# Whatever pride his lord father might have felt at Samwell’s birth



## thetazuo

Whatever pride his lord father *might have felt* at Samwell’s birth vanished as the boy grew up plump, soft, and awkward.

Source: Game of Thrones

Hi. I think this "might have felt" is not an implied 3rd conditional but it expresses the speaker's supposition that the possibility that his lord father felt some pride (we don't know what kind of pride though) at Samwell exists. Right?

Thank you for any of your opinion.


----------



## Glasguensis

It indicates uncertainty. We don’t know how much pride, if any, his father felt. But if there was any, it vanished when he saw what Sam was like.


----------



## thetazuo

Glasguensis said:


> It indicates uncertainty. We don’t know how much pride, if any, his father felt. But if there was any, it vanished when he saw what Sam was like.


Thank you, Glasguensis. So do you think my understanding is consistent with your explanation (uncertainty)?


----------



## Glasguensis

I’m afraid that from your post it wasn’t very clear what your understanding was, and it didn’t seem to be the same as my explanation- you’re the only one who can confirm whether my explanation matches what you thought.


----------



## thetazuo

Glasguensis said:


> I’m afraid that from your post it wasn’t very clear what your understanding was, and it didn’t seem to be the same as my explanation- you’re the only one who can confirm whether my explanation matches what you thought.


OK. I see. I just mean "might have" has two usages: 1) used in a third conditional; 2) used to express a possibility that something happened in the past 
So in this case the speaker says a possibility that his father had some pride at his birth does exist.
I don't quite know what you mean by "uncertainty", but I guess it is the same as usage 2).
Right?


----------



## Glasguensis

I’m not sure why you keep going on about 3rd conditional, since “might have” is not usually used in 3rd conditionals.

Something which is uncertain is something we don’t know for sure. It is not the same as a possibility.


----------



## thetazuo

Thanks for your reply.


Glasguensis said:


> I’m not sure why you keep going on about 3rd conditional, since “might have” is not usually used in 3rd conditionals.


I don't know how you define 3rd conditional, but I think "might have" is often used in implied 3rd conditional (i.e without a stated condition)
Basically, what my grammar book told me is
1) To say that something was possible but did not happen (what I mean by 3rd conditional)
2) to say that it is possible that something happened or was true in the past

So I guess the example in the op falls into second category. If "uncertainty" is not the same as category 2), then should I think "uncertainty" is yet another use of "might have pp"?


----------



## Barque

I agree with Glasguensis.

Fathers normally feel pride at the birth of a child. This father presumably felt some too. But however much pride he (might have) felt, it vanished on seeing how the boy turned out.



thetazuo said:


> Basically, what my grammar book told me is
> 1) To say that something was possible but did not happen (what I mean by 3rd conditional)
> 2) to say that it is possible that something happened or was true in the past


I don't think the "might have" is meant to suggest that he might not have felt pride. It suggests that the extent of his pride was not known. It's definitely not option no.1 from your post.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, Barque. I agree with you. I just don't quite agree that Glasguensis says "It is not the same as a possibility". To me, they are the same. A possibility might be true or false, so it's something that we don’t know for sure.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> To me, they are the same.


There _is_ a difference. A possibility is something that is capable of happening or having happened.


----------



## thetazuo

Barque said:


> There _is_ a difference. A possibility is something that is capable of happening or having happened.


But possibility can also mean "the fact that something might exist or happen, but is not certain to".
From Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
But after thinking further, I think "uncertainty" is a better word to describe the op situation. So should I think "uncertainty" is yet another use of "might have pp", as opposed to category 1) and 2)?


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> "might have pp"


What's _pp_?


----------



## thetazuo

Barque said:


> What's _pp_?


pp=past participle


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> So should I think "uncertainty" is yet another use of "might have pp", as opposed to category 1) and 2)?


The use of "Whatever pride he might have felt" indicates that there was uncertainty over how much pride he felt.

