But our English speaking community deems otherwise. We pretty much all say "can I have?" here. If we want to be polite we say "Could I have?". "May I have?" is a usage that around here one would associate with older people; it's a fading usage which no-one expects.
You didn't know she had special needs. But that's the point. You still felt it appropriate to tell me how to do my parenting job despite there being lots of things you didn't know about the situation.
As for "going nuclear", well, that's in part in the eye of the beholder. But here's a deal - I'll try to wind down the rhetoric when I get pissed off, if you can try to wind down the judgemental attitude when people don't share your standards. Deal?
The role of grammar is to make something understandable? 'Can I have' is understandable.
If you have lived in the North of England you would realise that saying 'May I have' would make you stand out. In school possibly bullied. To use the locally acceptable term which is universally understood is preferable.
To insist on grammatically correct forms when the term is easily understandable is to know the rules whilst disregarding the purpose of grammar. It has a name.
I do not live in the north of England. I prefer proper grammar as it is generally understood, and for good manners. "Can I have" is generally considered rude...
...and before Karl or another bully starts up again, I understand that your mileage may well vary.
The role of grammar is to make something understandable? 'Can I have' is understandable.
Oh, goodie: I get to be pedantic.
"Can I have" is understandable to you the way you do only because of circumstance. To any objective consideration of the semantics involved, "can" refers to capability in general and not necessarily permission. Whereas "may" is much more clearly in reference to a request.
As Rossweisse implies, all the places I've been (and most particularly insisted upon by my stern London-born grandmother) "may I" is the polite form, while "can I" marks you as uncouth.
The role of grammar is to make something understandable? 'Can I have' is understandable.
Oh, goodie: I get to be pedantic.
"Can I have" is understandable to you the way you do only because of circumstance. To any objective consideration of the semantics involved, "can" refers to capability in general and not necessarily permission. Whereas "may" is much more clearly in reference to a request.
As Rossweisse implies, all the places I've been (and most particularly insisted upon by my stern London-born grandmother) "may I" is the polite form, while "can I" marks you as uncouth.
Y'all are full of the same devise bullshit being touted in the manners thread. According to Oxford, they are both correct. May is more polite, but that does not make can impolite or wrong.
I do not live in the north of England. I prefer proper grammar as it is generally understood, and for good manners. "Can I have" is generally considered rude...
...and before Karl or another bully starts up again, I understand that your mileage may well vary.
Oh FFS I thought we'd achieved some kind of understanding.
I don't think anyone in the UK would even notice someome saying "can I", even if their normal useage was "may I", let alone consider it rude.
Both are normal. Both are grammatically correct. In fact, in some contexts "may I" would be incorrect because of register.
It looks like this thread has spread from my musical snobbery towards grammatical snobbery on the part of two American posters who probably couldn't locate Doncaster, Barnsley or Wakefield on a map and whose only knowledge of the UK consists of London-born relatives and in Rossweisse's case operatic visits to the capital.
Yes, 'May I' is more correct but nobody over here these days would really bat an eyelid if they heard anyone say 'can I ...'
Besides, it's rich seeing Americans of all people insisting on grammatical rectitude when their nation has perpetuated all manner of atrocities on the English language over the years.
Yes, we've done the same, but I could fill a Hell-thread with unfortunate Americanisms and constructions that demonstrate linguistic ass-hattery on a Prairie scale.
For a nation that's given us Donald Trump to presume to pontificate on what is or isn't 'uncouth' is the ultimate insult and irony.
It beggars belief.
I'm more than happy to concede that in some respects it is UK English that has diverged from English as she is spoke, but when it comes to linguistic or cultural snobbery from the continent of crass, I'm afraid that is an infringement up with which I will not put.
Mousethief is a man of letters and I enjoy sparring with him over linguistic issues and he knows his stuff. That's a different issue.
What we have here are Rossweisse and Rook setting themselves up as the arbiters of how vernacular English should be spoken across the regions of this country of which they remain woefully ignorant.
