# may, might / must



## ThomasK

How do you translate *'may' /*[noun - _the/a_]* might *? And do you have a similar etymological couple with *must, should/ *[_the/a_]... [(duty, obligation)?  
_To be clear : I understand 'may' here as 'to be allowed to' (and therefore be capable of) and 'might' as the power, and I forget about semantic developments of 'may'.

_Think of the following :

- French: _*pouvoir *_(il/elle peut)/ _*le pouvoir*,                  *devoir *_(il/elle doit)/ *le devoir
*- Dutch: *mogen/ macht,             moeten/ ????            [only hoeven *(need)/ *de behoefte]
- *German: *mögen/ die Macht - *and _*müssen, sollen/ ??? *_


----------



## Outsider

Portuguese works much like French -- *poder/ o poder*; *dever/ o dever --*, except that in modern Portuguese *dever* mostly denotes duty. For obligation/necessity one would more likely use the modal phrase *ter de/ ter que* (to have to). There is no cognate noun for the latter. Of course these notions can be expressed in many other ways besides the basic modal verbs.

Of note is that Portuguese (and, I believe, French) do not make the fine distinction that English makes between *can* and *may*, at least not through plain modals. It's all *pouvoir/poder*.


----------



## ThomasK

So again _must/have to _do not have cognates, as I see in some other languages (even _devoir/dever _does not seem like a derivation). I only see nouns based on obligation via a detour based on needs (Dutch _behoefte_).

In Dutch I thought of another one: _*plegen/ plicht*_. _Plicht _in my view only refers to duty, but some dictionary calls it responsability, what one is supposed to do. Plegen has a completely different meaning now (habit) but it seems to refer to an older meaning: what one is in charge of, responsible for - and that may indeed lead to [good] habits...


----------



## apmoy70

In Greek:

*May (expressing contingency, possibility, opportunity)*: «Μπορεί» (bo'ri), 3rd person present indicative of the verb «μπορώ» (bo'ro)--> _to can, be able to_. The verbs in Modern Greek, that in their 3rd person present indicative version, are used as auxiliary intransitive verbs, are called _impersonal_ (of unspecified subject).
«Μπορώ» derives from the Classical verb «εὐπορέω/εὐπορῶ» (eupŏ'rĕō [uncontracted]/eupŏ'rō [contracted])--> _to have plenty of, abound in_. «Εὐπορῶ» (Classical Greek) > «ἐμπορῶ» (Byzantine Greek) > «μπορώ» (Modern Greek).
*Might (past of may, expressing possibility)*: «θα μπορούσα» (θa bo'rusa), future particle «θα» + imperfect of «μπορώ» (lit. "I will might").
*Might (noun)*: «ισχύς» (is'çis, _f._). Classical feminine noun «ἰσχύς» (īs'xūs), Μycenaean Greek «Ϝισχύς» (wīs'xūs)--> _might, motive force_ (PIE base *weyǝ-, _power_; cf Lat. _vīs_). 
-------------
*Must, should (expressing obligation, have to)*: Impersonal (see above for the definition of impersonal verbs) verb «πρέπει» ('prepi)--> _to need to, have to, should_. Classical verb «πρέπω» ('prĕpō)--> _to fit, beseem, resemble_.


----------



## ThomasK

So no noun for πρέπει, is it? I wonder if you'd have alternatives (alternive V/N-combinations) when you look for nouns referring to needs.


----------



## Arath

In Bulgarian: *мога* (*moga*) - can, be able to, be allowed to; *мощ* (*mošt*) - power, might

*длъжен съм да* (*dlǎžen sǎm da*) - I have to, I must, I'm obliged to, I'm bound to, it is my duty to, I am under an obligation to; *дълг* (*dǎlg*) - debt, duty


----------



## ThomasK

Is the -g some kind of a typical noun ending, Arath, that you find in other nominal derivations?


----------



## Arath

*г* (*g*) is a regular sound, many nouns end in it. But in this case it's not a specific ending, it's just part of the stem. The adjective *длъжен* (*dlǎžen*)is derived from the noun *дълг* (*dǎlg*). Palatalization of *г* (*g*) into *ж* (*ž*) is very common in the Slavic languages.


