‘Might’ isn’t always right, but it may be

JUNE CASAGRANDE

“Dear June Casagrande: I’m writing to inform you of a recent crime

committed against ChoicePoint that MAY have resulted in your name,

address and Social Security number being viewed by businesses that

are not allowed to access such information. We have reason to believe

your personal information may have been obtained by unauthorized

third parties, and we deeply regret any inconvenience this event may

cause you.”

Normal people read a letter like this, especially the day after

reading a big article in the newspaper about this crime, and think,

“Oh, no! I could be the victim of identity theft.” I read it and

think, “Was ‘may’ the right word there? Or should it have been

‘might’?”

Some language rules stick in my head. Usually those are the rules

that are about to change, such as the obsolete law of the Times

Community News copy desk that said “under way” should always be two

words. They changed that, and now it’s one, but this bit of arcane

information remains stuck in my head.

The difference between “may” and “might,” however, is one that I

can never seem to push from short-term memory into long-term memory.

Now that I open my copy of the Chicago Manual of Style, I see why.

“May expresses what is possible, is factual, or could be factual.

‘I may have turned off the stove, but I can’t recall doing it.’

‘Might’ suggests something that is uncertain, hypothetical, or

contrary to fact. ‘I might have won the marathon if I had entered.’”

So, taking the most cynical view, “may” is about what’s possible

and “might” about what’s uncertain. Hardly a clear distinction. I

suppose I’ll think of the difference as “may” is for something that

could have actually happened while “might” is for pondering purposes

only.

“May” also taps into that the age-old rule your mother always

taught you: “It’s ‘may I’ be excused. Not ‘can I’ be excused.” Right?

Well, only if you’re being formal.

“‘Can’ most traditionally applies to physical or mental ability,”

the Chicago editors write. “In colloquial English, ‘can’ also

expresses a request for permission, ‘Can I go to the movies?’ but

this usage is not recommended for formal writing.”

So, getting back to business, were the nice people at ChoicePoint

right? I think so, which means I may, in fact, be the victim of the

crime called “identity theft.”

That term, “identity theft,” always seemed like a misnomer to me.

It’s not like I’ll walk into my bank tomorrow and say, “I’m June

Casagrande” and they’ll say, “No, you’re not.” The crime we call

“identity theft” is more like “identity sharing.” That is, I walk

into my bank and say, “I’m June Casagrande,” and they say, “Hey,

that’s the same name as that woman over there wearing the Rolex and

walking out with a handful of cash.”

But seriously, I think it’s a misnomer that benefits the credit

card companies. By calling it identity theft, they make it sound as

if the problem and the responsibility are all mine -- as if the money

lost were mine. In fact, the credit card companies are the ones

getting ripped-off. I just have a red-tape nightmare to deal with.

Some greedy company in Wilmington, Del., was so anxious to hand

out a high-interest credit card that it didn’t do its homework, so it

describes the crime in words that make it sound like I’m the one

who’ll have to pay.

So that’s my rant of may/might and identity theft. Now if you’ll

excuse me, I think I’ll mosey on over to the Equifax website to see

what that lady with the Rolex has been up to.

* JUNE CASAGRANDE is a freelance writer. She can be reached at

[email protected].