On behalf of the Tykes and the Taffs and the Tellers from the Tyne, I tell them both to fuck off.
Actually you are all wrong, the polite form is "could I?"
Joking aside, it is pretty offensive to describe the way other people speak as impolite.
Politeness is a relative term. In North America it appears normal to politely call someone you don't know "Sir", even if that person is a journalist interviewing you on live television.
In the UK it is rare for anyone to use the term "Sir", and seems to be mostly used by retail assistants as a subtle form of ironic mockery.
Around here, the polite form of address is "bud", in other parts it is "love" or "mate". None of these are considered impolite.
"I think perhaps Sir needs to try a slightly more generously waisted trouser?"
I think it's generally a good guide that if a particular usage consistently has to be taught explicitly, then it's actually artificial and not really a genuine rule of the language as it is actually used. Children acquire language by copying what they hear; if they consistently say "can I?" then it's because they ate consistently hearing "can I" in their speech community.
File here also other invented rules like prohibitions on sentence final prepositions, split infinitives...
Shakespeare was bastardising our language long before the Americans got a look in. He merrily created all kinds of new words, changed verbs into adjectives, combined words, added suffixes and prefixes to words which didn’t previously take them - and many of his ‘bastardisations’ are considered proper English today, by both Brits and Americans.
There are some language patterns that have to be taught out of children because they're not even locally acceptable.
When my kid was growing up was growing up it was using "like" to break up sentences. It gets to be a habit that is hard to stop, but an adult speaking in that way sounds ridiculous.
But then socially acceptable speech patterns are a hard thing to understand - and are almost impossible to really appreciate out of their own context.
There are some language patterns that have to be taught out of children because they're not even locally acceptable.
When my kid was growing up was growing up it was using "like" to break up sentences. It gets to be a habit that is hard to stop, but an adult speaking in that way sounds ridiculous.
But then socially acceptable speech patterns are a hard thing to understand - and are almost impossible to really appreciate out of their own context.
It's about register isn't it, like the breaking, like, sentences up with, like, like, is, like, how youth, like, talk to each other, like, innit?
We need to get our heads around register better. Because colloquial and formal registers of English are relatively close we can pretend they are (or should be) the same but both of us are familiar with a language where that would be laughable, on'd ydyn?
Around here, for example, we have colloquial "he were", but formal "he was".
'Bud' or 'But'' - as in the diminutive form of 'butty' or 'bwti' as it would be in its more 'Wenglish' form?
If it's a variation on 'butty' then it is to welcomed and celebrated as a form of vernacular South Walian speech. If it's related to the US 'buddy' then it must be resisted at all costs ...
To be honest, when I was growing up in South Wales the standard greeting between males meeting in the street was, "'Right, but'?"
As in, "Alright, butty?'
Butty Bach. My little friend.
More recently, both in Yorkshire and in South Wales I've noticed 'bud' becoming more common.
I've taken that to be an American import. We'd lose some diversity if it ousted 'pet' and 'love', not to mention 'bach' but there's little point in emulating Canute.
It's about register isn't it, like the breaking, like, sentences up with, like, like, is, like, how youth, like, talk to each other, like, innit?
Yes. It's a learned behaviour - presumably from TV. But it still is going to impact on a person's adult life if they can't turn it off.
Which is unfortunate, I don't like making judgements on speech patterns - but the reality is that it is unacceptable in many situations.
We need to get our heads around register better. Because colloquial and formal registers of English are relatively close we can pretend they are (or should be) the same but both of us are familiar with a language where that would be laughable, on'd ydyn?
I don't know how it is in Derbyshire, but around here in South Wales, people pride themselves on their informality. Much more than anywhere else I've ever lived.
So "impolite" means failing to make eye contact with a stranger in the street and saying hello. It appears that in many situations people are assumed to be friendly unless proven otherwise.