----------



## sakvaka

*Finnish*.

_v._ may ("be allowed to") = _saada_, also meaning "to get, to receive"; sometimes also _voida_ (can, be able to)_

Any example sentences you had in mind?

_The only possible noun derivation is _saaminen/saanti_ , but that's more related to receiving, getting things. _Lupa_ ("permission") is semantically the closest hit. Note the phrase_ jllk on lupa tehdä jtk_(sy has the permission to do sth). _Minulla on lupa viettää aikaa täällä!_ I may / am allowed to spend my time here! [I have the permission to spend some time here!]

_v._ must (obligation) = _täytyä_

Related nouns: _täytyminen_ (lit. "musting"), _pakko_ ("obligation", cf. the verb _pakottaa_ < force to do something). _Pakko_ can also be used in the phrase _jnk on pakko tehdä jtk_ (sy has the obligation to do sth).

_Minun on pakko syödä lautaseni tyhjäksi. _I am obliged to empty my plate [I have an obligation to eat my plate *to*-empty].


----------



## ThomasK

Arath: does that imply that the noun is the basis of the verb ??? I had never imagined the noun could here precede the verb somehow.



sakvaka said:


> *Finnish*.
> 
> _v._ may ("be allowed to") = _saada_, also meaning "to get, to receive"; sometimes also _voida_ (can, be able to)_
> 
> Any example sentences you had in mind?
> 
> _The only possible noun derivation is _saaminen/saanti_ , but that's more related to receiving, getting things. _Lupa_ ("permission") is semantically the closest hit. Note the phrase_ jllk on lupa tehdä jtk_(sy has the permission to do sth). _Minulla on lupa viettää aikaa täällä!_ I may / am allowed to spend my time here! [I have the permission to spend some time here!]
> 
> _v._ must (obligation) = _täytyä_
> 
> Related nouns: _täytyminen_ (lit. "musting"), _pakko_ ("obligation", cf. the verb _pakottaa_ < force to do something). _Pakko_ can also be used in the phrase _jnk on pakko tehdä jtk_ (sy has the obligation to do sth).
> 
> _Minun on pakko syödä lautaseni tyhjäksi. _I am obliged to empty my plate [I have an obligation to eat my plate *to*-empty].



Finnish
- the link between being allowed and getting is interesting; it is logical but I cannot imagine a direct link in Dutch (example: _I'd love to do it, but I cannot/ Ik zou het graag doen, maar ik mag niet [_NOT _*kan]_)
- the interesting thing is that 'kunnen' (be able to, 'can') is getting the meaning of 'mogen' (be allowed to) in Dutch, due to English 'can', so I think (Can I do that? Kan ik dat doen?). Could you be interchangeable in some cause (saada/voida) ? 
- do you consider forcing the same as obligation ? I would not put it like that though there is a link, for sure
- could you use _täytyminen_ in a sentence ?


----------



## apmoy70

ThomasK said:


> So no noun for πρέπει, is it?


We do have the noun «πρέπον» ('prepon, _n._) but it's not so commonly used, e.g:
_-Should I wear a tuxedo for the Opera ball?
-Yes, I think it's «πρέπον»_


ThomasK said:


> I wonder if you'd have alternatives (alternive V/N-combinations) when you look for nouns referring to needs.


«Ανάγκη» (a'naɲɟi, _f._)--> _need, necessity, requisite_. Classical feminine noun «ἀνάγκη» (ă'nāŋgē), Doric «ἀνάγκα» (ă'nāŋgă)--> _force, constraint, necessity, bodily pain, anguish_. The meaning of _need_ is a later one, used at least since the 12th c. (Anna Comnena uses the noun to describe something requisite in her most celebrated work, _the Alexiad_).
Its etymology is obscure.
Verb «αναγκάζομαι» (anaŋ'gazome)--> _to be in need, forced to, have to_. Classical verb «ἀναγκάζω» (ănāŋ'gāzō)--> _to constrain, apply compulsion_. Note that the Modern Greek verb is in the Mediopassive voice «αναγκάζ-ομαι» while the ancient verb was in the Active voice «ἀναγκάζ-ω»


----------



## itreius

Croatian (BCS)



> How do you translate 'may' /[noun - the/a] might ?



