“They need cleaned up”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linguist here- what about “might could”? Anyone use that, and for the grammar mavens, does that grate, too? As in, I might could go to the store (meaning, Maybe, I’m the future I might…”).

I knew two people who used it regularly, one from Maryland and one from North Carolina.

The Marylander was in my graduate English program, and I once heard her talking to an undergraduate about how to revise a paper: "Well, I was going to suggest that you X, but you might could -- to use the vernacular of my youth -- try . . . ." It didn't bother her enough to stop using it; I think it falls under the heading (or rubric, to borrow some pretension from my past) of "Wrong but useful."

The people I knew who used it meant it in the sense of "Here is an option you should consider, but I'm not telling you you have to do it."

But might or could already achieve that. "Might could" is redundant. Just pick one, the meaning is the same (the people who use it).

It adds nuance. That's one of the most amazing things about the English language (tho let's be honest it's really three languages in a trench coat) is the complexity of construction and massive, nuanced vocabulary. I also LOVE regionalisms, slang, creole etc etc. Loosen up and don't be a prescriptivist

+1. I use these constructions (they're called "double modals"), I grew up in NC, and they have subtly different meanings for me. This is especially true for ones using "ought" "I might ought to do that" (which I say pretty often) doesn't mean "I might" or "I ought," it means it's possible that doing that is the correct thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linguist here- what about “might could”? Anyone use that, and for the grammar mavens, does that grate, too? As in, I might could go to the store (meaning, Maybe, I’m the future I might…”).

I knew two people who used it regularly, one from Maryland and one from North Carolina.

The Marylander was in my graduate English program, and I once heard her talking to an undergraduate about how to revise a paper: "Well, I was going to suggest that you X, but you might could -- to use the vernacular of my youth -- try . . . ." It didn't bother her enough to stop using it; I think it falls under the heading (or rubric, to borrow some pretension from my past) of "Wrong but useful."

The people I knew who used it meant it in the sense of "Here is an option you should consider, but I'm not telling you you have to do it."

But might or could already achieve that. "Might could" is redundant. Just pick one, the meaning is the same (the people who use it).

It adds nuance. That's one of the most amazing things about the English language (tho let's be honest it's really three languages in a trench coat) is the complexity of construction and massive, nuanced vocabulary. I also LOVE regionalisms, slang, creole etc etc. Loosen up and don't be a prescriptivist

+1. I use these constructions (they're called "double modals"), I grew up in NC, and they have subtly different meanings for me. This is especially true for ones using "ought" "I might ought to do that" (which I say pretty often) doesn't mean "I might" or "I ought," it means it's possible that doing that is the correct thing to do.

I've actually never heard someone say this in the wild but I don't see the nuance. It means the exact same thing. I don't know why people are splitting hairs and insisting there is a meaning change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linguist here- what about “might could”? Anyone use that, and for the grammar mavens, does that grate, too? As in, I might could go to the store (meaning, Maybe, I’m the future I might…”).

I knew two people who used it regularly, one from Maryland and one from North Carolina.

The Marylander was in my graduate English program, and I once heard her talking to an undergraduate about how to revise a paper: "Well, I was going to suggest that you X, but you might could -- to use the vernacular of my youth -- try . . . ." It didn't bother her enough to stop using it; I think it falls under the heading (or rubric, to borrow some pretension from my past) of "Wrong but useful."

The people I knew who used it meant it in the sense of "Here is an option you should consider, but I'm not telling you you have to do it."

But might or could already achieve that. "Might could" is redundant. Just pick one, the meaning is the same (the people who use it).

It adds nuance. That's one of the most amazing things about the English language (tho let's be honest it's really three languages in a trench coat) is the complexity of construction and massive, nuanced vocabulary. I also LOVE regionalisms, slang, creole etc etc. Loosen up and don't be a prescriptivist

+1. I use these constructions (they're called "double modals"), I grew up in NC, and they have subtly different meanings for me. This is especially true for ones using "ought" "I might ought to do that" (which I say pretty often) doesn't mean "I might" or "I ought," it means it's possible that doing that is the correct thing to do.

I've actually never heard someone say this in the wild but I don't see the nuance. It means the exact same thing. I don't know why people are splitting hairs and insisting there is a meaning change.

DP. Redundancy doesn't mean it's a construction that shouldn't be used. People use double negatives. It adds nuance, whether you see it or not, the speaker does. I've heard and used might could and might oughta. Regionalisms and dialect have meaning, even if sometimes very subtle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linguist here- what about “might could”? Anyone use that, and for the grammar mavens, does that grate, too? As in, I might could go to the store (meaning, Maybe, I’m the future I might…”).