In the part of England where we previously lived, the polite thing to do was to ignore what other people we doing as much as humanly possible. Someone randomly talking to you was considered a threat.
Around here, for example, we have colloquial "he were", but formal "he was".
'Bud' or 'But'' - as in the diminutive form of 'butty' or 'bwti' as it would be in its more 'Wenglish' form?
If it's a variation on 'butty' then it is to welcomed and celebrated as a form of vernacular South Walian speech. If it's related to the US 'buddy' then it must be resisted at all costs ...
To be honest, when I was growing up in South Wales the standard greeting between males meeting in the street was, "'Right, but'?"
Well maybe I'm just showing my ignorance, I never even considered that it could be anything other than bud.
As in, "Alright, butty?'
Butty Bach. My little friend.
More recently, both in Yorkshire and in South Wales I've noticed 'bud' becoming more common.
There you go, I never knew that.
Generally speaking around here the only Welsh that remains in speech is in the slang.
Which is a whole other thing about "politeness" and the murder of a language, of course.
In Sunderland it was "pet", "petal" or "flower", addressed to burly men as well as women and children. In the West Country I've been called "duck", "m'duck" and "duckie".
Then in London, there used to be "dahlin'" as an attempt at "darling", usually yelled from scaffolding, but heard more generally. Not so much from scaffolding now, but the builders are mostly speaking Polish or another Eastern European language. And "bud" is what I heard most often recently.
‘Me lover’ is sometimes used here as a friendly way to address someone.
I think that I'd be taken aback if I were addressed by a stranger as "me lover".
You obviously haven't lived in Devon then. occasionally you get "my handsome" as well: now that's nice to some ugly specimen like me as it is always accompanied by a smile. Made my day
I do not live in the north of England. I prefer proper grammar as it is generally understood, and for good manners. "Can I have" is generally considered rude...
Y'all are full of the same devise bullshit being touted in the manners thread. According to Oxford, they are both correct. May is more polite, but that does not make can impolite or wrong.
Besides, it's rich seeing Americans of all people insisting on grammatical rectitude when their nation has perpetuated all manner of atrocities on the English language over the years.
Some Americans insisting on grammatical rectitude, which is really coming off more like grammatical snobbery. Others of us are rolling our eyes.
I really can't get worked up over the alleged niceties between "Could I", "May I" and "Can I". I might, however, be somewhat displeased if someone rushed up to me and said, "Come on, you old fatface, give us it NOW". That is informality carried just a little bit too far!
Even though this is clearly English, I should really translate for the hard of comprehending.
"General greeting/exclamation, term of endearment usually reserved for females. Travel well."
(Note that 'hinny' is of uncertain etymological derivation, but is thought to arise from the drop or griddle scone locally known as a 'singing hinny', singing due to the noise of cooking.)
Isn't English wonderful, and almost completely mutable, and there are many, many ways of using it, almost all of them correct somewhere? Proscription isn't something that English does.
Your casual interactions, and what is understandable as being polite, is regional and a part of the lovely variation of cultural evolution. A true delight to hear all the permutations.
But with respect to semantic accuracy, you are a covey of clumsy idiots.
Imagine, if you can, a 1-legged man with a crutch hobbles up to a person standing by one side of a rickety and swaying suspension bridge without railings. When the 1-legged man asks, "Can I cross the bridge?" - what do you think he's asking?
When my son asks me, "Can I eat that cookie?" indicating one on the counter, if I answer "No." he could logically disprove that by eating the fucking cookie. What I need to answer my smart-ass spawn is, "You might be able to, but you may not."
And, perhaps it needs to be pointed out, England is ranked 6th among populations of "English speaking" people. What it is you do out of cultural drift in local sub-regions is sort of irrelevant. Indian and Pakistani trends each have twice the relevance overall of your whole xenophobic little island.
Hm... except Indians and Pakistanis use 'can' with the same flexibility as we do. It is a modal with multiple meanings. Even North Americans do, from what I observe online. It seems to be a small subset who remove all the versatility of meaning and insist it has only one meaning.
