Why do we say, “I might add” when we certainly add something?
Often when a piece of rhetoric is being added for emphasis, we put ” I might add” after or sometimes inside of it.
Martin Brice – my old and good friend who promised me that we would not get in trouble and who, I might add, did not. Brice, if you will explain.
All of the definitions of “Might” include an element of “possibility.” Why, when Cosmo is definitely, not possibly, adding “,” does he still use the phrase “I might add?” What
is a good book…”
I will disagree that the expression is usually used to convey emphasis about a new piece of information. I would say the expression was originally used to supplement a secondary and slightly digressive piece of speech information to a primary statement. I.e., the effect or the origin is only a matter of semantics and is not a requirement. I.e. The expression was originally used to complement a primary and little digressive piece of information to a primary statement. I was overdue for dinner and my two-year-old kids thought that the new restaurant , where, I might add, the service was terrible . If
I’m not mistaken, the current version of the expression is derived from the longer phrase “if I might add…”, which is the kind of pseudo-apologetic lead-in you usually see when the speaker is speaking out of turn or voicing an unpopular opinion. The modern version of that might be “Mersk”. I think of “I might add” in the middle of a sentence to indicate that the speaker is aware that they are digressing from the main path a little, and preemptively acknowledging it / apologizing.
Of course, today’s used sacastically more often than not, so that the secondary aside has the same effect as a dramatic stage whisper, hence the modern understanding of it being emphatic rather than parenthetical.
Might is an auxiliary verb. I would. Modal and mood all refer to the same logical phenomena, so this is in the same semantic area as the subjunctive, conditional and optative moods. English doesn’t have moods, but it has tons of modal constructions to do the same job
In general, modals are more polite than non-modals, just as the subjunctive mood is more polite in languages like Spanish that have a subjunctive mood. Why do we say:
- Would you like…?
No longer
- Do you want?
How can I make my question sound polite?
The pragmatic tag I might add is a politeness marker. What’s that
and what is the best way to finish this assignment, please do so.
Might is an auxiliary verb. I would. Modal and mood all refer to the same logical phenomena, so this is in the same semantic area as the subjunctive, conditional and optative moods. English doesn’t have moods, but it has tons of modal constructions to do the same job
In general, modals are more polite than non-modals, just as the subjunctive mood is more polite in languages like Spanish that have a subjunctive mood. Why do we say:
- Would you like…?
No longer
- Do you want?
How can I make my question sound polite?
The pragmatic tag I might add is a politeness marker. What’s that
and what is the best way to finish this assignment, please do so.
Might is an auxiliary verb. I would. Modal and mood all refer to the same logical phenomena, so this is in the same semantic area as the subjunctive, conditional and optative moods. English doesn’t have moods, but it has tons of modal constructions to do the same job
In general, modals are more polite than non-modals, just as the subjunctive mood is more polite in languages like Spanish that have a subjunctive mood. Why do we say:
- Would you like…?
No longer
- Do you want?
How can I make my question sound polite?
The pragmatic tag I might add is a politeness marker. What’s that
and what is the best way to finish this assignment, please do so.
