Language 2: The Two M's

I can't watch t.v. anymore. No, not that there's nothing good on it, as some people claim. It's simply that I can no longer see the screen. Why not? Because it's covered with old mayo, smeared tomato, etc. Why? Because of all my supper sandwiches I threw against the screen. Why? Because of the continued misuse by almost everyone, including professional broadcasters, of the words, "may" and "might." It's so simple: "may" states permission, "might" states possibility. But "might" is almost never heard anymore today---it's all "may." So when I'm watching the evening news while eating my supper, and the educated, well-tailored announcer says, "The legislature today said it may raise taxes next year," my head hits the roof with anger, and my sandwich hits the screen. "For heaven's sake, calm down," says the little woman, "they only MAY raise our taxes." "Oh, you and the announcer mean that the legislature MIGHT raise our taxes, little woman?" I reply. "Yes, that's what we said, our taxes may rise." "No, that's not what was said," I retort, "it was just announced that the legislature gave its PERMISSION---"may"---for our taxes to rise, which is different from saying that they MIGHT and thus MIGHT NOT rise next year."

And so it goes with many other topics. For a
linguistic purist, it becomes utterly frustrating as to exactly what is meant by the speaker or sign when only "may" is used. Imagine the linguistically sensitive captain in his silo manning the nuclear missal, and hearing his superior say, "Some intrusion into our North American airspace reported just now. Just heard from the general that we may have to fire our missile in ten minutes." "Oh, Lord, God help me," the captain thinks to himself as he proceeds setting the proper switches to launch his nuclear missile in exactly ten minutes. Now, THAT "may" give the t.v. announcer some really important news to report.

-Old Doc