(Cross-posted with mr cheesy. I'm in quite a few FB groups that are largely Indian and Pakistani, and friends who travel frequently to India, and we've talked about Indian English quite a bit, plus I studied a bit about it. Indians and Pakistanis have a unique and interesting way of using English, probably more versatile than our UK usage, let alone American usage, and definitely use 'can' with versatility.)
Indian and Pakistani English is terrific. They still use terms like 'miscreants.'
Caribbean English is something else again. There are loads of different English-es.
Of course, Shakespeare was entitled to bastardise the language. He was English.
No, the point I'm making isn't that I am xenophobically opposed to US (or other North American) idioms and usage. Far from it. I think US English has retained and preserved elements that we have lost to our cost.
I also think that US English has been remarkably inventive and creative.
That said, some (but not all) of the most egregious developments in English have come from the USA. Which is why I'm suggesting that it ill-behoves US posters to get on their high horse and drink their milk whilst pointing the finger at other people for what they take to be shoddy grammar or usage.
I would say the same if it was an Estuary English speaker, a Cockney, a Tyke, Scotsman or anyone else who claimed that their way of speaking the Queen's English was somehow THE definitive way that it should be spoken.
Everybody I know here in the States uses "can" and "may" interchangebly. The only people who insist on "may" are English teachers when their students ask if they can go to the bathroom. "I don't know, can you?" They will ask, and the students will roll their eyes and reframe the question. But everybody knows the teacher is being an asshole.
I was asked - 30-odd years ago - by two South Korean students what the difference was between 'may I' and 'can I'.
The global English contingent (it was in a hostel in Perth, WA) then spent the next half hour arguing amongst themselves what the difference was. We didn't come to any definitive conclusion then, and we're not going to now. Because there is no globally 'right' answer.
(Cross-posted with mr cheesy. I'm in quite a few FB groups that are largely Indian and Pakistani, and friends who travel frequently to India, and we've talked about Indian English quite a bit, plus I studied a bit about it. Indians and Pakistanis have a unique and interesting way of using English, probably more versatile than our UK usage, let alone American usage, and definitely use 'can' with versatility.)
This matches my experience too. Indian English has many ideosyncracies, but I don't think it is touchy about can/may, so it is a mighty strange thing to bring up.
But I'm not an expert - and I'd venture that RooK isn't either and is somehow trying to make some point based on a weight of numbers.
I suspect RooK doesn't give two hoots about usage of 'can,' but he sees it's important to Rossweisse, and that everyone is disagreeing with her, so he is being a friend to her by agreeing and insulting everyone who disagrees, for some camaradarie and laughs, so she doesn't feel ganged up on. I suspect if it were the other way round, if Rossweisse were saying people use 'can' in a variety of ways in the States, and everyone were saying that is rude and wrong, he'd be calling us all snobs, and saying 'can' has different meanings. I don't think he's being a dick. Just pretending to be a dick.
Everybody I know here in the States uses "can" and "may" interchangebly.
And every dictionary I've looked at supports that interchangeable use and gives "to have permission to" as a meaning of "can." Some dictionaries specifically state that "can" and "may" are used interchangeably.
Unfortunately it is even worse than country or region specific differences. Different professions may adopt words and develop an entirely different meaning for them outside the usage of the general population. Indeed, it may affect your affect. Or is that can?
My strong affection for Rossweisse, which is derived mostly from our fantastically caustic razor-sharp sparring back when I was a freshly-steaming Hellhost, is not really at play here - because she's more fun to disagree with, when we do.
And while I run a team of engineers in Bangalore, reliant primarily on their excellent proficiency with the English language, the point was indeed meant to be about the puny value of declaring East Unclefuckwich as homogeneously agreeing to an arbitrary meaning.