There's _moći_ (1SG-present form is _mogu_, dialectal _morem_) which probably corresponds better to _can_, and there's _smjeti_ (1SG-present _smijem_).

The noun related to it is _moć_ (_Macht_, _might_), which supposedly entered Slavic as a loanword from Gothic (_magan_). The Dutch etymologiebank says that Dutch _mogen_ and Gothic _magan_ are cognates.

The latter verb (smjeti) might be related to Dutch _moed_ and German _Mut_ (again, according to EB, under the entry for _moed_).




> And do you have a similar etymological couple with must, should/ [the/a]... [(duty, obligation)?



The verb is related to the above ones - _morati_ was formed from _moći_. I'm not so sure about there being an etymologically related noun, _moranje_ is a gerund but not something you'll often see used in speech or in writing. Duty/obligation would be translated as _nužda_, _dužnost_ (obviously related to the Bulgarian verb and noun combination mentioned previously), _obveza_ (< _vezati_ - to tie).


----------



## ThomasK

I  find the second part extremely interesting, Apostolos: 'fo feel forced'... I suppse that requires a personal subject, whereas the πρέπ- is impersonal (_il faut_, in French). So I guess they are in no way interchangeable, or couild you render one contents using both (not in the same sentence) ? 

Croatian is interesting too, thanks. The link moci/ morati seems intriguing, but indeed, might can force us to do something; we have the same apparent ambiguity, but we are both referring to a verb meaning being capable of something at a given time in history, I guess. Here again the noun seems to be lacking, which seems strange to me but is not perhaps.


----------



## 涼宮

Once more Japanese is very different, there is no link among any of those words in Japanese.

The noun ''might'' can be 威力 iryoku which in turn means authority and influence. Might can be also said as 威勢 isei. To say ''might/may'' talking about possibilities, modal verb, you would use かもしれない kamoshirenai (informal). Which is not a verb in Japanese but a compound word/collocation, and you use it at the end of the sentence. For instance: あなたの言うことは正しいかもしれない。 anata no iu koto wa tadashii kamoshirenai = you could be right. (lit: what you say might be correct)

Now comes the interesting part of Japanese as regard to ''should/must''

Duty= yakume 役目、ninmu 任務(also means task/mission)
Obligation= 強制 kyousei (talking about forcing to do something), 責務 sekimu (oligation as duty), 恩義 ongi (obligation as a debt of gratitude), 義務 gimu (obligation as reponsability)

None of those words is linked to the modal verbs should/must.

Japanese separates ''should'' depending on if one talks to onself or another person. To say one should do something to oneself べき beki is used, you can use it to suggest other people but it'd sound kinda bossy, and to tell other people suggestions you would use the formula: past tense + 方がいい (houga ii), lit: better way if you did..... Nevertheless, if you want to use ''should'' as a recomendation in questions you use the formula ～したらいいです/だろうか ～shitara ii desu/darou ka. Lit: it's okay if I did....? ( I know, as usual, Japanese is so twisted)

Must is more complicated, you have around 8 combinations to say you must do something which is sort of a math calculation because you have to use a double nagative to talk in positive, whereas if you use 1 negative it means ''must not''. minus for minus equal plus. The ''must'' thing in Japanese is added at the end of sentences as a compound word, some combinations are なければならない nakereba naranai, しなくてはだめ shinakute wa dame, しなきゃ shinakya, etc. *But*, when ''must'' means expectation (to expect) and not obligation, はず hazu is used, also at the end, and works as a noun (in Spanish such difference exists, deber + inf vs deber de + inf). 

For example compare these 2 sentences:

She must/should be at school = 彼女は学校にいるはずだ kanojo wa gakkou ni iru hazu da. (I expect her to be there)
She must be at school = 彼女は学校にいなければならない kanojo wa gakkou ni inakereba naranai. (it's her obligation to be there)

To say that you are allowd to do something (may), nor may or something like that is used, instead, you use the formula ～してもいい shitemo ii (lit: even if you do... it's okay). E.g: you may smoke (you have the permission) 吸ってもいい suttemo ii. Lit: even if you smoke, it's okay.

