Two annoying things:

[MountainBiker]

Just a quick comment about things that I hear people say and a very common sign that I see outside of businesses. The first is "Where you at?" This grates on me, having grown up with parents that spoke proper English. All one has to say is "Where are you?" I know the language changes with the times, but I think that when a person uses that phrase, it not only demonstrates their rebellion against proper English, but also just sounds really ignorant.

The second irritating bit of grammar is these signs outside of businesses that say "Help wanted – Inquire within" Within what? (within the four walls of this business? Within one week?) Do you mean to say "inside"? Then why not just say "Inquire inside"? "Inquire within" might sound formal or whatever, but it' completely wrong.

O.K., there you have it; my two main 'pet peeves' about modern language.
What are some things that really get YOU going?

[mammamaia]

'where you at' is street slang that originated in the ghettos and i agree, is awful... but so is most of that kind of talk...

the sign is not completely wrong, it's correct english... so suck it up, as they'd say on the street! ;-)

[Scribe Rewan]

There's a shop in my town that hangs signs in it's windows saying 'Sale Close Out'.. what the hell?!

[Wreybies]

Maia's correct concerning the nature of within.

It belongs to an entire group of words that are called goal of motion words. Almost all of them are long gone from English; hence those few that remain sound strange, archaic, and are usually misused. They included:

Hither – towards the speaker.
Thither – away from the speaker.
Whither – interrogative of direction.
Hence – leading to a given conclusion.
Thence – leading to a place.
Whence – coming from a place.
Within – going inside.
Without – going outside.

You will notice that most of those words are no longer in use. It’s a shame, because they have a good use. The fact that the group as a whole has died out, pretty much taking the concept with them, is probably why the use of the one or two that remain sound strange to your ear.

[BrinkofDawn]

This only ticks me off sometimes when I'm actually paying attention but it annoys me when people say "Can I use this?", or "Can I see this?".

I know you can use it and I know you can see it, but that's not saying anything to me. Now, if you change "Can I.." to "May I..." then you're asking me the right question.

I only do that though to people who don't particularly pay attention to their environment or don't really have a brain for manners :D

[Mr Sci Fi]

Saw a sign at my local high school that read, "You're education matters." No joke.

[BrinkofDawn]

Saw a sign at my local high school that read, "You're education matters." No joke.

lol that one made me laugh pretty good :D Obvious things like that are just funny.

[Wreybies]

Saw a sign at my local high school that read, "You're education matters." No joke.



Oh, that's wrong! And I mean that in the ghetto way! :D

[Mr Sci Fi]

Yeah, I'm actually quite ashamed that I was "educated" there.

[Cogito]

Not writing related, but I attended 6th grade in the Eastwood section of Syracuse, which was (at least then) a prettyrough part of town. The teacher, Miss Wilbur, only taught two science classes the entire year.

In one of those two classes, I got into a bit of an argument with her. I knew that house current was alternating current, but she insisted it was direct current.

Her evidence? "The lights don't flicker."

I wonder why we didn't have more science classes that year.

[Wreybies]

Not writing related, but I attended 6th grade in the Eastwood section of Syracuse, which was (at least then) a prettyrough part of town. The teacher, Miss Wilbur, only taught two science classes the entire year.

In one of those two classes, I got into a bit of an argument with her. I knew that house current was alternating current, but she insisted it was direct current.

Her evidence? "The lights don't flicker."

I wonder why we didn't have more science classes that year.


LMAO! :D Cog! Please tell me you made that up! That is scary to know.

[BrinkofDawn]

Funny, I had a science teacher like that too who was kind of off on her whole curriculum and was a hypocrite with her own morals she tried to teach to our class (which I was the only Junior in a class of Freshman who were all obnoxious and just plain rude to the teacher so it was sort of understandable for her to go crazy)

[Cogito]

LMAO! :D Cog! Please tell me you made that up! That is scary to know.

Sorry, every word of it is true. It was 1965, and most of the sixth graders in that school smoked cigarettes and carried switchblades. I was the outsider; my mother was in Syracuse University that year earning her Masters in Social Work, so we lived in an inexpensive part of town.

[emily...]

I use the word "hence" in my daily vocabulary and my writing, and i can't tell you how many times i have people asking me what that means.

