a simple question

At the moment I'm taking a detailed look at modal auxiliaries.
Thus I've created some SuperMemo items containing some differences between the most difficult verbs.
On an EFL page I've found a sentence like this one:
"The modal auxiliaries "may" and "might" are both used to refer to present and future possibilities ..."

I abbreviated the sentence to:
"may and might both for present and future possibilities ..."

And now my question:
Is the abbreviation correct? (Is especially the phrase "... both FOR present and future ..." accurate?)

In the German language such kinds of abbreviations with just "für" (= "for") work very well! But is it the same in English?

It's ok, and it sounds like a note or a reminder to yourself.

The abbreviation is clear to me. It isn't a full sentence, but you
know that already.

You may want to add to your note that in formal English only
'might' is used in the past. Example:

Tuesday: Sam, you may go to the store.

Wednesday (formal, rare in AE use):
Sam, I told you yesterday that you might go to the store.

Wednesday (informal):
Sam, I told you yesterday you could go to the store.

Wednesday (incorrect):
*Sam, I told you yesterday that you may go to the store.

Thank you Ved and D for your answers!

Sometimes there are significant differences between the English and the German language in terms of the use and the word order of prepositions like "for", "to", "of" etc.
That's why I asked ...

and D:
I already know that "might" is used to refer to the past. But nevertheless thanks for the illustrative example! I've just copied one of your sentences as another example into my item ...

In practice, to express past with "might", or "may" for that matter, I at least would prolly use "might've" or "may've" with a past participle, rather than just using "might" alone. While "might" was originally a preterite modal, it itself practically has little to no link with any sense of past-ness in itself today, at least in american english.