To be capable of/can, Japanese doesn't use a verb but a conjugation called potential. Therefore, for example, 行く iku to go, becomes 行ける ikeru to be capable of going/can go.

I don't have any idea why through time Japanese didn't develop connections among might/may/can/should/must with nouns like other languages do 

I hope this was interesting for you


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks, signor(a) *涼宮*. I have been thinking that the impersonal expression of may and must, possibility and obligation, might be more natural: it is possible/ necessary that..., or adding something at the end. 

I am not sure - it is early morning here - that I fully grasp the expression of obligation in J, but here again something is added at the end, I see , and that is quite interesting: modal aux. are not that natural or necessary, so it seems. So striking as well that there is no link at all with nouns.  Even more striking is that capability is marked grammatically! Not so sure about the expression of degrees of obligation. Are you suggesting that 'must' is expressed fairly indirectly? Is it 'not done' to tell other people what to do maybe ? 

Maybe the word for 'to need/ need' might also be interesting. Do you have some kind of verb or aux. for that ? _(But your information is amazing, thanks a lot! I am just astonished that it does not seem to be your mother tongue)
_


----------



## mataripis

ThomasK said:


> How do you translate *'may' /*[noun - _the/a_]* might *? And do you have a similar etymological couple with *must, should/ *[_the/a_]... [(duty, obligation)?
> _To be clear : I understand 'may' here as 'to be allowed to' (and therefore be capable of) and 'might' as the power, and I forget about semantic developments of 'may'.
> 
> _Think of the following :
> 
> - French: _*pouvoir *_(il/elle peut)/ _*le pouvoir*,                  *devoir *_(il/elle doit)/ *le devoir
> *- Dutch: *mogen/ macht,             moeten/ ????            [only hoeven *(need)/ *de behoefte]
> - *German: *mögen/ die Macht - *and _*müssen, sollen/ ??? *_


Tagalog:1.)May there will be good will=" Nawa" ay magkaroon ng kagandahang loob. 2.)It might be you= "Maaring" ikaw na nga.  3.)We must follow the laws.= "Dapat" nating sundin ang batas.4.) You should request it for your convinience= "Kailangan" na hilingin mo yon para sa kaluwagan/kaalwanan mo.5.) WE may omit the following. = "Maari"nating alisin ang mga sumusunod.   NOTE THAT:May= maari/nawa(in prayer)


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks again, but we'd need more explanaton to get a clear idea of how Tagalog renders possibility, obligation - or is all said and done by meaning of _maari/nawa_? 

The dapat reminds me of the only Indonesian phrase I know: _Saja tidak dapat indonesiam_, I don't speak Indonesian. But I thought it referred to capability. 

_Maari/naawi _remind me of inchallah or _magari _in Italian. But isn't that for promises mainly? Like in: _I'll do it God willing_...


----------



## mataripis

Maari= puede(also used in Pilipino) It can be= maari nga. "Nawa"is use only in prayer/words of wish.


----------



## ThomasK

How about _dapat _?


----------



## 涼宮

ThomasK said:


> I am not sure - it is early morning here - that I fully grasp the expression of obligation in J, but here again something is added at the end, I see , and that is quite interesting: modal aux. are not that natural or necessary, so it seems. So striking as well that there is no link at all with nouns. Even more striking is that capability is marked grammatically! Not so sure about the expression of degrees of obligation. *Are you suggesting that 'must' is expressed fairly indirectly?* Is it 'not done' to tell other people what to do maybe ?
> 
> Maybe the word for 'to need/ need' might also be interesting. Do you have some kind of verb or aux. for that ? _(But your information is amazing, thanks a lot! I am just astonished that it does not seem to be your mother tongue)
> _



Considering what literally the ''must'' thing says, I would say yes, it's expressed indirectly. Let me elaborate the combinations of obligation.