However, the main point, which each and every one of you drooling phlegm miners galumphed past, was simple and elegant semantic clarity. Maybe it's because I'm an asshole, or maybe it's because of all the code and specification writing I do, or maybe it's just my naïve love of semantic logic - but I really do advocate for the form that is explicitly and unambiguously a request when making a request. The general form regarding capability can overlap this function, sure. Just not as clearly, or unambiguously.
My strong affection for Rossweisse, which is derived mostly from our fantastically caustic razor-sharp sparring back when I was a freshly-steaming Hellhost, is not really at play here - because she's more fun to disagree with, when we do.
And while I run a team of engineers in Bangalore, reliant primarily on their excellent proficiency with the English language, the point was indeed meant to be about the puny value of declaring East Unclefuckwich as homogeneously agreeing to an arbitrary meaning.
However, the main point, which each and every one of you drooling phlegm miners galumphed past, was simple and elegant semantic clarity. Maybe it's because I'm an asshole, or maybe it's because of all the code and specification writing I do, or maybe it's just my naïve love of semantic logic - but I really do advocate for the form that is explicitly and unambiguously a request when making a request. The general form regarding capability can overlap this function, sure. Just not as clearly, or unambiguously.
Deny it, lie to yourselves. It's amusing.
Whilst we are playing with language, sometimes it's 'and' rather than 'or'...
And I wonder if your profession, where 'can' seems integral to me as an outsider, influences your desire for accuracy on this point.
...But with respect to semantic accuracy, you are a covey of clumsy idiots. ..When my son asks me, "Can I eat that cookie?" indicating one on the counter, if I answer "No." he could logically disprove that by eating the fucking cookie. What I need to answer my smart-ass spawn is, "You might be able to, but you may not." ...
As my dear Mater used to say, "The question is not 'Can I,' but 'May I.' The answer is that you may not." She was right, in that particular context.
Oh, and anyone who accuses me of being a promoter of Trumpism hasn't been reading carefully. They can go to hell alongside the Orange One.
RooK's very presence used to make me quake in my boots. I felt if I ever met him, thunder would crack and the ground would swallow me up*. But now I know he is one of those grammar prescriptivists, it seems the veil has been lifted and a little fluffy bunny who is worried about the big bad confusingly-grammatical world out there has taken its place. I'm all at sea.
May is all but gone down here. I use it occasionally, as I was taught it, but I've tried to fit in with society's expectations and used can. The sun is still rising. I still can't get over people responding "Good" to "How are you?, though. I still say "Well". I'm sticking with that. But accept I'm as modern as Jacob Rees-Mogg.
* perhaps it will if I ask him for a cookie using "can"...
Using so many words to say so little of substance with such a consistent lack of civility must require a great deal of effort.
Goodnight.
Eh?
There's a flounce for you, bach.
I don't think I put that much effort into my responses to your posts in Kerygmania but then you also don't appear to have put that much effort into understanding the point I was actually making.
@Rosseweisse. Like the suddenly very cuddly and fluffy Rook, I can be a fan of yours. You rock.
However, in this instance I feel you've been unnecessarily harsh, pedantic and indeed snobbishly patronising towards KarlLB and that's brought out the worst in me. Hence my Pond War sniping and intemperate language.
I just felt that whilst I'd gone too far in ribbing him about metal, you were going too far with your jibing at him for apparent linguistic - or even parental - failings. He can defend himself of course and doesn't need me to take up cudgels on his behalf.
I don't see much evidence of bullying in his posts. He's simply defending himself as far as I can see.
I'm glad I was wrong about your not having visited other UK locations - the word is locations - outside London. I hope you've enjoyed your visits.
Comments
You didn't know she had special needs. But that's the point. You still felt it appropriate to tell me how to do my parenting job despite there being lots of things you didn't know about the situation.
As for "going nuclear", well, that's in part in the eye of the beholder. But here's a deal - I'll try to wind down the rhetoric when I get pissed off, if you can try to wind down the judgemental attitude when people don't share your standards. Deal?
