[ The MusicWeb Message Board ]

CELEBRATING 20,000 Classical CD reviews on-line; 21,000 visitors each day.
Return to MusicWeb International

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2010/Nov10/graffes_mk0807.htm Posted by Martin Walker on November 2, 2010, 12:31 pm 88.72.237.81 Recently I have noticed a surfeit of "may haves" in reviews here and elsewhere, increasingly also applied to the non-factual past in the irritating American manner. I am a little suspicious of such "x may have influenced y" statements anyway, but in the case of Rob Barnett's claim in this review that "Vaughan Williams’ string writing in On Wenlock Edge may also have been influenced by this superb work" the chronology would seem to be skewed: as far as I know the Suk was composed in 1914 and the V-W in 1909.

Re: http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2010/Nov10/graffes_mk0807.htm Posted by Ralph Moore on November 2, 2010, 6:31 pm, in reply to "http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2010/Nov10/graffes_mk0807.htm" 86.26.148.2 In any case, good English would dictate the use of "might have" or "could have".

Re: http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2010/Nov10/graffes_mk0807.htm Posted by Chris Howell on November 3, 2010, 8:05 am, in reply to "Re: http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2010/Nov10/graffes_mk0807.htm" 93.57.61.245 Not so, "good English" distinguishes as follows: could have = the thing is possible but the writer doesn't necessarily think it was so may have = the writer thinks it very likely though it's only his opinion might have = again, the writer's opinion but the likelihood is more remote than when "may" is used It's debatable whether modern English really distinguishes between these any more or whether, if they are correctly used, the reader perceives the degree of probability existing in the writer's mind. In any case, Rob's English would seem to be vindicated though, assuming Martin's dates are correct, he's slipped up on chronology in this case. Chris Howell

Re: http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2010/Nov10/graffes_mk0807.htm Posted by Ralph Moore on November 4, 2010, 11:56 pm, in reply to "Re: http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2010/Nov10/graffes_mk0807.htm" 86.26.148.2 Not if you believe, as I do, that "may" should carry only the sense of "being allowed to do" something. "Might" is nearly always clearer than the rather affected (and incorrect?) "may" as in "I may have been wrong", which is simply precious, especially by modern standards.

     « Back to index