SUBJECT: Re : Who speaks for who ( &CHAR ) ? Gosh , you 're quite right - I do n't think any of us spotted that possibility . Sorry . But surely the fact that we did n't spot it shows it 's not a likely reading . Personally I hardly ever use ' may ' deontically - I 'd always use ' can ' . &NAME At &NUM : &NUM &NUM / &NUM / &NUM &NUM , you wrote : <QUOTE> As &NAME , surely a better form of wording could have been found ... the sentence ' we may speak for a large body of opinion in our field because we are the past presidents of the &NAME ' is inherently ambiguous in just the way it seems the authors strove to avoid - the modal auxiliary verb ' may ' is liable to be interpreted under its deontic reading ( ie : ' we have permission / are authorised to speak for a large body etc ' ) rather than under its intended epistemic reading ( ' it is possible that we speak for a large body etc ' ) . It is precisely this ambiguity that makes me somewhat concerned that the letter 's contents may be taken to have my support , without my being consulted . &NAME &NAME University of &NAME &NAME &NAME wrote : <QUOTE> Dear &NAME , In this message I speak entirely for myself . I understand why &NAME and &NAME objected to the letter that I signed , along with all the other past presidents of the &NAME since &NUM . ( There were actually one of us , but the &NAME lost count when it cut the list . ) I 'm sorry they felt we were speaking , or could be understood to be speaking , for the &NAME , because that was certainly not my intention nor is it ( in my opinion ) even a reasonable interpretation of what we actually said : ' We are writing as &NAME in support of our colleague , Professor &NAME &NAME , who is currently under investigation by &NAME for removing &NUM &NAME members of the editorial board of a journal she privately owns and publishes . Although we write as individuals , we may speak for a large body of opinion in our field because we are the past presidents of the Linguistics Association of &NAME &NAME since &NUM . ' All we said was ' we * may * speak for a large body of opinion ' . Not that we * did * speak for a large body , less still that we spoke for the whole of the &NAME . When I signed it I thought it was a reasonable assumption that , since presidents are elected , there must be quite a lot of people who accept them as similar in values etc. When one of past presidents agree on something , it seems likely that quite a few other members would agree on it as well . Maybe I was wrong , but I do n't think any of us know . &NAME asks ' why now ? ' No particular reason ( except that Christmas had been mentioned by &NUM journalist as the deadline for the &NAME inquiry ) . Maybe we should have acted sooner . Just to remind you of the points we did and did not make in the letter : - We did * not * make any judgement on &NAME &NAME 's form of the boycott ; the rights and wrongs of this were n't at issue . - We * did * say &NAME 's treatment of her was over the top . - We * did * say we objected to &NAME 's assumption that it had the right to inquire into her private political activities . Personally I stick by the last &NUM of these points . &NAME &NAME ( &NAME ) &NAME &NAME and Linguistics , University College &NAME , &NAME Street , &NAME &NAME &NAME . &NUM ( &NUM ) &NUM &NUM &NUM ; fax &NUM ( &NUM ) &NUM &NUM &NUM ; &WEBSITE <END_QUOTE> <END_QUOTE> &NAME ( &NAME ) &NAME Phonetics and Linguistics , University College &NAME , &NAME Street , &NAME &NAME &NAME . &NUM ( &NUM ) &NUM &NUM &NUM ; fax &NUM ( &NUM ) &NUM &NUM &NUM ; &WEBSITE