I read it as: _If he felt any pride (as he probably did), it vanished when the boy grew up._


----------



## Glasguensis

The reason why possibility is different from uncertainty is as follows:

I tossed/flipped a coin. There is a possibility that it came down “heads”. Whether there is any uncertainty about it coming down heads is completely separate from the fact that it was a possibility: we may be certain that it was or was not heads, or we may be uncertain. The fact that it was a possibility does not change depending on our degree of certainty.


----------



## se16teddy

_1. Whatever pride his lord father might otherwise have felt at Samwell’s birth vanished as the boy grew up plump, soft, and awkward.
2. Whatever pride his lord father might perhaps have felt at Samwell’s birth vanished as the boy grew up plump, soft, and awkward._

1 is conditional, 2 is a tentative statement about the past. Like the other native speakers above, I suspect that in #1 sentence 2 is meant: it is possible that he felt some pride at first, but if he did that pride soon disappeared.


----------



## boozer

thetazuo said:


> 1) To say that something was possible but did not happen (what I mean by 3rd conditional)
> 2) to say that it is possible that something happened or was true in the past


This is some formulaic, restricted presentation of 'might have'. If you try to place every utterance you encounter into some well arranged paradigm produced by someone, you will invariably reach a point where an utterance simply will not fit. 

Here, for instance, I believe there is an element of possibility - possibly, the father did feel some pride - maybe yes, maybe not. And there is uncertainty - the author is not certain how much pride the father felt, if at all he felt any. Either way, all the pride vanished when the child grew up and was replaced by anger and frustration.


----------



## thetazuo

se16teddy said:


> Like the other native speakers above, I suspect that in #1 sentence 2 is meant: it is possible that he felt some pride at first, but if he did that pride soon disappeared.


Thank you all. Teddy, by the above quote, do you mean this "might have" expresses possibility? Or both possibility and uncertainty are expressed?


----------



## se16teddy

thetazuo said:


> Thank you all. Teddy, by the above quote, do you mean this "might have" expresses possibility? Or both possibility and uncertainty are expressed?


 I don't think the "might" of my sentence 2 of #16 makes any distinction between possibility and uncertainty.


----------



## thetazuo

se16teddy said:


> it is possible that he felt some pride at first, but if he did that pride soon disappeared.


Thanks. So you think there is no need to differentiate between possibility and uncertainty? But you said "it is possible that he felt some pride at first, but if he did that pride soon disappeared". That sounds like you agree that it expresses possibility.


----------



## Barque

The possibility here is that he felt pride.
I believe the uncertainty that Glasguensis was referring to was in relation to _how much_ pride he felt. _Whatever pride his father might have felt...
_


----------



## thetazuo

Glasguensis said:


> The reason why possibility is different from uncertainty is as follows:
> 
> I tossed/flipped a coin. There is a possibility that it came down “heads”. Whether there is any uncertainty about it coming down heads is completely separate from the fact that it was a possibility: we may be certain that it was or was not heads, or we may be uncertain. The fact that it was a possibility does not change depending on our degree of certainty.


Thank you. After reading your further explanation, I think I can think this way:
1) if the sentence is "*The* pride his lord father might have felt*... *", then "might have felt" expresses possibility
2) if we don't make any changes to the original sentence, then "might have felt" expresses uncertainty because the use of "whatever" suggests there are different degrees of certainty.
Right?
Cross-posted


----------



## se16teddy

thetazuo said:


> Thanks. So you think there is no need to differentiate between possibility and uncertainty?


 I am not clear what distinction you are trying to make. If we are uncertain whether a past event happened, then it is possible that the past event happened.


----------



## thetazuo

se16teddy said:


> I am not clear what distinction you are trying to make. If we are uncertain whether a past event happened, then it is possible that the past event happened.


Thank you. I didn't mean to draw this distinction in the first place. But Glasguensis says the topic sentence indicates uncertainty instead of possibility, which seems to contradict your interpretation. Now I think the use of "whatever" makes a difference. I wrote my current thinking in #22. I don't know if this makes sense to native speakers. But Barque seems to agree with me.


----------



## wandle

thetazuo said:


> Whatever pride his lord father *might have felt* at Samwell’s birth vanished as the boy grew up plump, soft, and awkward.


