# He may have arrived yesterday



## JungKim

(1) _He may have arrived yesterday._

(1) usually means you think it's possible that he arrived yesterday.

But can you say (1) when he actually arrived before yesterday?


----------



## heypresto

I'm not sure what your question is.

He may have arrived yesterday, or he may have arrived before yesterday, or even today.


----------



## Eredin

I think I understand your question.
It's possible to say:
"He may have arrived yesterday, but it's very possible he has already arrived earlier than that".
So to answer your question: Yes.


----------



## Eredin

heypresto said:


> I'm not sure what your question is.
> 
> He may have arrived yesterday, or he may have arrived before yesterday, or even today.


He want's to know whether you can say: "He may have arrived yesterday", when in fact he has already arrived before that.


----------



## se16teddy

“He may have arrived yesterday” means that it is possible that the statement “he arrived yesterday” is true. It says nothing definitive about yesterday, and it says nothing at all about the day before yesterday.


----------



## kentix

If you know when he arrived and you know it wasn't yesterday you can't say it.


----------



## se16teddy

kentix said:


> If you know when he arrived and you know it wasn't yesterday you can't say it.


 You are assuming that nobody arrives anywhere more than once!


----------



## kentix

The question is stated in a way that asks about one arrival.


----------



## Loob

Like heypresto, I don't really understand your question, JungKim.

Are you asking if Person X can say _He may have arrived yesterday _if X knows he arrived the day before yesterday?

If so, my answer is "No" - or rather "No: not unless X is aiming to mislead". In other words, I agree with kentix.

But perhaps that's not the question you're asking?


----------



## lingobingo

JungKim said:


> (1) _He may have arrived yesterday._
> 
> (1) usually means you think it's possible that he arrived yesterday.
> 
> But can you say (1) when he actually arrived before yesterday?


Of course you can say it, assuming you don’t actually _know_ when he arrived — which is what’s implied by your saying “may”.


----------



## Loob

lingobingo said:


> Of course you can say it, assuming you don’t actually _know_ when he arrived — which is what’s implied by your saying “may”.


----------



## JungKim

I'm sorry I wasn't clear about what I was asking.
The reason for using 'may' is of course that you don't know. You don't know the exact date of his arrival (if he arrived), or even whether he arrived at all prior to the utterance of (1).

Let me rephrase the question to clarify what I'm asking:

(1) _He may have arrived yesterday._

I'm asking what exactly the speaker is guessing when saying (1).
Is the speaker guessing only that he arrived yesterday, or that he arrived no later than yesterday. (e.g., he arrived the day before yesterday.)?


----------



## kentix

If he knows he has arrived, then the speaker is saying he can't rule out yesterday as the arrival date. He is not making any guess about when he did arrive.

If he doesn't know if he has arrived, the same thing applies. The speaker has no way to disprove that the traveler arrived yesterday. He's not guessing anything about his arrival.


----------



## Forero

JungKim said:


> I'm sorry I wasn't clear about what I was asking.
> The reason for using 'may' is of course that you don't know.


There are sometimes other reasons to use "may" (e.g. "He may have arrived just yesterday, but he has already adjusted to our climate"), but it is nice to know what you mean by it.





> You don't know the exact date of his arrival (if he arrived), or even whether he arrived at all prior to the utterance of (1).
> 
> Let me rephrase the question to clarify what I'm asking:
> 
> (1) _He may have arrived yesterday._
> 
> I'm asking what exactly the speaker is guessing when saying (1).
> Is the speaker guessing only that he arrived yesterday, or that he arrived no later than yesterday. (e.g., he arrived the day before yesterday.)?


The sentence is only about yesterday, not "no later than yesterday".


----------



## bennymix

JK:    The reason for using 'may' is of course that you don't know. 

I don't think this is true.   There are senses of 'may, as in "A son may be older than his step-mother."

If I know he arrived the day before yesterday, I can speculate with 'might', not may.

"He left a week ago and he might have, after the expected delays, arrived yesterday;   but the storm unexpectedly quieted and he arrived the day before yesterday."


