Today I'm angry about.....

[TANGODANCER]

May I ask what's wrong with that?

I'm sure you know what he's on about Worthy. "Grandad, can I get a drink? " and "Grandad, I need a drink" are just two of the versions I've had said to me to replace the old-fashioned mannerly " Grandad, please can I have a drink?"

See, I'm not so sure that's what Pru is getting at, at all...

I'm happy to be enlightened?

[Worthy4England]

May I ask what's wrong with that?

I'm sure you know what he's on about Worthy. "Grandad, can I get a drink? " and "Grandad, I need a drink" are just two of the versions I've had said to me to replace the old-fashioned mannerly " Grandad, please can I have a drink?"

See, I'm not so sure that's what Pru is getting at, at all...

I'm happy to be enlightened?

You seemed to be saying that the problem was with the missing "please" - whereas it wasn't.

[TANGODANCER]

May I ask what's wrong with that?

I'm sure you know what he's on about Worthy. "Grandad, can I get a drink? " and "Grandad, I need a drink" are just two of the versions I've had said to me to replace the old-fashioned mannerly " Grandad, please can I have a drink?"

See, I'm not so sure that's what Pru is getting at, at all...

I'm happy to be enlightened?

You seemed to be saying that the problem was with the missing "please" - whereas it wasn't.

No, I didn't think or say that at all. I was stating the difference between "Get" and "need" as opposed to "have". Please has always been manners for me regardless of the other words.

[Prufrock]

See, that I've always found to be an artificial distinction. My Grandpa was a stickler for it when I was younger, making that very point. My smart-arse answer was that given it was his drink, if he didn't give me permission to have it then I wasn't able to have it. Needless to say this young knob-head went thirsty!

Why is the distinction artificial? Can means one thing, may another. Granted with your grandfather's drink the question is moot, but again there is a difference between "Can I smoke?" and "May I smoke?" Even young lawyers should see this.

Not having it; context is everything. In the context they're synonyms. The only meaning of 'may' is not 'is permitted'. 'The volcano may erupt at any moment' does not mean 'The volcano is permitted to erupt at any moment', but 'it is possible that the volcano will erupt at any moment'. If you're brought up properly 'Can I have a drink please' means 'is it possible for me to have a drink' which implies 'am I permitted to have a drink' because you don't do thinks like get a drink without permission in somebody else's house and so if you don't have permission it is not possible for you to have a drink. Across the pond where anything goes perhaps there's a need for a distinction .

[Prufrock]

You seemed to be saying that the problem was with the missing "please" - whereas it wasn't.

No, I didn't think or say that at all. I was stating the difference between "Get" and "need" as opposed to "have". Please has always been manners for me regardless of the other words.

Aye, tbf i think you got what I was driving at, and quite rightly added in the necessary please as well! Bonus points

[thebish]

See, that I've always found to be an artificial distinction. My Grandpa was a stickler for it when I was younger, making that very point. My smart-arse answer was that given it was his drink, if he didn't give me permission to have it then I wasn't able to have it. Needless to say this young knob-head went thirsty!

Why is the distinction artificial? Can means one thing, may another. Granted with your grandfather's drink the question is moot, but again there is a difference between "Can I smoke?" and "May I smoke?" Even young lawyers should see this.

Not having it; context is everything. In the context they're synonyms. The only meaning of 'may' is not 'is permitted'. 'The volcano may erupt at any moment' does not mean 'The volcano is permitted to erupt at any moment', but 'it is possible that the volcano will erupt at any moment'. If you're brought up properly 'Can I have a drink please' means 'is it possible for me to have a drink' which implies 'am I permitted to have a drink' because you don't do thinks like get a drink without permission in somebody else's house and so if you don't have permission it is not possible for you to have a drink. Across the pond where anything goes perhaps there's a need for a distinction .

^ absolutely!

[Worthy4England]

You seemed to be saying that the problem was with the missing "please" - whereas it wasn't.

No, I didn't think or say that at all. I was stating the difference between "Get" and "need" as opposed to "have". Please has always been manners for me regardless of the other words.

Aye, tbf i think you got what I was driving at, and quite rightly added in the necessary please as well! Bonus points

Can you two just fcuk off and one of you get me a beer? Please.

[TANGODANCER]

You seemed to be saying that the problem was with the missing "please" - whereas it wasn't.

No, I didn't think or say that at all. I was stating the difference between "Get" and "need" as opposed to "have". Please has always been manners for me regardless of the other words.

Aye, tbf i think you got what I was driving at, and quite rightly added in the necessary please as well! Bonus points

Can you two just fcuk off and one of you get me a beer? Please.

We can say to you what we can't say to children, so fxck off and get it yourself.

[Montreal Wanderer]

See, that I've always found to be an artificial distinction. My Grandpa was a stickler for it when I was younger, making that very point. My smart-arse answer was that given it was his drink, if he didn't give me permission to have it then I wasn't able to have it. Needless to say this young knob-head went thirsty!

Why is the distinction artificial? Can means one thing, may another. Granted with your grandfather's drink the question is moot, but again there is a difference between "Can I smoke?" and "May I smoke?" Even young lawyers should see this.

Not having it; context is everything. In the context they're synonyms. The only meaning of 'may' is not 'is permitted'. 'The volcano may erupt at any moment' does not mean 'The volcano is permitted to erupt at any moment', but 'it is possible that the volcano will erupt at any moment'. If you're brought up properly 'Can I have a drink please' means 'is it possible for me to have a drink' which implies 'am I permitted to have a drink' because you don't do thinks like get a drink without permission in somebody else's house and so if you don't have permission it is not possible for you to have a drink. Across the pond where anything goes perhaps there's a need for a distinction .