Ways of expressing duty:

Informal:

1) negative te-form + topic marker は(wa) + だめ/いけない/ならない (dame/ikenai/naranai) (lit: not serving its purpose; no good/ can't go/ won't become)
2) negative verb + conditional と (to) + だめ/いけない/ならない
3) negative verb + conditional ～ば (ba) + だめ/いけない/ならない

For formal you just use なりません _narimasen_, いけません_ ikemasen_ and だめです _dame desu._

In colloquial the patterns change, and the best thing is that you can omit だめ/いけない/ならない, so everything is shorter.
なくて _nakute_ becomes なくちゃ _nakucha_
なければ _bakereba_ becomes なきゃ _nakya_
negative + conditional と becomes simply と.

So, for instance we have:

もっと勉強しなくてはだめ！_motto benkyou shinakute wa dame!_ You must study more! Lit: not study more, (it's) not good!

毎日学校に行かなければならない. _mainichi gakkou ni ikanakereba naranai._ you must go every day to school. Literally weird which seems to have a hidden meaning not told in the sentence. _If you don't go to school every day, it won't become (certain state)_. Probably that certain state is something which will change in the future, thus the conditional. In Japanese the conditional ～ば (ba) and ～ければ (kereba) are conjugations of the verb and not aux. ～ければ is added to verbs in negative and adjectives that end by -i (pretty weird, eh? that you can conjugate adjectives to conditional form).

As regard to the difference among だめ、いけない、ならない is not that much. だめ (dame) is more colloquial, thus being stronger, it's also written in katakana as ダメ to emphasize more the obligation. いけない (ikenai) is probably the ''softest'' of the 3, so it can be translated as ''have to'', ならない is sort of strong, and more used to state rules aimed at more than 1 person, so, it is ''must''.

Among the 3 patterns to tell obligation there is no difference per se, they are usually synonyms. Sometimes there might be some patterns more used than others to emphasize more or convey a slight nuance of meaning. Like in the pattern that uses ～と (to). と is one of the 4 conditionals in Japanese, this conditional has the quirk that expresses a natural consequence. If A happens it's because undoubtedly B shall happen. As in: If you turn off the light at night, it'll get dark. So, using the pattern that involves ～と may be a little bit stronger to emphasize that something must be done otherwise certain-perhaps-not-mentioned consequences might occur.

To say ''to need'' in Japanese you actually use a noun 必要 _hitsuyou_ (necessity) 

So, for example:

We need to eat 私たちは食べる必要がある _watashitachi wa taberu hitsuyou ga aru_. Lit: it exists the necessity for us to eat. (ある _aru_ is used to say to be(location)/to have/to exist for inanimate things)

Now reading the post of *mataripis*, I forgot to add the other meaning of ''may'', the optative meaning. In Japanese you use ように _youni_ at the end of the formal form of a verb to express those hopings/wishes. 

So, for instance:

楽しい旅になりますように _tanoshii tabi ni narimasu youni_. May you have a pleasant trip. Lit: I wish your trip becomes a funny one.

You will see commonly the verb なる _naru_ (to become) used for many things since in Japanese the verb to be/sein/être doesn't exist as such. Many things are expressed as a change of state. (if by any change you wonder how Japanese expresses passive voice since to be is an important part of such structure, Japanese passive voice is a conjugation of the verb and not a combination of to be + participle like many other languages )

Hope it was interesting


----------



## ThomasK

That is not just interesting, it is amazing. Thanks !


----------



## mataripis

ThomasK said:


> How about _dapat _?


  " Dapat" can be " should be" in English.  e.g.1.) The right thing to do is=  Ang dapat/nararapat gawain ay  2.) The laws should  abide/should be abiding with human rights.= Ang batas ay dapat umaayon sa karapatang pantao.  Note that in Tagalog it is "Dapat" but in bahasa Indonesya it is "Depat". Maybe The word " dapat" in Tagalog has broader meaning compared to bahasa. Forget the use of "nawa", only native Tagalog speakers use it in prayers, to most Pilipinos, they use "sana"(hoping/wishing).


----------