----------



## se16teddy

The purpose of a sentence without context is to get people to imagine unusual contexts in which the sentence works.

Mr Brown goes off to town every day on the 08.21 train. Bud Flanagan – Who Do You Think You Are Kidding Mr Hitler? But yesterday a bomb landed on the line in the morning. You can get to town via Little Piddlington. That journey takes two hours longer, but he may have arrived yesterday.


----------



## sound shift

JungKim said:


> (1) _He may have arrived yesterday._
> 
> I'm asking what exactly the speaker is guessing when saying (1).
> Is the speaker guessing only that he arrived yesterday, or that he arrived no later than yesterday. (e.g., he arrived the day before yesterday.)?


The sentence says nothing about the day before yesterday. It just means "It's possible that he arrived yesterday."

If you know he was there yesterday, but don't know when he arrived, you can say "He was there yesterday, but I don't know how long he'd been there."


----------



## Edinburgher

JungKim said:


> Let me rephrase the question to clarify what I'm asking:
> 
> (1) _He may have arrived yesterday._
> 
> I'm asking what exactly the speaker is guessing when saying (1).
> Is the speaker guessing only that he arrived yesterday, or that he arrived no later than yesterday. (e.g., he arrived the day before yesterday.)?


The use of "may" expresses uncertainty, so that, in the context you seem to intend, the speaker doesn't know whether the person ("he") arrived yesterday, or today, or before yesterday, or even whether he arrived at all.

But if I understand you correctly, your question is not about "may", but about whether the "arrived yesterday" part means:
(a) yesterday is the day on which he arrived, or
(b) he was in a state of "having arrived" yesterday, and therefore his actual arrival may have taken place either yesterday or on an earlier day.

The answer is (a).  We use "arrive" to denote the state transition from "not here" to "here". We do not use it to denote the state of being here, or of having arrived except inasmuch as it is implied by the transition having taken place.

"He may have arrived yesterday" simply means "It is possible that he arrived yesterday", and this "he arrived yesterday" means that his arrival took place yesterday and not on any previous day (unless after such a previous arrival he then went away again, and subsequently arrived again yesterday).


----------



## bennymix

Note from Wiki:

Consider the two statements:

*Japan** might have been victorious in World War II*
*Japan may have been victorious in **World War II* 
Although these two statements are often confused with one another, they mean two different things: the first says something _true_ about the vagaries of war; the second says something that is certainly _false_. The difference comes from the fact that the first statement—a statement of _subjunctive_ possibility—says something about how things _might have been_ under counterfactual conditions,
===
Though the difference here is marked by 'may' and 'might', in practice 'may' is used sometimes in the situations depicted in statement 1.


----------



## Vronsky

bennymix said:


> Note from Wiki:
> 
> Consider the two statements:
> 
> *Japan** might have been victorious in World War II*
> *Japan may have been victorious in **World War II*
> Although these two statements are often confused with one another, they mean two different things: the first says something _true_ about the vagaries of war; the second says something that is certainly _false_. The difference comes from the fact that the first statement—a statement of _subjunctive_ possibility—says something about how things _might have been_ under counterfactual conditions,
> ===
> Though the difference here is marked by 'may' and 'might', in practice 'may' is used sometimes in the situations depicted in statement 1.


I think it's a good idea to differentiate situations when we know the actual truth at the moment of use (your example sentences), and when we don't know it (the OP). In your context "might have" is correct, and "may have" is not. But in the context of the OP "might have" and "may have" are both possible.


----------



## bennymix

Vronsky said:


> I think it's a good idea to differentiate situations when we know the actual truth at the moment of use (your example sentences), and when we don't know it (the OP). In your context "might have" is correct, and "may have" is not. But in the context of the OP "might have" and "may have" are both possible.



Note the OP:    {{JK: }But can you say (1) when he actually arrived before yesterday? 

So your statement that we don't know it in the OP is not correct.   He postulated that the time of arrival is known.,


----------



## Loob

I don't see the distinction between "may" and "might" as having any relevance here.

It seems that bennymix understands JungKim's question differently from me.