The role of grammar is to make something understandable? 'Can I have' is understandable.
If you have lived in the North of England you would realise that saying 'May I have' would make you stand out. In school possibly bullied. To use the locally acceptable term which is universally understood is preferable.
To insist on grammatically correct forms when the term is easily understandable is to know the rules whilst disregarding the purpose of grammar. It has a name.
Stupidity.
...and before Karl or another bully starts up again, I understand that your mileage may well vary.
Oh, goodie: I get to be pedantic.
"Can I have" is understandable to you the way you do only because of circumstance. To any objective consideration of the semantics involved, "can" refers to capability in general and not necessarily permission. Whereas "may" is much more clearly in reference to a request.
As Rossweisse implies, all the places I've been (and most particularly insisted upon by my stern London-born grandmother) "may I" is the polite form, while "can I" marks you as uncouth.
Oh FFS I thought we'd achieved some kind of understanding.
I don't think anyone in the UK would even notice someome saying "can I", even if their normal useage was "may I", let alone consider it rude.
Both are normal. Both are grammatically correct. In fact, in some contexts "may I" would be incorrect because of register.
Yes, 'May I' is more correct but nobody over here these days would really bat an eyelid if they heard anyone say 'can I ...'
Besides, it's rich seeing Americans of all people insisting on grammatical rectitude when their nation has perpetuated all manner of atrocities on the English language over the years.
Yes, we've done the same, but I could fill a Hell-thread with unfortunate Americanisms and constructions that demonstrate linguistic ass-hattery on a Prairie scale.
For a nation that's given us Donald Trump to presume to pontificate on what is or isn't 'uncouth' is the ultimate insult and irony.
It beggars belief.
I'm more than happy to concede that in some respects it is UK English that has diverged from English as she is spoke, but when it comes to linguistic or cultural snobbery from the continent of crass, I'm afraid that is an infringement up with which I will not put.
Mousethief is a man of letters and I enjoy sparring with him over linguistic issues and he knows his stuff. That's a different issue.
What we have here are Rossweisse and Rook setting themselves up as the arbiters of how vernacular English should be spoken across the regions of this country of which they remain woefully ignorant.
On behalf of the Tykes and the Taffs and the Tellers from the Tyne, I tell them both to fuck off.
Joking aside, it is pretty offensive to describe the way other people speak as impolite.
Politeness is a relative term. In North America it appears normal to politely call someone you don't know "Sir", even if that person is a journalist interviewing you on live television.
In the UK it is rare for anyone to use the term "Sir", and seems to be mostly used by retail assistants as a subtle form of ironic mockery.
Around here, the polite form of address is "bud", in other parts it is "love" or "mate". None of these are considered impolite.
I think it's generally a good guide that if a particular usage consistently has to be taught explicitly, then it's actually artificial and not really a genuine rule of the language as it is actually used. Children acquire language by copying what they hear; if they consistently say "can I?" then it's because they ate consistently hearing "can I" in their speech community.
File here also other invented rules like prohibitions on sentence final prepositions, split infinitives...
When my kid was growing up was growing up it was using "like" to break up sentences. It gets to be a habit that is hard to stop, but an adult speaking in that way sounds ridiculous.
But then socially acceptable speech patterns are a hard thing to understand - and are almost impossible to really appreciate out of their own context.
It's about register isn't it, like the breaking, like, sentences up with, like, like, is, like, how youth, like, talk to each other, like, innit?
We need to get our heads around register better. Because colloquial and formal registers of English are relatively close we can pretend they are (or should be) the same but both of us are familiar with a language where that would be laughable, on'd ydyn?
Around here, for example, we have colloquial "he were", but formal "he was".
If it's a variation on 'butty' then it is to welcomed and celebrated as a form of vernacular South Walian speech. If it's related to the US 'buddy' then it must be resisted at all costs ...
To be honest, when I was growing up in South Wales the standard greeting between males meeting in the street was, "'Right, but'?"
