Date:  Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:55:08 -0600

From:  Natalie Maynor <maynor[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]RA.MSSTATE.EDU>

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)" <LISTSERV[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]uga.cc.uga.edu>

> 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]act.org

> 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