Re: can-may

On 28 Dec 2004, at 1.14 am, Sally Caves wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tristan McLeay" <conlang@...>
>
>> I'm quite surprised at the amount of people who immediately went off
>> and retold the prescriptivist rule (and then provided an exception); I
>> thought here prescriptivism was generally frowned upon...
>
> It's not entirely prescriptivism, Tristan.  Quite a number of us still
> use
> "may" in the way I described.
Yes, sorry, I didn't realise... I also didn't realise it was accepted
as required in polite discourse anywhere. It was ignorance on my part
that caused me to object, not a desire to rebel against particular
differences in speech in polite discourse.

> And just because a word like "may" has a
> "politeness" factor doesn't make it prescriptive.  Is it prescriptive
> to use
> the Sie or the vous form in German and French language when you address
> strangers instead of the du or the tu form?
The thing is, 'may' doesn't have a politeness factor about it at all in
my experience, and I never realised it did. It's not at all comparable.
It's closer, though not identical, to someone requiring you to use
'thou' familiarly.

> These rules are probably more
> insisted upon than the can/may forms in English, but I still maintain
> that
> you are using prescriptivism incorrectly here when CUSTOM, not a
> made-up
> rule, still insists on these distinctions in polite discourse.
The thing is---only a made-up rule based on a historic or foreign
custom insists on these distinctions in any discourse, in my
experience. Only pedants would so much as bat an eyelid if I used a
permissive 'can' in discourse, polite or otherwise. *This* is why I
objected. If I had any idea that the circumstance was as described, I
would not have objected, though perhaps pointed out that in some areas
permissive 'can' is accepted all the time.

> Besides, # 1 ASKED for the distinction.  I thought it appropriate to
> show
> its origins in Old English.  I was describing a development.  Not a
> prescription.
Development from Old English is perfectly okay. In fact, I read your
comments as neutral on the issue (though I felt the issue was clearly
decided on the 'can' side by the people, but on the 'may' side by the
prescriptivists). Telling me the most common usage I've been exposed to
is wrong is likely to cause offence, and in particular contexts neutral
posts may be miusnderstood :( --- I do apologise.

>>> can/may someone help me?
>>
>> Definitely not may. (But 'could' would also be acceptable there.)
>
> Now isn't THAT a prescription?  Where do you draw the line, Tristan?
I meant it as a prescription of a description, maybe? Sorry... it was
an unwarranted reaction to a misunderstood comment by Gary which
influenced my reading of Garcia and to some extent your posts. Not that
Gary is in any way at fault, not at all! Just that what Gary said in my
context caused me to be a bit angry/annoyed.

I'm sorry! (Also Gary, I'm sorry to you too! And anyone else I may have
offended!)

--
Tristan.