As in, "Alright, butty?'
Butty Bach. My little friend.
More recently, both in Yorkshire and in South Wales I've noticed 'bud' becoming more common.
Yes. It's a learned behaviour - presumably from TV. But it still is going to impact on a person's adult life if they can't turn it off.
Which is unfortunate, I don't like making judgements on speech patterns - but the reality is that it is unacceptable in many situations.
I don't know how it is in Derbyshire, but around here in South Wales, people pride themselves on their informality. Much more than anywhere else I've ever lived.
So "impolite" means failing to make eye contact with a stranger in the street and saying hello. It appears that in many situations people are assumed to be friendly unless proven otherwise.
In the part of England where we previously lived, the polite thing to do was to ignore what other people we doing as much as humanly possible. Someone randomly talking to you was considered a threat.
Well maybe I'm just showing my ignorance, I never even considered that it could be anything other than bud.
There you go, I never knew that.
Generally speaking around here the only Welsh that remains in speech is in the slang.
Which is a whole other thing about "politeness" and the murder of a language, of course.
I think that I'd be taken aback if I were addressed by a stranger as "me lover".
Another local variant we have here is "my lovely" - as in "here you go my lovely", which seems often to me to be a kind thing to say.
Then in London, there used to be "dahlin'" as an attempt at "darling", usually yelled from scaffolding, but heard more generally. Not so much from scaffolding now, but the builders are mostly speaking Polish or another Eastern European language. And "bud" is what I heard most often recently.
KLB: "he were?" I detect South Yorkshire or North Derbyshire, am I correct?
You obviously haven't lived in Devon then. occasionally you get "my handsome" as well: now that's nice to some ugly specimen like me as it is always accompanied by a smile. Made my day
This.
Some Americans insisting on grammatical rectitude, which is really coming off more like grammatical snobbery. Others of us are rolling our eyes.
Funnily enough I cross the border between the two every time I go to work. But it certainly used to be more widespread than that.
Literally no one would blink an eye at "Can I?" nor "Could I?"
"May I?" is just a regional variation. One of many.
Howay, hinny. Gan canny.
Nope.
It’s a brew ☕️
Even though this is clearly English, I should really translate for the hard of comprehending.
"General greeting/exclamation, term of endearment usually reserved for females. Travel well."
(Note that 'hinny' is of uncertain etymological derivation, but is thought to arise from the drop or griddle scone locally known as a 'singing hinny', singing due to the noise of cooking.)
Isn't English wonderful, and almost completely mutable, and there are many, many ways of using it, almost all of them correct somewhere? Proscription isn't something that English does.
But with respect to semantic accuracy, you are a covey of clumsy idiots.
Imagine, if you can, a 1-legged man with a crutch hobbles up to a person standing by one side of a rickety and swaying suspension bridge without railings. When the 1-legged man asks, "Can I cross the bridge?" - what do you think he's asking?
When my son asks me, "Can I eat that cookie?" indicating one on the counter, if I answer "No." he could logically disprove that by eating the fucking cookie. What I need to answer my smart-ass spawn is, "You might be able to, but you may not."
And, perhaps it needs to be pointed out, England is ranked 6th among populations of "English speaking" people. What it is you do out of cultural drift in local sub-regions is sort of irrelevant. Indian and Pakistani trends each have twice the relevance overall of your whole xenophobic little island.
Please tell me that you are an expert in Indian English otherwise we'd have to conclude that you are a dick.
(Cross-posted with mr cheesy. I'm in quite a few FB groups that are largely Indian and Pakistani, and friends who travel frequently to India, and we've talked about Indian English quite a bit, plus I studied a bit about it. Indians and Pakistanis have a unique and interesting way of using English, probably more versatile than our UK usage, let alone American usage, and definitely use 'can' with versatility.)
Caribbean English is something else again. There are loads of different English-es.