There are different elements involved here.
First, 'whatever' in this context makes the clause equivalent to a conditional with 'if ... any'. This is what the OED says:


> *whatever, *_pron._ and _adj._
> *3.* Introducing a qualifying subord. clause equivalent to a conditional or disjunctive clause, often with verb in subjunctive
> *b. *_adj._ = ‘No matter what..’; often implying opposition: = ‘Notwithstanding any..that’.
> 1906   H. Belloc _Hills & Sea_ 176   In whatever place a man may be the spring will come to him.


Secondly, 'might have felt' is the modal past perfect.
To see this, let us take a simple declarative statement and put it through the different tenses.

'He may feel hungry' (modal present tense) means 'It is possible that he feels hungry'.
'He may have felt hungry' (modal past tense) means 'It is possible that he felt hungry'.
'He might have felt hungry' (modal past perfect tense) means 'It is possible that he had felt hungry'.

In each of these cases, we can replace the formula 'it is possible that' with the single word 'possibly' or 'perhaps', without changing the semantic meaning:
'Possibly he feels hungry', 'Perhaps he felt hungry', 'Perhaps he had felt hungry'.

Putting it all together, we should understand the sentence as:

'Any pride that his father had perhaps felt at Samwell's birth vanished as the boy grew up...'
This is equivalent to: 'If perhaps his father had felt any pride at Samwell's birth, it vanished as the boy grew up...'

In the final version, 'perhaps' is not strictly needed, since the words 'if ... any' already convey that sense.


----------



## thetazuo

wandle said:


> 'If perhaps his father had felt any pride at Samwell's birth, it vanished as the boy grew up...'


Thank you wandle. So this conditional is a past open conditional?

But as far as this part "Whatever pride his lord father *might have felt* at Samwell’s birth" is concerned, it is not a conditional but expresses uncertainty. Do you think so?


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> But Barque seems to agree with me.


I don't know if I do. I haven't really followed what point you're trying to make but have been answering based on what I thought you _might_ be asking.

If there's a distinction between something possible and something uncertain here, I think it's as I suggested in #21.


----------



## wandle

thetazuo said:


> So this conditional is a past open conditional?


That is right.


thetazuo said:


> But as far as this part "Whatever pride his lord father *might have felt* at Samwell’s birth" is concerned, it is not a conditional but expresses uncertainty.


This is equivalent to the past open conditional. They are two ways of saying the same thing.

The meaning is that it is possible (it is not certain) that the father had felt pride at the birth: but if he had, it vanished as the boy grew up.


----------



## thetazuo

wandle said:


> The meaning is that it is possible (it is not certain) that the father had felt pride at the birth: but even if he had, it vanished as the boy grew up.


Thank you. So by this I guess you don't agree with Glasguensis's explanation because he says possibility and uncertainty are not the same? But now I think he is right so I wrote my thinking in #22, which I think is consistent with Barque's explanation in #21. Does my thinking in #22 make senses to you?


----------



## wandle

thetazuo said:


> Thank you. So by this I guess you don't agree with Glasguensis's explanation because he says possibility and uncertainty are not the same? But now I think he is right so I wrote my thinking in #22, which I think is consistent with Barque's explanation in #21. Does my thinking in #22 make senses to you?


Sorry, but I have given my own understanding in a thorough analysis, with the grounds for it, and I hope it is clear enough (if not, do ask).
Possibility and uncertainty are not the same, but when we say 'it is possible that *...*', we imply 'it is not certain that *...*'.


----------



## Barque

Thetazuo, I think you're overthinking it and that's a surefire way of making it more difficult to understand.

The sentence means: _He may have felt pride when his son was born. Perhaps he felt very proud, or perhaps he felt only a little proud, or perhaps it was something in between. But whatever it was, all pride vanished when he saw how his son turned out. _

I think if you agree with that, you have understood the sentence.


----------



## thetazuo

Barque said:


> Thetazuo, I think you're overthinking it and that's a surefire way of making it more difficult to understand.
> 
> The sentence means: _He may have felt pride when his son was born. Perhaps he felt very proud, or perhaps he felt only a little proud, or perhaps it was something in between. But whatever it was, all pride vanished when he saw how his son turned out. _
> 
> I think if you agree with that, you have understrood the sentence.