Another word i miss: the conjunction "ergo." Our english teacher made us memorize a list of conjunctions last year and she and i got into an argument over the word. Yay for public education.

[Charisma]

Flaming Roast restaurant
We serve you all kinds of cousins from around Lahore and beyond! Come here and tantalize your taste buds!
Go figure.

[Flightlessfoofaraw]

Maia's correct concerning the nature of within.

It belongs to an entire group of words that are called goal of motion words. Almost all of them are long gone from English; hence those few that remain sound strange, archaic, and are usually misused. They included:

Hither – towards the speaker.
Thither – away from the speaker.
Whither – interrogative of direction.
Hence – leading to a given conclusion.
Thence – leading to a place.
Whence – coming from a place.
Within – going inside.
Without – going outside.

You will notice that most of those words are no longer in use. It’s a shame, because they have a good use. The fact that the group as a whole has died out, pretty much taking the concept with them, is probably why the use of the one or two that remain sound strange to your ear.

I find this sort of thing utterly fascinating, learning about the history of language and such. You should run some sort of regular forum masterclass dude :D

[princess K]

My pet peeve is "your" and "you're" .... people should learn to get it right!

y-o-u-r = your
y-o-u-r-'-e = you are

lol x

[Cogito]

One of mine is lose vs. loose.

Loose is an adjective that means not snug or not secure:
His pants were too loose, causing him to present a fleshy canyon to the world.

Lose is a verb which means to suffer a loss.
Seeing his vast white cheeks battling above his belt nearly made me lose my lunch.

[Wreybies]

One of mine is lose vs. loose.

Loose is an adjective that means not snug or not secure:

Lose is a verb which means to suffer a loss.


I am so many kind of guilty on this one. Can we still be friends? :redface:

[ChimmyBear]

You know, lazy speech, in general, irritates me.
Really, how hard is it to say Clinton, (a small town in NC). Why do some of the locals pronounce this town "Cinter"? BTW~ the "T" is silent when they say this. Good grief...

[MountainBiker]

Maia's correct concerning the nature of within.

It belongs to an entire group of words that are called goal of motion words. Almost all of them are long gone from English; hence those few that remain sound strange, archaic, and are usually misused. They included:

Hither – towards the speaker.
Thither – away from the speaker.
Whither – interrogative of direction.
Hence – leading to a given conclusion.
Thence – leading to a place.
Whence – coming from a place.
Within – going inside.
Without – going outside.

You will notice that most of those words are no longer in use. It’s a shame, because they have a good use. The fact that the group as a whole has died out, pretty much taking the concept with them, is probably why the use of the one or two that remain sound strange to your ear.

Good work! I never thought that your garden variety sign writers had it in them. I guess I should have entitled this thread "Ersatz English". (I heard this word recently and decided to look it up.) I still think it would be more to the point to say something like "Apply Inside". Obviously one is going to inquire within if they need employment. You have to tell people to go inside and ask? :confused:

Here's another English oddity: Some years ago, I went somewhere with my boss, and we saw a sign on the side of the road, in New Jersey, and it said "Seatbelts Must Be Worn". He said to me "What if they're new?" :p That's all for now...

[Wreybies]

Good work! I never thought that your garden variety sign writers had it in them. I guess I should have entitled this thread "Ersatz English". (I heard this word recently and decided to look it up.) I still think it would be more to the point to say something like "Apply Inside". Obviously one is going to inquire within if they need employment. You have to tell people to go inside and ask? :confused:

Here's another English oddity: Some years ago, I went somewhere with my boss, and we saw a sign on the side of the road, in New Jersey, and it said "Seatbelts Must Be Worn". He said to me "What if they're new?" :p That's all for now...


They don’t. It’s an orphan phrase. There are a handful like:

Inquire within.

The car was rocking to and fro.

She gave me that come hither look.

Our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.


The words are gone for the most part, but they stick around in the odd phrase or two. It happens.

[Night]

I know this isn't an exact grammar rule, but everyone I know calls the "ground" the "floor." Such as "While she was sitting at the bench in the park, she dropped her pen on the floor." The earth outside is not the "floor." The floor should only refer to the floor of a building or a house or something. Yeah, it's a picky pet peeve, but I still can't stand it.