I knew two people who used it regularly, one from Maryland and one from North Carolina.

The Marylander was in my graduate English program, and I once heard her talking to an undergraduate about how to revise a paper: "Well, I was going to suggest that you X, but you might could -- to use the vernacular of my youth -- try . . . ." It didn't bother her enough to stop using it; I think it falls under the heading (or rubric, to borrow some pretension from my past) of "Wrong but useful."

The people I knew who used it meant it in the sense of "Here is an option you should consider, but I'm not telling you you have to do it."

But might or could already achieve that. "Might could" is redundant. Just pick one, the meaning is the same (the people who use it).

It adds nuance. That's one of the most amazing things about the English language (tho let's be honest it's really three languages in a trench coat) is the complexity of construction and massive, nuanced vocabulary. I also LOVE regionalisms, slang, creole etc etc. Loosen up and don't be a prescriptivist

+1. I use these constructions (they're called "double modals"), I grew up in NC, and they have subtly different meanings for me. This is especially true for ones using "ought" "I might ought to do that" (which I say pretty often) doesn't mean "I might" or "I ought," it means it's possible that doing that is the correct thing to do.

I've actually never heard someone say this in the wild but I don't see the nuance. It means the exact same thing. I don't know why people are splitting hairs and insisting there is a meaning change.

DP. Redundancy doesn't mean it's a construction that shouldn't be used. People use double negatives. It adds nuance, whether you see it or not, the speaker does. I've heard and used might could and might oughta. Regionalisms and dialect have meaning, even if sometimes very subtle.

I don't care if people say it or not. It's not said at all in my region but I wouldn't interpret it the way you think it should be interpreted. Is it being said for your benefit or the listener? It's just a waste of words if other people don't get your meaning. But carry on being verbose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linguist here- what about “might could”? Anyone use that, and for the grammar mavens, does that grate, too? As in, I might could go to the store (meaning, Maybe, I’m the future I might…”).

I knew two people who used it regularly, one from Maryland and one from North Carolina.

The Marylander was in my graduate English program, and I once heard her talking to an undergraduate about how to revise a paper: "Well, I was going to suggest that you X, but you might could -- to use the vernacular of my youth -- try . . . ." It didn't bother her enough to stop using it; I think it falls under the heading (or rubric, to borrow some pretension from my past) of "Wrong but useful."

The people I knew who used it meant it in the sense of "Here is an option you should consider, but I'm not telling you you have to do it."

But might or could already achieve that. "Might could" is redundant. Just pick one, the meaning is the same (the people who use it).

It adds nuance. That's one of the most amazing things about the English language (tho let's be honest it's really three languages in a trench coat) is the complexity of construction and massive, nuanced vocabulary. I also LOVE regionalisms, slang, creole etc etc. Loosen up and don't be a prescriptivist

+1. I use these constructions (they're called "double modals"), I grew up in NC, and they have subtly different meanings for me. This is especially true for ones using "ought" "I might ought to do that" (which I say pretty often) doesn't mean "I might" or "I ought," it means it's possible that doing that is the correct thing to do.

I've actually never heard someone say this in the wild but I don't see the nuance. It means the exact same thing. I don't know why people are splitting hairs and insisting there is a meaning change.

Well, I explained the difference to you, so I'm not sure what else you're looking for?

"I might go to the store" means that it's possible that I'll go to the store
"I ought to go to the store" means that it's desirable or correct for me to go to the store
"I might ought to go to the store" stacks the meanings; it's possible that going to the store is the correct thing for me to do (but I'm not sure)

Most people I talk to understand that meaning. You don't I guess, but it seems weird to go around insisting that something is a waste because you don't understand it. I'm probably not talking to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But might or could already achieve that. "Might could" is redundant. Just pick one, the meaning is the same (the people who use it).

It's the same if you aren't familiar with social nuance. Grammatically, yes. But a lot of the time people say "might" or "could," it's to soften the tone of something that is not conditional in practice:

"You might want to take another look. You could learn something."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linguist here- what about “might could”? Anyone use that, and for the grammar mavens, does that grate, too? As in, I might could go to the store (meaning, Maybe, I’m the future I might…”).

I knew two people who used it regularly, one from Maryland and one from North Carolina.

The Marylander was in my graduate English program, and I once heard her talking to an undergraduate about how to revise a paper: "Well, I was going to suggest that you X, but you might could -- to use the vernacular of my youth -- try . . . ." It didn't bother her enough to stop using it; I think it falls under the heading (or rubric, to borrow some pretension from my past) of "Wrong but useful."