Thanks. I have agreed with your idea since post #21.


----------



## thetazuo

And this thread reminds of this example which has been recently discussed:
The snow was coming, and when it did, any poor options he had would be abrogated. And after the snow, what? What then, when they were shut in and at the mercy of whatever *might have* only been toying with them before.
Source: The Shining
Now I'm not sure if we can understand the bold part in the same way as we understand the op sentence?


----------



## Barque

You're referring to this thread: whatever might have only been toying with them before
Yes, I agree "might have" is used similarly in both cases.


----------



## wandle

In both cases, 'might have' means 'had possibly', 'had perhaps' (modal past perfect).

'Whatever pride his lord father had perhaps felt at Samwell’s birth ,,,'

'... whatever had perhaps only been toying with them ...


----------



## thetazuo

Barque said:


> You're referring to this thread: whatever might have only been toying with them before
> Yes, I agree "might have" is used similarly in both cases.


Yes. But if "might have" is used similarly in both case, then I'd like my original understanding in that thread is not quite right.
In the Shining example, "might have" seems to refer to both "whatever" and "toying with them". So I'd say it indicates both possibility and uncertainty, just like the op sentence (if I understand you all correctly)
uncertainty reading: They are not certain what was toying with them exactly ---- it could be anything 
possibility reading: It is possible that the thing was just toying with them but it is also possible the thing was capable of scarier thing


----------



## Barque

Thetazuo,

I'm going to back out of this - I think you're over-analysing this, thinking about possibility and uncertainty and stuff, and I doubt I can help you any further.

I believe you understand the sentence. But I can't explain to your satisfaction whether it refers to possibility or uncertainty or both or neither and I'm happy with that because I believe it doesn't matter. You hold a different view, so hopefully you'll find someone who can explain it better.


----------



## Glasguensis

I think there must be some problem with the way you’re mentally translating possibility and uncertainty. But here is how the two sentences are different:
In the OP, what is uncertain is both the fact that he felt pride at all, and how much pride he felt. Whatever means “the unknown amount of”.
In the Shining example, what is uncertain is whether or not the thing has merely been toying with them. Whatever means “the unknown thing”.
There is only one way to read the Shining example.


----------



## thetazuo

Glasguensis said:


> I think there must be some problem with the way you’re mentally translating possibility and uncertainty. But here is how the two sentences are different:
> In the OP, what is uncertain is both the fact that he felt pride at all, and how much pride he felt. Whatever means “the unknown amount of”.
> In the Shining example, what is uncertain is whether or not the thing has merely been toying with them. Whatever means “the unknown thing”.
> There is only one way to read the Shining example.


Thank you, Glasguensis. This makes good sense to me. However, I'm afraid teddy and wandle are not saying the same thing as you and Barque and boozer do. I'm not sure if I understand them, but they seem to say we these two examples express possibility (?).
Anyway, I think it's the "whatever" that leads to the uncertainty interpretation. If we remove "whatever", then they clearly express "possibility". Right?


----------



## wandle

thetazuo said:


> I'm afraid teddy and wandle are not saying the same thing as you


I do not see any conflict between *Glasguensis' *comments and mine. I have focused on the grammar, he has commented on the semantic meaning.
Those two aspects are different and both are present in any statement or expression of an idea.

I have already pointed out that when we say 'it is possible that ...', we imply 'it is not certain that ...'

To put this another way: when someone says 'It may be Fred' we can say that 'may' is the modal verb expressing possibility (grammar).
We may also say that the speaker is uncertain whether the person is Fred (semantic meaning).

Both these explanations are valid.


----------



## thetazuo

wandle said:


> Both these explanations are valid.


Thank you, wandle. I get it. Then according to what you said in #40, I'd assume my original understanding in the OP is also valid. Right? I may not have expressed it well but I think my basic idea is right.


----------



## wandle

thetazuo said:


> I'd assume my original understanding in the OP is also valid. Right?