[Cogito]

The ground within a forest is sometimes referred to as the forest floor, and I think that is a correct usage.

But your point still stands. If someone is standing in a forest and drops bread crumbs, they fall to the ground, not to the floor. They make a path along the forest floor, until they (the bread crumbs, or the children dropping them) are eaten.

[MountainBiker]

They don’t. It’s an orphan phrase. There are a handful like:

Inquire within.

The car was rocking to and fro.

She gave me that come hither look.

Our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.


The words are gone for the most part, but they stick around in the odd phrase or two. It happens.

So you're saying that these sign writers are trying to be formal and don't even realize that they are using an 'orphan phrase'? Pure coincidence? :confused: I don't know... :rolleyes: I don't hear those other phrases being used, except when I read my King James Bible. You must hang around with some sophisticated people. I still think they just say it that way because they think that's how you're supposed to say it...

[Wreybies]

So you're saying that these sign writers are trying to be formal and don't even realize that they are using an 'orphan phrase'? Pure coincidence? :confused: I don't know... :rolleyes: I don't hear those other phrases being used, except when I read my King James Bible. You must hang around with some sophisticated people. I still think they just say it that way because they think that's how you're supposed to say it...



????? :confused: But I'm agreeing with you. :D They do believe that they have it right, and they do. They just don't know why they have it right. It has become a pat phrase, simply what gets used in that particular circumstance, and part of a larger grammatical concept which has fallen by the wayside, save for this one remnant (orphan) phrase.

[MountainBiker]

OOPS! I guess I messed up. On second thought, yes, I agree with you. Sometimes, I type faster than I can think... :redface:

[mammamaia]

on the 'can/may i' bit, i always came back with, "Of course you can, the question is, 'may' you?"... or with the second part, 'but you may not!'... ditto for 'could i'?

[Chris Huff]

I know this isn't an exact grammar rule, but everyone I know calls the "ground" the "floor." Such as "While she was sitting at the bench in the park, she dropped her pen on the floor." The earth outside is not the "floor." The floor should only refer to the floor of a building or a house or something. Yeah, it's a picky pet peeve, but I still can't stand it.

Floor: the bottom of the sea, a cave, or an area of land : the ocean floor. And, as noted elsewhere, the forest floor.


on the 'can/may i' bit, i always came back with, "Of course you can, the question is, 'may' you?"... or with the second part, 'but you may not!'... ditto for 'could i'?

The can / may thing is overblown and flat out wrong. All the dictionaries agree that "can" includes both "to be able to" and "to be permitted to" do something. And from my little friend...


The use of can to ask or grant permission has been common since the 19th century and is well established...

Also, check out Grammar Snobs are Great Big Meanies some time, it's a spectacular book. It happens to include an entire chapter on to the can / may "issue".

[Cogito]

Widespread misuse often changes incorrect usage to acceptable usage. When I was growing up, the usage she is objecting to was still being hammered into us as incorrect, and not only by English teachers.

Overblown and flat out wrong could have been said a bit more respectfully. It may be linguistically slipping into the "good old days", but there are still plenty of us who will groan when we see it.

[Wreybies]

Widespread misuse often changes incorrect usage to acceptable usage. When I was growing up, the usage she is objecting to was still being hammered into us as incorrect, and not only by English teachers.

Overblown and flat out wrong could have been said a bit more respectfully. It may be linguistically slipping into the "good old days", but there are still plenty of us who will groan when we see it.


When I see usages like can to mean both capacity and authority to do something, and may slipping out of use altogether, it’s like watching a teenage son take yet one more Phillips head screwdriver out of the toolbox.

You know that the screwdriver is going to disappear.

It’s not coming back.

One by one, the tools in the prized toolbox vanish until you are left with an old hammer and maybe a pipe-cutter. How much can you really get done with those? I guess a hammer can drive in a screw, but with how much effort? A pipe cutter kinda’ looks like a wrench or maybe a clamp, and with enough jerry-rigging might actually be able to do both jobs, but wasn’t it so much easier, and cleaner, and simpler to use the wrench when you needed the wrench, and the clamp when you needed the clamp?

Remember all the beautiful projects you were able to do when that toolbox was new and filled to the brim with shiny tools, each perfectly suited to its particular task!

