User talk:DDeRosia82

Films

I also removed your spoiler warning on Omega Man, but I had to dig about a bit to determine if it was appropriate to Wikipedia's style guidelines. See WP:SPOILER for more information, and please consider helping out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films, they definitely need help implementing their style guidelines. I know. It's all very complicated. I hope I'm not discouraging you. --Hurtstotouchfire 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescent Sexuality contributions

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Adolescent sexuality do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Given the wealth of news articles tracked on your site, I'm sure that Wikipedia users would welcome your help in finding credible references for Wikipedia articles. --Hurtstotouchfire 22:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, please feel free to ask me any questions you might have about Wikipedia. I do hope you stick around; Wikipedia could definitely use more grammatical assistance. --Hurtstotouchfire

Welcome!

Hello, DDeRosia82, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Doops | talk 00:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

may/might

That said, I have two comments on your may/might crusade. First, it is properly speaking not an issue of grammar but one of usage. Furthermore, if you read it carefully, the link you provide does not by any means deprecate use of "may" to show potentiality — to the contrary, it explicitly permits its use where present or future are concerned; only where the past it at issue does it come down in favor of "might." Cheers, Doops | talk 00:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see my comment on Talk:Time travel#Using may instead of might--as Doops notes, you appear not to have noticed that your own source says that "may" or "might" are both valid in the present tense, and I presented multiple sources showing that the consensus seems to be that "might" is used in either the past tense or for events of low probability. Hypnosifl 05:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it concedes that the frequency of the improper usage has resulted in its gradual adoption. Basically, it was deemed acceptable because grammatically imperfect orators and writers such as yourself popularized it to such a degree that your audience inferred that such usage must be appropriate; ignorance birthed more ignorance.

I am relatively ashamed of many of the authors of Wikipedia for this very reason. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that seeks to hold itself to rules of academic and intellectual integrity, and as it is used as a weighty source by thousands if not millions of readers, I find it dreadfully irresponsible of any author to promote unintelligent gibberish. In spite of who you or any other author might actually be, each topic featured on Wikipedia deserves to be produced by only its corresponding experts. And, likewise, each sentence ought to be written by only those whose grammatical skill is second-to-none. My own expertise involves elementary education and the English language.

On behalf of the readers of Wikipedia, I beseech you to cease such characteristically low-class grammar. That the U.S.A. happens to be inhabited by a great multitude of linguistically challenged citizens does not give you or anyone else the right to limit your own linguistic prowess.

Nevertheless, there are countless articles on Wikipedia. You are more than welcome to continue to zealously guard your own against correct grammar. After viewing the history of your respected page, I can see that you take too much pride in every statement that you make to let me -- or anybody else, for that matter -- change even a single word. In some ways, I admire that; in others, I am annoyed by it. But in all ways, I do understand and appreciate it. Thus ends this pitifully trivial debate, Mr., Ms., or Mrs. Hypnosifl; I have no desire to further interact with you.

As always, good day.

D. DeRosia

Heh. You've only been here a day and already you're leaving? C'mon, don't do that. Stick around and help; there's lots to do. Pretty soon you'll get a better sense of how the wikipedia works — but even until then, we're glad to have you and welcome your help. Don't get all huffy just because somebody disagrees with you.

But seriously, I think you're wrong on this issue. You seem to be under the impression that until recently "may" was used only for permission and that its use to indicate potential is a recent phenomenon. But that just isn't true, as the very existence of the word "maybe" demonstrates. You don't really back up your claim with any reliable sources, just vague guestures to google hits many of which are of dubious reliability (plenty of people out there with no real scholarship under their belts have weird hobby-horses about the language) and/or actively disagree with you (some of them claiming, for example, that "may" is used in situations with more potential and less uncertainty than those where "might" is used).

Furthermore, you continue to refer to this question of usage as one of grammar, which doesn't inspire much confidence.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that too many people out there in the world neglect grammar (and usage, and morphology, and so forth); but the correct response to this is to encourage people to think more about how language works. Too often in the past grammar has been associated with closed-minded "grammar hammers" who have added much more heat than light to the subject. By all means, continue your interest in grammar; but be sure you do so with an open mind. Cheers, Doops | talk 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I agree with Doops, it's not true that using "may" to express possibility or ability is something recent, just look at this page which gives the etymology as "Anglo-Saxon mæg, present tense of magan to be able." Likewise, this page on Old English lists in the "other verbs" section:

So called preterite-present verbs (because their present tense forms used to be past tenses in earlier stages of the language) (examples: sculan, cunnan, magan, agan, dearr, durfan), ancestors of Present Day English modal auxiliaries (shall, can, may, ought, dare, must)

*magan ("be able"), mæg ("may"), meahte ("might")

*sculan ("be obliged"), sceal ("shall"), sceolde ("should")

So it's saying that the old English versions of "may" and "might" were both different tenses of the same word.

For a 19th century example, look at this section from Charles Dickens' Hard Times:

'Now, I'll tell you what, ma'am,' said Bounderby, 'I am not come

here to be bullied. A female may be highly connected, but she

can't be permitted to bother and badger a man in my position, and I

am not going to put up with it.'

Or this one from Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice:

"But upon my honour I do not. I do assure you that my intimacy has not yet taught me that. Teaze calmness of temper and presence of mind! No, no—I feel he may defy us there. And as to laughter, we will not expose ourselves, if you please, by attempting to laugh without a subject. Mr. Darcy may hug himself."

"Mr. Darcy is not to be laughed at!" cried Elizabeth. "That is an uncommon advantage, and uncommon I hope it will continue, for it would be a great loss to me to have many such acquaintance. I dearly love a laugh."

"Miss Bingley," said he, "has given me credit for more than can be. The wisest and the best of men, nay, the wisest and best of their actions, may be rendered ridiculous by a person whose first object in life is a joke."

So it seems clear that the use of "may" to express possibility has a long history, and isn't some recent change to the language. Hypnosifl 16:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Hypnosifl, but I'm pedantic and I feel bound to point out that your OE examples don't really help us — the fact that "might" was (and remains to this day, actually) the past tense of "may" doesn't rule out the possibility that once it began to be used as a word in its own right the two words' meanings mightn't have diverged. Your Dickens example is also questionable, given that Bounderby is a bounder and a social climber; Dickens may well have used intentionally unrefined language in his dialogue. But the Austen example is useful.

At any rate, I can think of three main uses of 'may' — 1) to show possibility; 2) to show permission; 3) to introduce some subjunctives; and if you think about it, these aren't three separate meanings; they all blend into one another smoothly. Doops | talk 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DDeRosia82, The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, which you cite, does not label the modern usage as “ungrammatical” (nor otherwise deprecate it). It only reports the current usage, and so it is not an authority on correct usage. The Oxford Guide to English Usage, §4.31 might be a better authority for your purpose. This Oxford Guide generally favors traditional usage—favoring (unlike the Columbia Guide) the traditional rules for shall vs. will and may vs. can. With regard to the use of may vs. might with the perfect infinitive referring to a past event, the Oxford Guide recognizes two cases:

“If uncertainty about the action or state denoted by the perfect infinitive remains, i.e. at the time of speaking or writing the truth of the event is still unknown, then either may or might is acceptable.”
“If there is no longer uncertainty about the event, or the matter was never put to the test, and therefore the event did not in fact occur, use might.”

It seems to me that many of your changes correspond to the case where the Oxford Guide says either is acceptable. In most of the rest of you changes you change a present form, where the advice of the Oxford Guide does not apply.

Just what do you think is the rule for may vs. might? And do you have a reputable authority for it, or is it just your personal preference? --teb728 08:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]