I prefer to rest on my own explanation. The precise words we use make a difference. 
For example, I pointed out that 'might have felt' is the modal past perfect, meaning 'had possibly felt'. Nobody else seems to have recognised that the verb is past perfect.


----------



## thetazuo

wandle said:


> 'He may have felt hungry' (modal past tense) means 'It is possible that he felt hungry'.


Thanks again. But I don't quite agree with the claim as is quoted above. You seem to say 'He may have felt hungry' and 'He might have felt hungry' are different. But I don't see any difference between them. To me "may have" and "might have" are interchangeable in most situations.



wandle said:


> I prefer to rest on my own explanation. The precise words we use make a difference.


I think I can rephrase my idea in the OP in this way: the *possibility* that his lord father felt some pride at Samwell's birth exists (or not). But even if we take the possibility for granted, we are *uncertain* about degree of the pride.
I just try to integrate the explanations from all the participants into one, as is written above. Please let me know if I succeed.


----------



## Glasguensis

The problem is that “possibility” *can* mean an outcome about which there is uncertainty, but this is not the only, or indeed the principle, meaning. This is why I prefer to use the word “uncertainty”, since we are in fact discussing things that are uncertain. That avoids confusion with other meanings of “possibility”. In third conditionals, for example, we are discussing “unreal past possibilities”, where “possibility” does not refer to something “uncertain”.


----------



## se16teddy

_1. Whatever pride he felt immediately after his son’s birth vanished a little later.
2. Whatever pride he might have felt immediately after his son’s birth vanished a little later._

It occurs to me that _might have _is redundant - which may explain why it is confusing. The word _whatever _establishes clearly that we don’t know whether he felt any pride, and if he did how much.

Normal idiom often contains tautology, and I suspect that the prescriptive grammarians only reprove us for certain kinds of tautology - there are many kinds that they just don’t spot.


----------



## wandle

thetazuo said:


> You seem to say 'He may have felt hungry' and 'He might have felt hungry' are different. But I don't see any difference between them.To me "may have" and "might have" are interchangeable in most situations.


It is a key distinction and it is relevant in the present case.
The OED, in its entry for 'may', expresses it as follows (for comparison with post 25, I have put  against the interpretation for each tense ***):


> *7.* Expressing present subjective possibility, i.e. the admissibility of a supposition, in a direct or indirect statement.
> * b*. In relation to the present (_I may be _or_ do_ = ‘it is possible that I am’ or ‘do’).
> 
> 1974   C. Taylor _Fieldwork in Medieval Archaeol._ 12   The circular mound on a hilltop may be a Bronze Age barrow, or it may be the base of a medieval post-mill, or it may be both.
> 
> * c.* In relation to the past. may have with past participle, used for both simple past and perfect tenses (_I may have been _or_ done _= ‘it was possible that I was’ or ‘did’, ‘it is possible that I have been’ or ‘done’).
> 
> 1932   D. L. Sayers_ Have his Carcase_ xxxiv. 443   But it may quite likely have been the other way: the fact that he had it may have lent colour to the tradition.
> 
> * 18.* Expressing subjective possibility with reference to the past.
> *a. *Expressing the past subjective possibility of a previous or subsequent situation.
> *(c) *Referring to an earlier situation (_I might have been _or_ done_ = ‘it was possible that I had been’ or ‘done’).
> 
> 1966   G. Greene _Comedians_ iii. iii. 290   For all we knew we were both bastards, although of course there might have been a ceremony—my mother had always given me that impression.


The Graham Greene sentence means 'of course it is possible that there had been a [wedding] ceremony'.
The past perfect is appropriate because it puts the possible wedding back to the earlier past time, before the birth of the children.


thetazuo said:


> Whatever pride his lord father *might have felt* at Samwell’s birth vanished as the boy grew up plump, soft, and awkward.


Here, the past perfect ('might have felt' = 'had possibly felt') is the correct tense because it puts the possible feeling of pride back to the earlier past time, that of the birth, as against the later past time, that of growing up.

