As the others have said:
I might work more this week.
Implies that you have some sort of control over the situation, whereas
I might be working more this week.
Implies that you don't really have the choice.
can't i say : "There is traffic on the highway so i might arrive late."
Yes you can. And the reason this shows that you don't have control is because of the mention of the traffic.
Also context can play a big difference, if somebody invited me to a party in a week's time and I said
I'll be there, but I might be late.
That would imply that I have control, because I knew about it a week in advance, whereas if I sent that message on the day, it would imply that I have no control.
I hope this helped.
As for your second set of questions, both make sense. However I would have said "I have to work more today" to show that I have to do it, not that I really want to do it.
Tom is the best expert ...
Assertion of a fact. Where there are agreed criteria then there's no need to hedge an statement.
Djokavic is the current number one male tennis player in the world
When criteria are less certain, or we ourselves are not sure of our facts, or we wish to be modest by appearing to be uncertain of our facts we may use I think
I think Djokavic is the best male tennis played of all time
I think that the population of the UK is 50 million (actually 65 million)
This formulation implies that we are open to correction and discussion
Adding would softens this further, emphasises that we are uncertain
I would think that the population of the UK is greater than 50 million
The I would have thought formulation is normally used in a context where some information has recently been given. Depending upon the context it may imply that we are actually contradicting the information, or that we are expressing surprised acceptance.
I think Tendulakar is the best batsman of all time
I would have thought Bradman had a better record
that was disagreeing, suggesting that by some criteria Bradman is better
The current UK population is 65 million
Oh, I would have thought it was only 50 million
but now I've changed my opinion (this implied but not said)
that was agreeing, I thought it was 50 million, but I accept your statement of 60 million is correct. We could just say
Oh, I thought it was only 50 million
With pretty much the same meaning, the slight difference being that the second case implies it was actively in my mind, whereas the would form could imply that I hadn't really formed a solid opinion until now, but I would probably have guessed 50 million.
As your comment indicates we are indeed into shades of meaning and idioms. In these cases the tone of voice will often differentiate the meaning.
I would have thought Bradman had a better record
Would probably said with a questioning or challenging tone and raised eyebrow.
Best Answer
Let's contemplate:
Often, particularly can also be used as an adverb in place of in particular to specify something individually. But in this case it is used relative to earlier details. Examples below have the same meaning:
Here, used in a relative clause (one that works relating to the main clause), particularly means specifically or especially, and is essentially the same as in particular. But if we used it in the main clause, the meanings of the two phrases would differ:
Note, though, that in particular can never be used in place of particularly to modify verbs.
Summing up, yes, we can use both words in a sentence:
Extra Info: "Considered" and "Considered to be" are interchangeable, however, "To be" is redundant)*. You can also say, "Considered as being"