The people I knew who used it meant it in the sense of "Here is an option you should consider, but I'm not telling you you have to do it."

But might or could already achieve that. "Might could" is redundant. Just pick one, the meaning is the same (the people who use it).

It adds nuance. That's one of the most amazing things about the English language (tho let's be honest it's really three languages in a trench coat) is the complexity of construction and massive, nuanced vocabulary. I also LOVE regionalisms, slang, creole etc etc. Loosen up and don't be a prescriptivist

+1. I use these constructions (they're called "double modals"), I grew up in NC, and they have subtly different meanings for me. This is especially true for ones using "ought" "I might ought to do that" (which I say pretty often) doesn't mean "I might" or "I ought," it means it's possible that doing that is the correct thing to do.

I've actually never heard someone say this in the wild but I don't see the nuance. It means the exact same thing. I don't know why people are splitting hairs and insisting there is a meaning change.

Well, I explained the difference to you, so I'm not sure what else you're looking for?

"I might go to the store" means that it's possible that I'll go to the store
"I ought to go to the store" means that it's desirable or correct for me to go to the store
"I might ought to go to the store" stacks the meanings; it's possible that going to the store is the correct thing for me to do (but I'm not sure)

Most people I talk to understand that meaning. You don't I guess, but it seems weird to go around insisting that something is a waste because you don't understand it. I'm probably not talking to you.

Ok, whatever. Good thing educated people don't speak this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linguist here- what about “might could”? Anyone use that, and for the grammar mavens, does that grate, too? As in, I might could go to the store (meaning, Maybe, I’m the future I might…”).

I knew two people who used it regularly, one from Maryland and one from North Carolina.

The Marylander was in my graduate English program, and I once heard her talking to an undergraduate about how to revise a paper: "Well, I was going to suggest that you X, but you might could -- to use the vernacular of my youth -- try . . . ." It didn't bother her enough to stop using it; I think it falls under the heading (or rubric, to borrow some pretension from my past) of "Wrong but useful."

The people I knew who used it meant it in the sense of "Here is an option you should consider, but I'm not telling you you have to do it."

But might or could already achieve that. "Might could" is redundant. Just pick one, the meaning is the same (the people who use it).

It adds nuance. That's one of the most amazing things about the English language (tho let's be honest it's really three languages in a trench coat) is the complexity of construction and massive, nuanced vocabulary. I also LOVE regionalisms, slang, creole etc etc. Loosen up and don't be a prescriptivist

+1. I use these constructions (they're called "double modals"), I grew up in NC, and they have subtly different meanings for me. This is especially true for ones using "ought" "I might ought to do that" (which I say pretty often) doesn't mean "I might" or "I ought," it means it's possible that doing that is the correct thing to do.

I've actually never heard someone say this in the wild but I don't see the nuance. It means the exact same thing. I don't know why people are splitting hairs and insisting there is a meaning change.

Well, I explained the difference to you, so I'm not sure what else you're looking for?

"I might go to the store" means that it's possible that I'll go to the store
"I ought to go to the store" means that it's desirable or correct for me to go to the store
"I might ought to go to the store" stacks the meanings; it's possible that going to the store is the correct thing for me to do (but I'm not sure)

Most people I talk to understand that meaning. You don't I guess, but it seems weird to go around insisting that something is a waste because you don't understand it. I'm probably not talking to you.

Ok, whatever. Good thing educated people don't speak this way.

This is DCUM, dear. We are educated. And we do speak using regionalisms and dialect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linguist here- what about “might could”? Anyone use that, and for the grammar mavens, does that grate, too? As in, I might could go to the store (meaning, Maybe, I’m the future I might…”).

I knew two people who used it regularly, one from Maryland and one from North Carolina.

The Marylander was in my graduate English program, and I once heard her talking to an undergraduate about how to revise a paper: "Well, I was going to suggest that you X, but you might could -- to use the vernacular of my youth -- try . . . ." It didn't bother her enough to stop using it; I think it falls under the heading (or rubric, to borrow some pretension from my past) of "Wrong but useful."

The people I knew who used it meant it in the sense of "Here is an option you should consider, but I'm not telling you you have to do it."

But might or could already achieve that. "Might could" is redundant. Just pick one, the meaning is the same (the people who use it).

