EDNote-- In addition to welcoming SKB back from truancy, I want to
apologize to all involved for failing to notice that Anthony Stadlen's
original response, as formatted, inadvertently appeared to attribute
Wikipedia language to Jansy Mello, who was merely quoting it. I should
have noticed and clarified the formatting ambiguity. Let me be the
first Nabokv-L co-editor to utter: "My Bad." ~SB
Apart
from recognizing Wiki+Web as both primary (replica documents) and
secondary (opinion/comment) sources, both needing careful
cross-checking, and noting the vexing email-citation problem of
clarifying who-is-saying-what-to-whom, may I point out a potential
grammatical ambiguity in
Masson concluded that Freud might have rejected the seduction theory
...
The subtle distinction between might (less probable) and may
(more probable)
remains real in serious, formal writing, but elsewhere relaxed. We can
only guess which mode the Wiki contributor follows. It can influence
his reporting of Masson’s view of Freud’s reason for rejection.
Even with the added quirk that might is the past-tense of may,
we are tempted read the Wiki assertion as Masson concluded that
Freud might, or might NOT, have rejected the seduction theory ... As
opposed to
Masson concluded that Freud may, almost certainly, have rejected the
seduction theory ...
Stan Kelly-Bootle (who has a doctor’s note to cover his long
absence.)