*** Incidentally, the OED's interpretation of the tenses differs from mine (in post 25), in that the OED, for the past tenses, says 'it *was* possible (that I did or had done)' whereas I said 'it *is* possible (that he felt or had felt)'. This is due to a difference in analysis of transitivity (if that is the right term), but the difference disappears when the equivalent interpretations 'possibly did' or 'had done', 'perhaps felt' or 'had felt' etc. are used instead.


----------



## wandle

se16teddy said:


> It occurs to me that _might have _is redundant


I beg to differ. 'Whatever' means that there had been some pride, but leaves the amount vague. 
'Might have felt' makes it a question whether there had been any at all.


----------



## thetazuo

wandle said:


> Here, the past perfect ('might have felt' = 'had possibly felt') is the correct tense because it puts the possible feeling of pride back to the earlier past time, that of the birth, as against the later past time, that of growing up.


Thank you, wandle. I didn't know this before.


thetazuo said:


> I think I can rephrase my idea in the OP in this way: the *possibility* that his lord father felt some pride at Samwell's birth exists (or not). But even if we take the possibility for granted, we are *uncertain* about degree of the pride.


And what about my revised understanding? Do I integrate the explanations from all of you into one successfully?


----------



## se16teddy

wandle said:


> I beg to differ. 'Whatever' means that there had been some pride, but leaves the amount vague.
> 'Might have felt' makes it a question whether there had been any at all.


The OED gives this example

1887    Goldw. Smith in  _Contemp._ _Rev. _July 3   The Governor-General has been stripped of whatever little authority he retained.

I feel that this does not specify whether he retained 0% or 0.0000001% of his authority.

The OED also defines this _whatever _(2b) as _any ... that_, which similarly does not distinguish between little and none.


----------



## wandle

se16teddy said:


> The Governor-General has been stripped of whatever little authority he retained.


He can only have been stripped of it if he had at least some.
On the other hand, 'whatever ... he may have retained' would, like the topic sentence, introduce the possibility that he had none.


thetazuo said:


> And what about my revised understanding? Do I integrate the explanations from all of you into one successfully?


Please see post 40 and post 47. There is a semantic implication of uncertainty, as noted in post 40.
However, the present case is not classified by the OED as an example of 'might' used to emphasise uncertainty.

Here are two examples from that section:


> ***** The past tense might with non-temporal function.
> 
> 23.* Used to emphasize the uncertainty of what is referred to.
> 
> 1986   _Today_ 22 Dec. 11/4   They don't quite know what a bonk might be.
> 
> 1967   A. Wilson _No Laughing Matter_ 463   This sea was as much part of her as the desert, whatever Marcus might say.


All the examples of this usage (apart from one in Old English) have 'might' with the present infinitive.


----------



## thetazuo

wandle said:


> Please see post 40 and post 47. There is a semantic implication of uncertainty, as noted in post 40.


Yes, if I hadn't read post 40 and post 47 carefully, I wouldn't have produced such a revised understanding. I don't know how you see it but to me there is nothing wrong with my revised understanding, after taking all your answers into consideration.


wandle said:


> However, the present case is not classified by the OED as an example of 'might' used to emphasise uncertainty.


You seem to say "might have" can only semantically imply uncertainty but can't emphasize uncertainty? But my grammar book says "might/may have" can refer to uncertainty.


----------



## wandle

thetazuo said:


> my grammar book says "might/may have" can refer to uncertainty.


That may be the result of misunderstanding. Have you any examples?


----------



## thetazuo

wandle said:


> That may be the result of misunderstanding. Have you any examples?


Can I post a snapshot of my book here?


----------



## thetazuo




----------



## Glasguensis

thetazuo said:


> And what about my revised understanding? Do I integrate the explanations from all of you into one successfully?


My post 44 is a direct reply to your question. Your revised explanation is not acceptable to me because of your use of “possibility”. As we have said several times, there are two types of uncertainty here : whether there was any pride at all and how much pride there potentially was. Referring to one of these as a possibility and the other as an uncertainty is misleading because it suggests that what you are referring to as a possibility is somehow different from an uncertain fact.


----------



## thetazuo

Glasguensis said:


> Referring to one of these as a possibility and the other as an uncertainty is misleading because it suggests that what you are referring to as a possibility is somehow different from an uncertain fact.