It adds nuance. That's one of the most amazing things about the English language (tho let's be honest it's really three languages in a trench coat) is the complexity of construction and massive, nuanced vocabulary. I also LOVE regionalisms, slang, creole etc etc. Loosen up and don't be a prescriptivist

+1. I use these constructions (they're called "double modals"), I grew up in NC, and they have subtly different meanings for me. This is especially true for ones using "ought" "I might ought to do that" (which I say pretty often) doesn't mean "I might" or "I ought," it means it's possible that doing that is the correct thing to do.

I've actually never heard someone say this in the wild but I don't see the nuance. It means the exact same thing. I don't know why people are splitting hairs and insisting there is a meaning change.

Well, I explained the difference to you, so I'm not sure what else you're looking for?

"I might go to the store" means that it's possible that I'll go to the store
"I ought to go to the store" means that it's desirable or correct for me to go to the store
"I might ought to go to the store" stacks the meanings; it's possible that going to the store is the correct thing for me to do (but I'm not sure)

Most people I talk to understand that meaning. You don't I guess, but it seems weird to go around insisting that something is a waste because you don't understand it. I'm probably not talking to you.

Ok, whatever. Good thing educated people don't speak this way.

This is DCUM, dear. We are educated. And we do speak using regionalisms and dialect.

Bless your heart, dear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind slang and regional speak, but I don't like this phrasing, because I get confused at what's being said. Past tense, present tense? I wouldn't know what to think.

It's future imperfect continuous.

No way dude it's Subjunctive

Without to be, it is subjunctive. With to be, it is future imperfect continuous. OP isn't familiar with the subjunctive and needs a familiar tense to process the sentence.

Oh I see what you are saying. I also enjoy the construction I heard from someone in NC "Oh I used'ta could" meaning I used to be able to do something.

I'm the original PP and I love when a grammar "argument" breaks out. I'm in STEM and don't have a deep understanding of some of these tenses so I'll be looking them up. And to the person who asked if I wouldn't understand what was meant if someone handed me a dish, yes I would, but I think my brain would freeze for a moment, before I took the dish. It's just my familiarity with the phrase.

I am in the E in STEM. Even perfect English grammar is ambiguous in many respects. I also work with ESL coworkers, so insisting on perfect grammar is really quite pointless. Part of being an English speaker is knowing when something is "good enough." Even some programming languages, despite their seeming rigidity, have ambiguous constructs that are implemented inconsistently. If you want something that is completely unambiguous, I believe the only choice is mathematical proofs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind slang and regional speak, but I don't like this phrasing, because I get confused at what's being said. Past tense, present tense? I wouldn't know what to think.

It's future imperfect continuous.

No way dude it's Subjunctive

Without to be, it is subjunctive. With to be, it is future imperfect continuous. OP isn't familiar with the subjunctive and needs a familiar tense to process the sentence.

Oh I see what you are saying. I also enjoy the construction I heard from someone in NC "Oh I used'ta could" meaning I used to be able to do something.

I'm the original PP and I love when a grammar "argument" breaks out. I'm in STEM and don't have a deep understanding of some of these tenses so I'll be looking them up. And to the person who asked if I wouldn't understand what was meant if someone handed me a dish, yes I would, but I think my brain would freeze for a moment, before I took the dish. It's just my familiarity with the phrase.

I am in the E in STEM. Even perfect English grammar is ambiguous in many respects. I also work with ESL coworkers, so insisting on perfect grammar is really quite pointless. Part of being an English speaker is knowing when something is "good enough." Even some programming languages, despite their seeming rigidity, have ambiguous constructs that are implemented inconsistently. If you want something that is completely unambiguous, I believe the only choice is mathematical proofs.

It's not about perfect grammar so much as making sure the person you are speaking with can understand what is being said. Using bizarre regional constructs, idioms, and colloquialism doesn't really help in that effort when someone's first language isn't English.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Linguist here- what about “might could”? Anyone use that, and for the grammar mavens, does that grate, too? As in, I might could go to the store (meaning, Maybe, I’m the future I might…”).

I knew two people who used it regularly, one from Maryland and one from North Carolina.

The Marylander was in my graduate English program, and I once heard her talking to an undergraduate about how to revise a paper: "Well, I was going to suggest that you X, but you might could -- to use the vernacular of my youth -- try . . . ." It didn't bother her enough to stop using it; I think it falls under the heading (or rubric, to borrow some pretension from my past) of "Wrong but useful."

The people I knew who used it meant it in the sense of "Here is an option you should consider, but I'm not telling you you have to do it."

But might or could already achieve that. "Might could" is redundant. Just pick one, the meaning is the same (the people who use it).