I can assure you that my grandmother lived and died in Bolton. Like Bruce I was taught "May I" do something rather than "Can I" do something when asking permission, as they are not (perhaps were not might be better) synonyms. With modern youth's lazy speech they may have become synonymous for all I know. Of course context is important and may can have other senses, as can can so to speak.

[TANGODANCER]

"Please may I leave the table?" was as mandatory as eating crusts in our house. When everybody was done you were told to "side" the table. It wasn't a request.

[Worthy4England]

I was in the the same boat. Can wasn't indicative of permission being granted...

[thebish]

I don't think Pru is disputing the fact that the owd folk told people this stuff... he's simply suggesting that it was always a stupid thing to pick people up on... it was! (and still is!)

[Dujon]

Whatever.

[Prufrock]

I don't think Pru is disputing the fact that the owd folk told people this stuff... he's simply suggesting that it was always a stupid thing to pick people up on... it was! (and still is!)

Yep, Monty Canada teasing aside, my grandparents tried to make that distinction, as did my mum, and I just don't buy it. They're synonyms where 'have' and 'get' aren't. I was always made to say 'please may I...' but it means the same!

[Montreal Wanderer]

I don't think Pru is disputing the fact that the owd folk told people this stuff... he's simply suggesting that it was always a stupid thing to pick people up on... it was! (and still is!)

Yep, Monty Canada teasing aside, my grandparents tried to make that distinction, as did my mum, and I just don't buy it. They're synonyms where 'have' and 'get' aren't. I was always made to say 'please may I...' but it means the same!

There are those who hold that the correct use of orthography is irrelevant if the writer makes his meaning clear. Yet, oddly, those who claim this view are also those who may pick someone like Dan up where he errs even though the meaning is crystal clear. I think that because of my background there will always be a distinction between "can" and "may". However, I find the distinction between "that" and "which" or "shall" and "will" rather more subtle. Still the young change our language and youth must be served.....

[Prufrock]

I don't think Pru is disputing the fact that the owd folk told people this stuff... he's simply suggesting that it was always a stupid thing to pick people up on... it was! (and still is!)

Yep, Monty Canada teasing aside, my grandparents tried to make that distinction, as did my mum, and I just don't buy it. They're synonyms where 'have' and 'get' aren't. I was always made to say 'please may I...' but it means the same!

There are those who hold that the correct use of orthography is irrelevant if the writer makes his meaning clear. Yet, oddly, those who claim this view are also those who may pick someone like Dan up where he errs even though the meaning is crystal clear. I think that because of my background there will always be a distinction between "can" and "may". However, I find the distinction between "that" and "which" or "shall" and "will" rather more subtle. Still the young change our language and youth must be served.....

I'm not sure they are the same people. Shit attempts at humour aside I don't think I've ever picked on Dan's posts.

I really don't think there's a distinction between 'can' and 'may' in this context. I was taught it the same as you, but, actually, here they're synonyms. 'That' and 'which' I definitely struggle with; 'shall' and 'will' I think are simple, but arbitrary in the same way as 'who' and 'whom', neither of which I have time for. 'Have' and 'get' are still distinct verbs!

[Montreal Wanderer]

I don't think Pru is disputing the fact that the owd folk told people this stuff... he's simply suggesting that it was always a stupid thing to pick people up on... it was! (and still is!)

Yep, Monty Canada teasing aside, my grandparents tried to make that distinction, as did my mum, and I just don't buy it. They're synonyms where 'have' and 'get' aren't. I was always made to say 'please may I...' but it means the same!

There are those who hold that the correct use of orthography is irrelevant if the writer makes his meaning clear. Yet, oddly, those who claim this view are also those who may pick someone like Dan up where he errs even though the meaning is crystal clear. I think that because of my background there will always be a distinction between "can" and "may". However, I find the distinction between "that" and "which" or "shall" and "will" rather more subtle. Still the young change our language and youth must be served.....

I'm not sure they are the same people. Shit attempts at humour aside I don't think I've ever picked on Dan's posts.

I really don't think there's a distinction between 'can' and 'may' in this context. I was taught it the same as you, but, actually, here they're synonyms. 'That' and 'which' I definitely struggle with; 'shall' and 'will' I think are simple, but arbitrary in the same way as 'who' and 'whom', neither of which I have time for. 'Have' and 'get' are still distinct verbs!

I never meant to suggest you picked on Dan's posts nor do I think you have - it was a more general observation. 'Who' and 'whom' are presumably subject and object though the distinction in English between nominative and accusative is rare. My mother taught me the difference between "I shall drown and no one will save me" which is an anguished lament and "I will drown and no one shall save me" which is a determination to commit suicide, but generally I avoid the confusion through contraction. "I'll do it tomorrow" could stand for whichever is appropriate.

[Worthy4England]

I don't think Pru is disputing the fact that the owd folk told people this stuff... he's simply suggesting that it was always a stupid thing to pick people up on... it was! (and still is!)

Yep, Monty Canada teasing aside, my grandparents tried to make that distinction, as did my mum, and I just don't buy it. They're synonyms where 'have' and 'get' aren't. I was always made to say 'please may I...' but it means the same!

[Prufrock]

[TANGODANCER]

Just an observation, but , except in literary usage, the apostrophe has come into quite common modern use as in "I'll do it later" etc, instead of either of the formal shall, or "will".
"I shall do it later, I promise" ..is much more likely to be found in Pride and Prejudice than The Bourne Inheritance, for instance.