL.
user116848
You can post it here
user116848
Hi back :)
Damkerng T.
Damkerng T.
Hi!
Posting is a bit too much. Let's just chat. :)
user116848
Okee
user116848
So what do you think?
Damkerng T.
Damkerng T.
Aug 23, 2014 16:51
From what I gathered, it's the same, with or without I thought.
user116848
@DamkerngT. I doesn't make a difference with 'thought' you think?
Damkerng T.
Damkerng T.
And another key is might is not always the past tense of may.
user116848
Yes
Damkerng T.
Damkerng T.
@Arrowfar Yes. The real difference is not from the I thought part.
I think I can say, "I think she might have done it", now, just fine.
Compare: "I think she might do it."
user116848
@DamkerngT. Yes without 'thought' it is very easy to understand. I also read your comments above I agree. But in the sports e.g. why not simply say "I thought she might have a chance to win it" without 'had'?
Damkerng T.
Damkerng T.
Aug 23, 2014 16:56
Perhaps, because the speaker, at the speaking time, already knew what happened.
(She didn't win it. Whatever it is.)
user116848
Hm that could be the case.
Damkerng T.
Damkerng T.
It should be the case. (To me, it is the case.)
See also: languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1683
Basically, I think mok's answer got it right.
What I wasn't sure was the backshifting of might, but I think it's rather clear now.
Let's see, I think you might already know this:
> I thought she would have done it.
I thought she would do it.
You know the difference between the two, right?
user116848
@DamkerngT. Yes in the first one "she didn't do it" and in the second one"we didn't know at the time of thinking", right?
Damkerng T.
Damkerng T.
nods.
Basically, might do and might have done work quite similarly.
might do ~ would probably do
might have done ~ would probably have done
(~ means roughly means)
user116848
@DamkerngT. So in all of these sentences if we chuck out 'thought' will the sentence give us the same meaning? If that's the case then it is very easy I guess.
Damkerng T.
Damkerng T.
Aug 23, 2014 17:06
nods
user116848
Ah. I see. Then it is very simple. But then only backshifting is making it unclear imo.
Damkerng T.
Damkerng T.
nods
This afternoon, I realized (with the help of F.E. and snailboat) that the backshift of might is might. :)
Or, to put it their way, the present from of the backshifted might is may.
user116848
hah. Yes.
may-----might-----might (first, second and third form of verb)
Damkerng T.
Damkerng T.
(Which is why I think we probably shouldn't think of might as the past tense of may.)
> I can interpret Ropes might have saved her — that is, as a remote conditional (the apodosis of a conditional claim with the prodosis clause implicit: it would have been possible for ropes to save her (if they had been available) but they didn't).
That is how Pullum (one of CGEL's authors) reads that sentence.
Ahh... He used would have been possible, which I think better than would probably have saved.
(Probably gives too much likelihood; possible doesn't sound quite as likely.)
user116848
@DamkerngT. And can I say it with 'thought' with the same meaning as the original sentence: "I thought that ropes might have saved her" ?
Damkerng T.
Damkerng T.
Aug 23, 2014 17:17
nods -- I think it would be perfectly natural.
The strange thing is, it works equally well with I think, I think. :)
user116848
right, I see.
 
Conversation ended Aug 23, 2014 at 17:17.