Thanks. I don't mean to say what I refer to as a possibility is different from an uncertain fact. To me, for the sake of this discussion, I think it makes no difference to call this "might have" "possibility" or "uncertainty", although they are different by definition. As wandle suggests, we can call whether the father felt any pride "possibility" grammar-wise, but we can also call it "uncertainty" semantically. Both are valid.

By the way, it seems you don't like the word "possibility". I can't help but wonder if you think "might have" can never express "possibility"?


----------



## Glasguensis

The difference is that using “possibility” is confusing for many native speakers because the most obvious interpretation of your sentence is not the one you intend. Using uncertainty is simply clearer.


----------



## wandle

The examples in post 54 do seem to be the result of misunderstanding.

The text quoted does not inspire confidence in the author in the first place, because of the thoughtless use of the verb 'refer'.


thetazuo said:


> my grammar book says "might/may have" can refer to uncertainty.


As a matter of fact, it does not say that. It says '_Might have_ and _may have_ refer to uncertainty'.

There are two problems there. First, to say simply that a term 'refers to' a stated meaning implies that it always does so. 'Can refer to', on the other hand, recognises that other meanings are also possible. Secondly, it is usual in grammar texts, where a word's meaning is that of an abstract quality, to say that it expresses that quality, not that it refers to it (see earlier quote from OED: 'expressing possibility'). That careless use of language terms suggests to me an unscholarly approach by the author.

In the second place, it does look as if the author had misunderstood the idea of 'uncertainty' in this context. I draw two basic conclusions from the OED's use of the term. First, that it is limited to the precise usage indicated. It says that 'might', as the past tense with non-temporal function, is used to emphasise the uncertainty of what is referred to. The examples given confirm that in this sense 'might' is not used with perfective 'have'. It always refers to something that the speaker is aware of as a present or future possiblity (see examples in post 50). The same is true for the examples of present tense 'may' emphasising uncertainty. This directly contradicts the text quoted in post 54.

Given that contradiction, which text is to be preferred? This brings me to the second conclusion (which is really about the authority of the OED in general). I take it that this usage 'to emphasize the uncertainty of what is referred to' is defined as it is on the basis of scholarly work by experts and is recognised by the academic community at large. It may well be the outcome of research in a number of scholarly articles and books, summed up here in one precise phrase by the lexicographers. That is the value of the meanings defined by the OED.

Hence I feel able to conclude that the text quoted in post 54 is simply wrong. I doubt if the OED was even consulted in writing that text. It may be that the author has used some other less reliable source (which in turn may have been in error).

Note: this means that I have to differ from *Glasguensis'* post 57.





Glasguensis said:


> Using uncertainty is simply clearer.


For the reasons just explained, the term 'uncertainty' ought to be confined to the limited sense in which it is used by the OED, unless there are serious grounds to challenge that. If we depart from it, the risk is not only that we get that individual sense wrong, but that we throw out of joint the whole scheme of different meanings under which the OED classifies 'may'. As so often with a word of multiple meanings, that is an interrelated whole, not merely a list of separate points.

As regards my earlier comment on uncertainty in post 40:


wandle said:


> To put this another way: when someone says 'It may be Fred' we can say that 'may' is the modal verb expressing possibility (grammar).
> We may also say that the speaker is uncertain whether the person is Fred (semantic meaning).
> Both these explanations are valid.


As stated there, that was about the semantic meaning (distinct from the grammar) which is implied as a logical consequence of using the term 'possibility'. There is no argument against drawing that semantic conclusion, but when distinguishing different meanings of 'might' I think it is better, for the sake of clarity, to avoid using the term 'uncertainty' except in the OED's sense.


----------



## Glasguensis

What I actually said was that the problem with using “possibility” the way that he used it was confusing to many native speakers. Your argument for avoiding “uncertainty” seems to be that the vast majority of people will use it in only the way that it is used in the OED discussion of may/might, as opposed to the way it is defined in the OED entry for “uncertainty”, or indeed anywhere else. 
Your position is perfectly logical in the context of a discussion of may/might based on the OED, but it is misleading for learners to imply that the distinction is understandable in a wider context.


