Before, I said that you can avoid the stacked modal by saying "might be able to". I think I was mistaken. Technically, "might be able to" is the equivalent of "might can". I think that most people here would have no objection to "maybe I could", but if you think about it, if "I might could" is redundant as the original post claims, then so is "maybe I could" for exactly the same reason. I disagree, though. I don't think that either one is redundant at all.

The "Might" in might could only implies that the outcome is indeterminate. Something might or might not happen for any (or no) reason at all. Could has several uses, but in this case, merely implies that the outcome is conditional, i.e., dependent.on something else. So, "I might could" means that whether I do it is both conditional and indeterminate. It's dependent on something else, but even if the condition is met, I'm still not sure if I will do it for some unstated, possibly unknown reason, or even on my own whim.

Here are some examples:

"Would you please pick up some groceries?"
"I could"
means if you do something, perhaps lend me your car, etc., I would be able to do the shopping (and, presumably, would do so).

"Would you please pick up some groceries?"
"I might"
means I might or might not, whatever I feel like doing, or maybe I just don't know.

"Would you please pick up some groceries?"
"I might could"
means if you want me to get the groceries, 1 - you'll have to lend me your car (etc.), and 2 - even if you do, I still may or may not do it.

I should add that I'm not from the south and have never heard "might could" anywhere except in this topic, so I may not have described its authentic usage, but I hope my thoughts at least seem plausible.

I hate to sound critical, Charlie, but since you seem so adamant, I have to point out that you don't seem to actually understand what the words datum and data actually mean, conceptually. A datum doesn't have to be the smallest indivisible element, a bit, per se. A datum is literally a single piece of information, fact, statistic, etc. It doesn't have to be a single bit or even a single byte. If I enter someone's name, address, credit card number, item purchased, etc. into a computer to generate, say, a purchase order or something, the entire entry, hundreds of bytes is one single datum when viewed in the larger context of all the customers in my database. Sure, if I'm talking about the individual bytes I could call them data if I want to, or I could, just as validly, refer to the single record as a datum. It's purely a matter of what my point of view is. Even an entire three inch thick telephone book containing millions of names can be one single datum if it's sitting on a bookshelf in the library next to a hundred other telephone books for different cities.

Shaun, I think Chris' point is that there is a "u" there, too. If it were Mariuana, one could make a case that that 'u" would have the same pronunciation without the "j" as with. It's not mari-ana, it's mari-uana, right? Personally, I think the spelling is awkward enough without the "j" to make it unclear about how to pronounce it, so I'm not sure whether I'd count it or not.

Oops, when I wrote "The Reserve Bank of India's reverse repo auctions evidences the high liquidity we are experiencing", clearly ...evidences... should have been ...evidence...

How about Worcestershire? There's a whole string of silent letters. Why, it's missing an entire syllable! (traditionally pronounced "woos-ter-sheer" or "wus-ter-shur" or a few other variations). The R is usually silent. So's the C, perhaps the O (or the E) too. While it is the name of a place, "worcestershire sauce" is common enough that I would say it doesn't have to be considered a proper noun. There are a lot of English towns and cities that get shortened this way.

Hunter, certainly, "e" is frequently silent. It's often used at the end of a word to modify the preceding consonant, but with no syllable or sound of its own.

Ted, it would be "Mr. and Mrs. Merrill’s newspaper column".

Think of it this way. You wouldn't have a problem with the "oneness" of Mr. and Mrs. Merrill, without possesion, would you? It would be:

"I would like to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Merrill"

or

"I would like to introduce the Merrills"

but not

"I would like to introduce Mr. and Mrs. Merrills"

right?

Possesion doesn't make any difference in this case.

Shaun, dyew and dyuke are also very common in the US. I've never heard mistle for missile anywhere, including the UK and Canada. I have heard missile pronounced as both MISS-ul and MISS-"EYE"-l. I can think of a number of words where the T is silent or optional, but none offhand where a non-existent "T" is spoken.

I'd say, know your audience and the situation. I assume when you communicate with someone, it's your intention to have them understand you. If that's at risk, consider choosing your words more carefully. If it's in writing and a particular word conveys some subtlety of meaning that suits your purposes particularly well, then your reader may have the opportunity to look it up if needed. On the other hand, if you are talking to someone, say, at work, maybe to your boss or something, don't say something you know will be unintelligible. It probably won't score you any points.

Oops, please disregard "was just about to say ...included in the word anythi" in my post above. Bad cut and paste.