To be fair, I'm still not sure I really understand the question. I have the feeling that Edinburgher's post 18 may be the answer JungKim is looking for.


----------



## bennymix

Loob said:


> I don't see the distinction between "may" and "might" as having any relevance here.
> 
> It seems that bennymix understands JungKim's question differently from me.



It's because of overlap. 'may' as objective possibility does occur (i.e. where 'might' might be more clear).


----------



## Loob

I still think that Edinburgher's post 18 may be the answer JungKim is looking for.


----------



## lingobingo

bennymix said:


> Note the OP:    {{JK: }But can you say (1) when he actually arrived before yesterday?
> 
> So your statement that we don't know it in the OP is not correct.   He postulated that the time of arrival is known.


He postulated that it was the case, not that the person who said “He may have arrived yesterday” knew that it was the case.


----------



## bennymix

That bit is unclear.    I assume the person did know.


----------



## Edinburgher

bennymix said:


> I assume the person did know.


I don't see that making any sense.  If the speaker knew when the person arrived (be it yesterday or on some earlier day), surely he would say so, and not use speculative language like "he may have arrived on such-and-such a day".


bennymix said:


> He postulated that the time of arrival is known.


It may be possible to interpret #1 in that way, but in #12 JK confirms that he meant that the person's arrival date is not known (at least not to the speaker).


----------



## Forero

Loob said:


> I still think that Edinburgher's post 18 may be the answer JungKim is looking for.


I do too. Because "may" is present tense, and "yesterday" comes at the end after "arrived".

This is totally different from something like "He might, yesterday, have already arrived."


----------



## JungKim

Edinburgher said:


> But if I understand you correctly, your question is not about "may", but about whether the "arrived yesterday" part means:
> (a) yesterday is the day on which he arrived, or
> *(b) he was in a state of "having arrived" yesterday, and therefore his actual arrival may have taken place either yesterday or on an earlier day.*
> 
> The answer is (a).  We use "arrive" to denote the state transition from "not here" to "here". We do not use it to denote the state of being here, or of having arrived except inasmuch as it is implied by the transition having taken place.
> 
> "He may have arrived yesterday" simply means "It is possible that he arrived yesterday", and this "he arrived yesterday" means that his arrival took place yesterday and not on any previous day (unless after such a previous arrival he then went away again, and subsequently arrived again yesterday).


Yes, this is the answer I was looking for, and for that, I belatedly thank Edinburgher.   
Specifically, I wanted to know whether or not reading (b) of sentence (1) was possible.


----------



## lingobingo

Out of context, no, it’s not possible. “He may have arrived yesterday” doesn’t _usually_ mean you think it's possible that he arrived yesterday (as you put it in the OP), it would _always_ naturally be taken to mean that. 

If you want it to mean anything else, you have to fabricate a context in which that could work (as teddy says in #16). Forero does precisely that in #14 with the example “He may have arrived yesterday, but he has already adjusted to our climate” — in which *may* implies “*even though* he only arrived yesterday…”. See definition 1.1 here: may |Lexico Dictionaries


----------



## se16teddy

JungKim said:


> Yes, this is the answer I was looking for, and for that, I belatedly thank Edinburgher.
> Specifically, I wanted to know whether or not reading (b) of sentence (1) was possible.


So this thread has nothing to do with the meaning of the verb "may", still less the verb "might"!

You have to distinguish two completely different issues:
1) What does the sentence mean, grammatically?
2) What assumptions does the typical person make about that meaning, and what inferences does the typical person instinctively, and rightly or wrongly, draw from the sentence, with or without context?
Different people have different assumptions, and different people draw different inferences, so the answer to question 2 is bound to be more complex than the answer to question 1.  In comparison to people, grammar is quite simple!

Consider the sentence "He arrived last Wednesday".
Many people would infer from this statement that he did not arrive yesterday. But that is not stated in the sentence, and that inference is not always correct.


----------



## guyweisz

Eredin said:


> I think I understand your question.
> It's possible to say:
> "He may have arrived yesterday, but it's very possible he has already arrived earlier than that".
> So to answer your question: Yes.