Oh! Those were the glory days! :rolleyes:

[zorell]

You know what I find unfair?
I find it unfair that teens, like myself, who actually use proper grammar (on a daily basis) are ridiculed and called everyhting from "Oreo" (if you've heard, you know what I mean) to "teacher's pet." There are days when I want to point out that this "teacher's pet" will get more money one day, but that doesn't help anything because then I'm a "nerd."

[Cogito]

Ugh. That Oreo label is one I find extremely offensive. It's nothing short of bigotry.

[Chris Huff]

The position of "can = ability and may = permission" is wrong. It is widespread, but nonetheless wrong. If you take offense to me calling you—or anyone else—out on that, then sorry to burst your bubble.

It's not the good old days. That's the strange part. "Can" when used to ask permission has been in widespread, accepted, correct use for the last 200 years. It's a bizarre reversal of the grammar meanie meme.

Your teachers drilled that into you. And despite all evidence to the contrary, you still hold to it. Cog, you comment about the bad experiences you've had with teachers in the past—and so many others here complain of the poor quality of education—is it so hard to believe that the teachers are misinformed about this too?

As you say a common misuse becomes accepted. That's exactly what's going on here. Only trouble is that the "can = ability and may = permission" people are misinformed, but it's so widespread that people think it's true. Without doing one bit of research.

As I said, M-W has it as correct since the 19th century. Isn't 200 years enough? If not, how about CMS: " 'can' also expresses a request for permission..." Strunk and White disagree, however. Webster's has it. American Heritage has it. Grammar Snobs are Great Big Meanie's has an entire chapter to this issue.

[Wreybies]

Chris, what I think you have failed to notice is that within this thread many opposing opinions have been expressed without anyone coming even close to verbally attacking anyone else.

We do not do that in this forum.

Your retort to Maia was somewhat caustic, and I believe that this is what Cogito was very politely addressing.

[Cogito]

Your argument is supportable, although dictionaries don't always distinguish common usage from formally correct usage. It's not difficult to find sources supporting the distinction between can and may, for instance: http://www.businesswritingblog.com/business_writing/2006/08/can_vs_maynot_s.html (which does contain reference links as well.

Your tone, however, is another matter. Please read the forum rules, particularly with regard to respect toward other members.

Incidentally, when did I ever say I had bad experiences with teachers in the past?

[Chris Huff]

1. I did not insult anyone. I said
The can / may thing is overblown and flat out wrong.

There is no personal attack contained therein. I quoted the typical argument for this from a forum member here. I did not insult her.

The opinion is wrong because it is not supported by the authorities on the subject (i.e. dictionaries, grammar books, and style guides).

2. Your link? I consider the collected wisdom of the dictionaries and style guides over the first hit on a "can vs may" google search, sorry.

3.
Incidentally, when did I ever say I had bad experiences with teachers in the past?


Not writing related, but I attended 6th grade in the Eastwood section of Syracuse, which was (at least then) a prettyrough part of town. The teacher, Miss Wilbur, only taught two science classes the entire year.

In one of those two classes, I got into a bit of an argument with her. I knew that house current was alternating current, but she insisted it was direct current.

Her evidence? "The lights don't flicker."

I wonder why we didn't have more science classes that year.

I took that as a bad experience. If I am wrong, I'm sorry. I was simply wondering if, considering your bad experience with that teacher, that you might have gotten another bad one that taught you this may / can silliness.

[Cogito]

Because you've quoted the Chicago Manual of Style to support your assertion, here is what it says, in full, in the 15th edition, 5.202:

can; may. Can most traditionally applies to physical or mental ability {she can do calculations in her head} {the dog can leap over a six-foot fence} In colloquial English, can also expresses a request for permission {Can I go to the movies?}, but this usage is not recommended in formal writing. May suggests possibility {the class may have a pop quiz tomorrow} or permission {you may borrow my car}. A denial permission is properly phrased formally with may not {you may not borrow my credit card} or with cannot or can't {you can't use the computer tonight}. See 5.133, 5.136
(sections 5.133 and 5.136 describe the use of can and may with auxilliary verbs.)

I could go ahead and quote other style manuals, but I believe I have made my point. There are not all that many elements of English that are unambiguously right or wrong. There is often room for differing opinions.

