politeness

McT: there actually is a definite divide in usage on "May/can" . Those of us on this side of the water, being still nothing but rude Colonials, tho our English teachers in high school still talked about the distinction, almost always just use "can" as far as I can tell and remember hearing. It's apparently more of a class marker in the UK than it is in the US. But it IS a marker, which JTT doesn't seem to realize. He's consistently weak on the sociolinguistic aspects of language.

Ecstatic.

He is consistently catastrophically weak on the social aspects of being a person. I have advanced a diagnosis in other threads.

It is, yes, it seems more polite somehow. More courtly- even old-fashioned, but thankfully not yet outdated.

I could refer to the A2K thread "May I see your papers, citizen?"
How much poorer off we would be if we all standandised on "Can I get....". What an infelicitious, impolite phrase, and not very accurate since "get" usually implies some effort on the part of the questioner.

I'm reluctant to sling mud at contributor JTT. He has a sharp pen, but he knows his stuff and is not usually wrong, only when he disagrees with me.

Yes, actually you did it, Sir. You used the same bogus argument that those 'educated' "teachers" used. Again, in complete defiance of reality. I run into people pretty much everyday who will mouth that silly canard - "can means ability, not permission".



That is patently false. And you all know it is false. Look in any dictionary. Listen to those around you. Note that BBC learning English site - not a mention of 'may' for permission, and for very good reason. It doesn't want ESLs to become focused on unnatural uses of language.

NOTE MJ, THAT DOESN'T IN ANY WAY SAY IT ISN'T PART OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, for it clearly is.

However, corpus studies show that it is extremely rare among adults in comparison to the myriad other ways we have of asking politely. The definitive corpus study of the last 20 years, the definitive corpus study of all time, has shown that most uses of 'may' are found in school situations where adults are trying to teach, erroneously, this use to children.




That's poppycock, Sire. 'can' is not at all a less ambiguous word. It vastly outnumbers 'may' as the choice of both adults and children in its deontic use in language - even in the UK. So does 'could' and even 'would'.

How is it helpful to focus so much on 'may', defend it with a lie, and forget all the other ways we have to ask politely?

These kids already know the use of 'may' and 'can', and all the other polite structures of English, and, most importantly, they know how and when to deploy them.

These "educated" teachers are not educated at all. They teach this old wives tale only because they are fundamentally ignorant of English and how it is used. Right after teaching it, backed up by the lie, they most often end up using 'can' themselves.

Again, IN COMPLETE DEFIANCE OF REALITY.

You sure are good at discussing the language issues, C? Are you one of those "educated folk" that you were talking about.

Why don't you recommend to your students that they come here to A2K for your sage advice on language?

I described the sociolinguistic aspects of language while you ran around making one silly assumption after another, MJ.

You've been nothing but childish since you got smacked down for your own stupid mistakes. Care to review them?



MJ on the "sociolinguistic aspects of language".

Give me a little credit, please. Some things are lost here in the interests of brevity. I also said meanings/uses of "can" and "may" would probably rate a half-page each in a big dictionary.

Disagree.

"Can I...? has got two meanings, "May I....?" only one.

All modals have more than one meaning, including 'may'. People, save for these "educated" folk who repeat this old canard that they don't even follow themselves, know this.

Small children can discern the difference. These same small children don't follow this errant guideline from their teachers because it is a prescription and prescriptions are not natural rules of language.

It simply isn't possible to create phony rules and expect them to be followed. The proof - these phony rules are never followed when people operate in natural language situations.

Why do you ignore the voluminous evidence that this is a completely bogus rule? Why would the BBC completely ignore 'may' in a discussion of permission collocations?



May you always experience good health, McTag. May I always experience good health.

"brevity" is a dangerous thing when you are trying to explain complex issues. This nonsense about 'may/can' has resulted from ignorant people giving a brief, and therefore, false description of 'may' and 'can'.

I don't know, maybe it's an error. Maybe they're writing for learners and want to keep it simple. I'll look further into this.
The BBC of all people should not be getting involved in any dumbing-down or oversimplification.

I have had, before now, occasion to correct the BBC.

That BBC website uses phrases like "Would it be OK if...." and "Would it be alright if..." which in my opinion are very poor.
We are surely operating on a higher register of the language. This is far too chatty, not good style.
It is to help learners with everyday conversation, which I freely admit contains "can I....?" when asking permission. But that doesn't make me like it.

Of course they use phrases like that. The entire purpose of teaching English to second language learners isn't to obscure and fill their heads with uncommon collocations. You always go to the most common first, which is eminently sensible - those are the ones that are most common.

And as I mentioned, in English, wordiness equal more/most polite.

And here, though it's been pointed out to you, you don't acknowledge that 'may' is rarely used in comparison to so many other polite request forms. 'can' and 'could' are probably the [that's 'thee'] most common of all.



You don't like it because you are too emotionally invested in it. And this emotional investment has come to you as a major deception. Why do people hold on to these old canards once they come to realize that they were lied to?

yes good information

Ha! If having an emotional investment means holding on to the language one was taught by careful parents, by a good school, and by a lifetime of reading fairly wide-ranging material in books, periodicals, newspapers and Corn-Flakes packets, I am happy to plead guilty.

By the way, and come to think of it, this language is probably my nation's greatest gift to the world. That's probably why I don't like to see it mucked about with too much.

If that actually was the case, Sir, then you would have a good argument. But the facts simply do not support this. These parents were not careful, they were ignorant and some of them, maybe largely unwittingly, passed on this ignorance.

The schools, in these particular language situations were far from good. They too passed on ignorance of language and how it works - for very spurious reasons.

You won't find support for this canard [or for any other prescription] in any of your reading material, no matter how wide ranging. We know this because scientists study that very material to see how different language structures are used. They even study the speech/writing of those passing on these prescriptions and they find that these "educated" folk break their "rules" all the time.

Prescriptions, which really are unreasonable demands that people use language in a certain manner, just aren't followed, they can't be followed. It's like demanding that people breathe thru their posterior, because, well, just because that's the proper way to breathe.




Language is a wondrous thing. When you really really study it, the complexity is so amazing that you wonder how people manage to do it, and with such ease.

But the great irony here, Sire, is that the only ones mucking with language are those who advance these spurious prescriptions. Again, they do this in complete defiance of reality. And what's so surprising, they seem to do it with such great aplomb - considering just how tenuous their positions are.

Yes 'may' is a well recognized modal verb used for asking permission. Everyone who speaks English, even without any instruction in the bogus rule, already knows this. We all know that 'might' is even more polite/more deferential, but we all also know that it isn't used in every case where one seeks permission.

This seems eminently sensible, does it not, that the more and the most formal structures are not used or needed for most situations.

Ya simply can't argue with the facts. Those facts show that 'may' is rarely used among adults, again, 'rarely' measured against other collocations.

Contrex, a budding ESL/EFL language teacher, should be more up to speed on how language works, especially if he is accepting money from students. If he wishes to continue in this vein, then he might as well expand his horizons and offer quasi-medical advice, insisting that his students breathe thru their behinds.

Well folks, you read it here first, my parents were ignorant.

I may be persuaded to join the ranks of those here who think JTT is a twisted prick, completely untroubled by considerations of politeness and acceptable manners.

Set's the most polite poster at A2K.

I'm sure every English-speaking poster agrees.

Are the Canadian colonials as rude and gruff as we underneath are when it comes to "may I/can I" in politeness usage?