----------



## thetazuo

Glasguensis said:


> but it is misleading for learners to imply that the distinction is understandable in a wider context.


I don't understand this part. I think we can use both "uncertainty" and "possibility" to call this usage of "might have" although OED says only "might do" can express "uncertainty". I think it won't get us anywhere to differentiate between "uncertainty" and "possibility" in understanding the likes of the op sentence. The reason I stick to "possibility" is that once a British English teacher told me "possibility" seemed a better term than "uncertainty" when talking about this kind of usage, as in 


> A: Who sent those flowers?
> B: _I'm not sure. It could/might have been your mother._


I don't know what you think?


----------



## Glasguensis

In that sentence “possibility” is the correct term because it identifies one (of several) explanations. We are also uncertain about whether it is the correct explanation.
If the original sentence said “his father might have felt pride”, then that is expressing possibility- one emotion of a number of possible emotions. But the OP takes this one emotion and expresses uncertainty about the extent to which he felt it.


----------



## thetazuo

Hi. Glasguensis. I don't know if you have read post 47. Wandle thinks it is "whatever" that expresses uncertainty about the extent to which he felt pride, not "might have felt". And wandlle seems to say "might have" can never refer to (but can imply) uncertainty by saying the text quoted in post 54 is wrong. You seem to contradict each other. 
1. Do you endorse the text in post 54 that "may/might have" refer to uncertainty?
2. Do you think it is "might have felt" that expresses uncertainty about the extent to which he felt pride, not "whatever"?


----------



## Glasguensis

I agree with wandle that it’s the “whatever” which conveys the uncertainty. Wandle has evidently studied may/might much more extensively than I have, and I don’t have access to the OED, so I’m not going to comment on that aspect. I tend to agree with him that post 54 is sloppily written, although I wouldn’t say that it is necessarily incorrect as such.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you. I see. Sorry for bothering you again, but I previously asked an American English teacher about this sentence.
He told me that in terms of the example about Samwell's father, the issue is not at all what he thought or didn't think, or the degree of certainty he felt or how the reader interprets his action. This is a good example of number 2, where the imagined past situation (the possibility that he wasn't always this way) serves to communicate another idea: the unfortunate and certain reality of how he feels now.
By number 2, he means "an imaginary past situation used figuratively to express some other idea, which is not necessarily connected to the past or the imaginary situation which the language evokes", as in "You would have been proud of Bran".
Although I think his focus maybe right but grammatically I think the "might have felt" does refer to what the father thought or didn't think. And I don't agree that the "might have felt" in OP is in the same category as "You would have been proud of Bran".
What do you think?


----------



## Glasguensis

There is no authority which sets rules for the English language - the various groups which issue guidance, such as the OED, are self-appointed, and don’t always agree with each other. There are various competing and often contradictory ways of describing grammar in English. Unfortunately, if you want to discuss this point in the context of what your teacher said the only person really qualified to discuss it with you is the teacher concerned - other teachers or experts will have their own viewpoint and their own vocabulary. I personally don’t find your teacher’s way of analysing this sentence very useful, so I wouldn’t adopt that way of looking at the sentence.


----------



## thetazuo

se16teddy said:


> _1. Whatever pride he felt immediately after his son’s birth vanished a little later.
> 2. Whatever pride he might have felt immediately after his son’s birth vanished a little later._
> 
> It occurs to me that _might have _is redundant - which may explain why it is confusing. The word _whatever _establishes clearly that we don’t know whether he felt any pride, and if he did how much.
> 
> Normal idiom often contains tautology, and I suspect that the prescriptive grammarians only reprove us for certain kinds of tautology - there are many kinds that they just don’t spot.


Now as I look back at this thread, I think teddy has hit upon one important idea that the "might have" is redundant and can be omitted. Usually a father feels proud at his son's birth --- the "might have" implies the father did feel proud. So "might have" here is just a stylistic device to make this assertion more tentative. And "whatever" means "any" here. The issue is not at all what he thought or didn't think, but the meaning is that he is disapproving of his son now.
I don't know what you think but currently this is how I see this sentence.


----------