The fact remains that your tone, that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, is arrogant and violates the forum rules about respectful discussion.

An apology would be appreciated. Continuing with your present tone will not be tolerated.

[tarnished]

Cogito, while I agree it is proper english, I do agree with Chris Huff on this one.
I believe what he is trying to say is that- yes, it is proper english. But after many years, can has been steadily used as an equal to may. Of course, this is different from the norm. But in the new era of chatspeak, even new words are arising- it has become widly accepted. If you want to split hairs- sure its "proper", but that doesnt mean its wrong.

[FoxyMomma]

Cogito never said it was wrong. He is referring to Chris' tone. He was very rude in his first reply. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, just don't be a jerk about it.

[tarnished]

Oh, I totally agree about his tone.
It did seem a bit hostile, but what I was trying to do was take attention away from an argument over tone, and get Chris's real point across.

[adamant]

You know what I find unfair?
I find it unfair that teens, like myself, who actually use proper grammar (on a daily basis) are ridiculed and called everyhting from "Oreo" (if you've heard, you know what I mean) to "teacher's pet." There are days when I want to point out that this "teacher's pet" will get more money one day, but that doesn't help anything because then I'm a "nerd."

Don't think ever seen another person who's been called that... until now, of course.

[Wreybies]

Don't think ever seen another person who's been called that... until now, of course.


I had a good friend in high school who constantly got that word thrown at her. Her name was Janell and she was one of the smartest people I ever knew. She was a person of color as well. I always thought it was horrible that she would have a life where she might face racism from one side because of the color of her skin, and from the other side for the manner of her speech. :(

[Chris Huff]

The Topic: The reason I know this is because I was called on it recently. I was doing the very thing described here with my own daughter, teaching her the "may = permission and can = ability" thing. Someone mentioned that it wasn't in fact the case, so because I'm always happy to learn something, I looked it up. Everywhere I did, the glaring fact that I was wrong stared me in the face. I once too held your position. I checked it out though, and found out that I was mistaken. The facts are that "can = permission" as well. I can't help that. It's true.

One of the sections you glossed over includes this wonderful bit at the end...



"Can." Because it denotes ability or permission, can is always followed by an explicit or implicit principle verb {Can you carry the trunk? Yes, I certainly can.}.


The point is that according to the dictionaries, "can" is accepted as both ability and permission. That you cannot argue with. You "showed" that CMS disagrees, and I've "shown" that it agrees. Good for us.

When it comes down to it, style guides are a long series of choices (re: opinions) that are neither correct nor incorrect. Intelligent people can disagree about opinions. Opinions are subjective. Facts are objective. When people, even intelligent ones, disagree about facts, someone is wrong. Style guides are subjective. The dictionaries are objective, they define the words in our language. We can't really argue about that. The dictionary is the final arbiter here. According to it, "can" means both. To argue against it is to argue against objective fact.


Despite the insistence by some, that 'can' means only “to be able” and may means “to be permitted,” both are regularly used in seeking or granting permission

The Attitude: I have a sneaking suspicion that none of this is what you wanted to hear. I cannot, in good conscience, compromise my value of knowledge. Sure, I may have been cheeky at times, and you might not have appreciated it, but nowhere have I insulted anyone. If you think me correcting errors of knowledge is insulting, we must disagree.

If it's time for detente, no problem.

[zorell]

To Cogito, Wreybies, and adamant, thank you, I now know there's somebody on my side with this. I hate the term, I don't even think I've eaten an OREO since people started refeing to me as one.
Have you heard the reverse?
When a white person "acts black" (whatever the heck that means, another infuriating phrase- and you can explain what it means if you know, I won't call you a bad name) they're suddenly an "Uh-oh OREO" in reference to that line with the vanilla cookie and the fudge cream.
I don't see how we, as humans, can demand equal rights yet not see people as equal where they should be.

[MountainBiker]

Hey, I don't mean to break the momentum of this thread, but today, for the first time ever, I saw a sign that invited people to "Inquire Inside". Yes, there is hope for mankind. I am not alone in my desire for modern, natural English. That's all... ;)

[mammamaia]

seen any 'ask inside' ones?... now, that would really be some 'progress'!