????? But I'm agreeing with you. 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.
"Senior Moment" OOPS! I guess I messed up. On second thought, yes, I agree with you. Sometimes, I type faster than I can think... :redface:
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'?
Floor: the bottom of the sea, a cave, or an area of land : the ocean floor. And, as noted elsewhere, the forest floor. 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... 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".
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!
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."
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.
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.
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?
1. I did not insult anyone. I said 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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... 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. 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.
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.
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...