Of course, Shakespeare was entitled to bastardise the language. He was English.
No, the point I'm making isn't that I am xenophobically opposed to US (or other North American) idioms and usage. Far from it. I think US English has retained and preserved elements that we have lost to our cost.
I also think that US English has been remarkably inventive and creative.
That said, some (but not all) of the most egregious developments in English have come from the USA. Which is why I'm suggesting that it ill-behoves US posters to get on their high horse and drink their milk whilst pointing the finger at other people for what they take to be shoddy grammar or usage.
I would say the same if it was an Estuary English speaker, a Cockney, a Tyke, Scotsman or anyone else who claimed that their way of speaking the Queen's English was somehow THE definitive way that it should be spoken.
The global English contingent (it was in a hostel in Perth, WA) then spent the next half hour arguing amongst themselves what the difference was. We didn't come to any definitive conclusion then, and we're not going to now. Because there is no globally 'right' answer.
This matches my experience too. Indian English has many ideosyncracies, but I don't think it is touchy about can/may, so it is a mighty strange thing to bring up.
But I'm not an expert - and I'd venture that RooK isn't either and is somehow trying to make some point based on a weight of numbers.
And while I run a team of engineers in Bangalore, reliant primarily on their excellent proficiency with the English language, the point was indeed meant to be about the puny value of declaring East Unclefuckwich as homogeneously agreeing to an arbitrary meaning.
However, the main point, which each and every one of you drooling phlegm miners galumphed past, was simple and elegant semantic clarity. Maybe it's because I'm an asshole, or maybe it's because of all the code and specification writing I do, or maybe it's just my naïve love of semantic logic - but I really do advocate for the form that is explicitly and unambiguously a request when making a request. The general form regarding capability can overlap this function, sure. Just not as clearly, or unambiguously.
Deny it, lie to yourselves. It's amusing.
@Gamma Gamaliel
Using so many words to say so little of substance with such a consistent lack of civility must require a great deal of effort.
Goodnight.
A man walks into a bar and asks for a double entendre. So the barman gave him one.
That's virtually the basis for an entire nation's humour. So I'm sticking with it*.
(that's what SHE said...)
Whilst we are playing with language, sometimes it's 'and' rather than 'or'...
And I wonder if your profession, where 'can' seems integral to me as an outsider, influences your desire for accuracy on this point.
I now have a better understanding of your many Hell calls.
Oh, and I've been to Wakefield, among many other locales throughout Great Britain, not that such details matter when you're in a trollish mood.
As my dear Mater used to say, "The question is not 'Can I,' but 'May I.' The answer is that you may not." She was right, in that particular context.
Oh, and anyone who accuses me of being a promoter of Trumpism hasn't been reading carefully. They can go to hell alongside the Orange One.
May is all but gone down here. I use it occasionally, as I was taught it, but I've tried to fit in with society's expectations and used can. The sun is still rising. I still can't get over people responding "Good" to "How are you?, though. I still say "Well". I'm sticking with that. But accept I'm as modern as Jacob Rees-Mogg.
* perhaps it will if I ask him for a cookie using "can"...
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Eh?
There's a flounce for you, bach.
I don't think I put that much effort into my responses to your posts in Kerygmania but then you also don't appear to have put that much effort into understanding the point I was actually making.
@Rosseweisse. Like the suddenly very cuddly and fluffy Rook, I can be a fan of yours. You rock.
However, in this instance I feel you've been unnecessarily harsh, pedantic and indeed snobbishly patronising towards KarlLB and that's brought out the worst in me. Hence my Pond War sniping and intemperate language.
I just felt that whilst I'd gone too far in ribbing him about metal, you were going too far with your jibing at him for apparent linguistic - or even parental - failings. He can defend himself of course and doesn't need me to take up cudgels on his behalf.
I don't see much evidence of bullying in his posts. He's simply defending himself as far as I can see.
I'm glad I was wrong about your not having visited other UK locations - the word is locations