In this case you should use "had already", not "has already". Cheers.


----------



## bennymix

Edinburgher said:


> The use of "may" expresses uncertainty, so that, in the context you seem to intend, the speaker doesn't know whether the person ("he") arrived yesterday, or today, or before yesterday, or even whether he arrived at all.
> 
> But if I understand you correctly, your question is not about "may", but about whether the "arrived yesterday" part means:
> (a) yesterday is the day on which he arrived, or
> (b) he was in a state of "having arrived" yesterday, and therefore his actual arrival may have taken place either yesterday or on an earlier day.
> 
> The answer is (a).  We use "arrive" to denote the state transition from "not here" to "here". We do not use it to denote the state of being here, or of having arrived except inasmuch as it is implied by the transition having taken place.
> 
> "He may have arrived yesterday" simply means "It is possible that he arrived yesterday", and this "he arrived yesterday" means that his arrival took place yesterday and not on any previous day (unless after such a previous arrival he then went away again, and subsequently arrived again yesterday).



Hello friend,

This is interesting analysis, but I don't buy it.   According to JK in post 12, the speaker {X} does not know that the arrival was the day before.

So,  you say, OP sentence means,  E1 "It is possible (in the speaker's {X's} view and with his state of knowledge) that he {A} arrived yesterday." Agreed.

Unfortunately JK muddied the waters by saying, //I'm asking what exactly the speaker is guessing when saying (1). //

Well, in fact X not necessarily guessing anything (Kentix said this);  if he {X} were he'd say, "It's probable that he{A} arrived yesterday."

Note that E1 is compatible with E2:  "It is possible (etc) that he {A} arrived the day before."  E1 does not rule out E2.

Now you say, E#   //this "he arrived yesterday" means that his arrival took place yesterday and not on any previous day//. 

This is of course true, but it's not what X said,  since no possibilities are mentioned. If it had been said, sure it would rule out the day before.

If JK means as he said, then the subjective statement by X:  "He {A} may have arrived yesterday" is (contrary to him, JK) no guess, and it does not rule out  A's arrival the day before   (since we are only in the speaker's {X's}  mind as to what he knows).

So in fact, the answer, as best we can judge is b) in the OP.    WE would not say,  "He may have arrived yesterday" knowing it was the day before (except as revised as I've given already).     Speaker X would and by hypothesis did.

I'm afraid all of this reinforces the good points of se16teddy.   JK  sometimes makes it seem that he's asking about a bare sentence;   however the questions he poses are, here, context- and intention-dependent.


----------



## JulianStuart

bennymix said:


> JK  sometimes makes it seem that he's asking about a bare sentence;   however the questions he poses are, here, context- and intention-dependent.


 So, if context and intention were specified in the OP, these threads may/might (?  ?) be a little shorter


----------



## Edinburgher

bennymix said:


> This is interesting analysis, but I don't buy it.


That's okay, I'm not trying to sell it.  I simply answered what I speculated (correctly, as it turned out) was the question JK really meant to ask, and which was muddied by the way he asked it, and was consequently open to misinterpretation.

The scenario I imagined is that there is a visitor (let's call him A, as you have done), whose arrival is expected.  We presume, for the purpose of not overcomplicating this exercise, that A is only going to arrive once.  A's arrival could be today or yesterday or on an earlier day.  JK's question to us was about what speaker X meant when he said "A may have arrived yesterday".  What is X saying is possible?  Is it that yesterday was A's actual arrival day, or is it that A was here yesterday as a result of having arrived either yesterday or earlier?  My answer was that it does not mean the latter.


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> So,  you say, OP sentence means,  E1 "It is possible (in the speaker's {X's} view and with his state of knowledge) that he {A} arrived yesterday."
> ...
> Note that E1 is compatible with E2:  "It is possible (etc) that he {A} arrived the day before."  E1 does not rule out E2.


I don't understand how E1 is compatible with E2, unless he arrived the day before yesterday, left, and then arrived yesterday again, which I would have stated at the outset if such an unusual context had been intended.