It adds nuance. That's one of the most amazing things about the English language (tho let's be honest it's really three languages in a trench coat) is the complexity of construction and massive, nuanced vocabulary. I also LOVE regionalisms, slang, creole etc etc. Loosen up and don't be a prescriptivist

+1. I use these constructions (they're called "double modals"), I grew up in NC, and they have subtly different meanings for me. This is especially true for ones using "ought" "I might ought to do that" (which I say pretty often) doesn't mean "I might" or "I ought," it means it's possible that doing that is the correct thing to do.

I've actually never heard someone say this in the wild but I don't see the nuance. It means the exact same thing. I don't know why people are splitting hairs and insisting there is a meaning change.

DP. Redundancy doesn't mean it's a construction that shouldn't be used. People use double negatives. It adds nuance, whether you see it or not, the speaker does. I've heard and used might could and might oughta. Regionalisms and dialect have meaning, even if sometimes very subtle.

I don't care if people say it or not. It's not said at all in my region but I wouldn't interpret it the way you think it should be interpreted. Is it being said for your benefit or the listener? It's just a waste of words if other people don't get your meaning. But carry on being verbose.

You seem to believe you are superior in this argument, but you can't see that in being pedantic, you are showing an ignorance of spoken linguistics, which is a fascinating field of study, and the reason most people don't ever succeed in native fluency of foreign languages -- they fail the spoken dialect test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind slang and regional speak, but I don't like this phrasing, because I get confused at what's being said. Past tense, present tense? I wouldn't know what to think.

It's future imperfect continuous.

No way dude it's Subjunctive

Without to be, it is subjunctive. With to be, it is future imperfect continuous. OP isn't familiar with the subjunctive and needs a familiar tense to process the sentence.

Oh I see what you are saying. I also enjoy the construction I heard from someone in NC "Oh I used'ta could" meaning I used to be able to do something.

I'm the original PP and I love when a grammar "argument" breaks out. I'm in STEM and don't have a deep understanding of some of these tenses so I'll be looking them up. And to the person who asked if I wouldn't understand what was meant if someone handed me a dish, yes I would, but I think my brain would freeze for a moment, before I took the dish. It's just my familiarity with the phrase.

I am in the E in STEM. Even perfect English grammar is ambiguous in many respects. I also work with ESL coworkers, so insisting on perfect grammar is really quite pointless. Part of being an English speaker is knowing when something is "good enough." Even some programming languages, despite their seeming rigidity, have ambiguous constructs that are implemented inconsistently. If you want something that is completely unambiguous, I believe the only choice is mathematical proofs.

It's not about perfect grammar so much as making sure the person you are speaking with can understand what is being said. Using bizarre regional constructs, idioms, and colloquialism doesn't really help in that effort when someone's first language isn't English.

Dialects are a part of learning every foreign language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know someone from South Carolina who says this. Also “we might could..” instead of “maybe we could” I like it!

Might could is Irish, many of which ways of speaking are retained in parts of the US

What? Source pls. I have Irish relatives and have been there multiple times and haven't ever heard any Irish person saying that. I am from the rural Southern US and have heard it there quite a bit.

I also disagree that this is an Irish thing. I think of it as Pennsylvania Dutch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't mind slang and regional speak, but I don't like this phrasing, because I get confused at what's being said. Past tense, present tense? I wouldn't know what to think.

It's future imperfect continuous.

No way dude it's Subjunctive

Without to be, it is subjunctive. With to be, it is future imperfect continuous. OP isn't familiar with the subjunctive and needs a familiar tense to process the sentence.

Oh I see what you are saying. I also enjoy the construction I heard from someone in NC "Oh I used'ta could" meaning I used to be able to do something.

I'm the original PP and I love when a grammar "argument" breaks out. I'm in STEM and don't have a deep understanding of some of these tenses so I'll be looking them up. And to the person who asked if I wouldn't understand what was meant if someone handed me a dish, yes I would, but I think my brain would freeze for a moment, before I took the dish. It's just my familiarity with the phrase.

I am in the E in STEM. Even perfect English grammar is ambiguous in many respects. I also work with ESL coworkers, so insisting on perfect grammar is really quite pointless. Part of being an English speaker is knowing when something is "good enough." Even some programming languages, despite their seeming rigidity, have ambiguous constructs that are implemented inconsistently. If you want something that is completely unambiguous, I believe the only choice is mathematical proofs.

It's not about perfect grammar so much as making sure the person you are speaking with can understand what is being said. Using bizarre regional constructs, idioms, and colloquialism doesn't really help in that effort when someone's first language isn't English.

I teach English to adults and idioms and colloquialisms are a very big part of teaching. They are incredibly important for conversational English.