----------



## Loob

Edinburgher said:


> That's okay, I'm not trying to sell it. I simply answered what I speculated (correctly, as it turned out) was the question JK really meant to ask,


----------



## RM1(SS)

JungKim said:


> I don't understand how E1 is compatible with E2, unless he arrived the day before yesterday, left, and then arrived yesterday again, which I would have stated at the outset if such an unusual context had been intended.


If the speaker doesn't know when he {A} arrived, the all of the following are correct sentences:
"It is possible (in the speaker's {X's} view and with his state of knowledge) that he {A} arrived yesterday." 
"It is possible (in the speaker's {X's} view and with his state of knowledge) that he {A} arrived the day before yesterday." 
"It is possible (in the speaker's {X's} view and with his state of knowledge) that he {A} arrived three days ago." 
&c, &c....


----------



## Loob

Yes. But I think you've missed the point of JungKim's question.
Edinburgher understood it, and has answered it.


----------



## RM1(SS)

Loob said:


> Yes. But I think you've missed the point of JungKim's question.
> Edinburgher understood it, and has answered it.



 Edinburgher hasn't said anything since JungKim asked that implied question.


----------



## JungKim

RM1(SS) said:


> If the speaker doesn't know when he {A} arrived, the all of the following are correct sentences:
> "It is possible (in the speaker's {X's} view and with his state of knowledge) that he {A} arrived yesterday."
> "It is possible (in the speaker's {X's} view and with his state of knowledge) that he {A} arrived the day before yesterday."
> "It is possible (in the speaker's {X's} view and with his state of knowledge) that he {A} arrived three days ago."
> &c, &c....


Yes, but no two sentences can be correct at the same time...is what I'm saying.


----------



## JulianStuart

JungKim said:


> Yes, but no two sentences can be correct at the same time...is what I'm saying.


  ???
Those three can all be true at the same time - the speaker (who doesn't know when A arrived) is saying that all possibiities exist, as far as they are concerned.  The person may have arrived any time in the last X days - mathematically this includes all sentences of that form up to X days ago.  Until he is informed of the truth, those possibilities remain in the speaker's mind.  What cannot be true, however, is that A  _actually_ arrived at more than one time.


----------



## JungKim

JulianStuart said:


> ???
> Those three can all be true at the same time - the speaker (who doesn't know when A arrived) is saying that all possibiities exist, as far as they are concerned.  The person may have arrived any time in the last X days - mathematically this includes all sentences of that form up to X days ago.  Until he is informed of the truth, those possibilities remain in the speaker's mind.  What cannot be true, however, is that A  _actually_ arrived at more than one time.


You're right. I think I'm beginning to understand why this question turned out to be more complicated than I had intended.

Could I have gotten the right answer (e.g., Edinburgher's answer in post #18) without causing unnecessary confusion had I asked the question like this?
---------
(1) _He may have arrived yesterday._

(1) usually means you think it's possible that he arrived yesterday. 

But can (1) also mean you think it's possible that he *had* arrived yesterday?
---------


----------



## bennymix

JungKim said:


> Yes, but no two sentences can be correct at the same time...is what I'm saying.



This reflects your theory of a guess, that the 'may' sentences really mean "It's very probable that..."   In that case. they cannot all be correct.     However this reading is not compatible with other statements of yours as to intended meaning.


----------



## bennymix

RM1(SS) said:


> If the speaker doesn't know when he {A} arrived, the all of the following are correct sentences:
> "It is possible (in the speaker's {X's} view and with his state of knowledge) that he {A} arrived yesterday."
> "It is possible (in the speaker's {X's} view and with his state of knowledge) that he {A} arrived the day before yesterday."
> "It is possible (in the speaker's {X's} view and with his state of knowledge) that he {A} arrived three days ago."
> &c, &c....



 Finally reason prevails


----------



## Cagey

The original question has been answered.  

Three wasn't enough information about the intended meaning and the situation in which this sentence, so the thread went on too long. This thread is closed. Thank you to everyone who contributed. 

Cagey, moderator


----------

