Page 1 of 2
Grammar Gurus part 2
Posted: Wed 26 Jun 2013 09:15
by Santiago
To print out and keep ....
and I would add
Should've = Should have
Would've = Would have
Should of = 0
Would of = 0
Posted: Wed 26 Jun 2013 09:19
by Kate
Posted: Wed 26 Jun 2013 10:59
by blackduff
Kate wrote:
Kate
Were your
supposed to be Should have or Would have or maybe Could have.
Grammar is getting complicated.
Blackduff
Posted: Wed 26 Jun 2013 11:07
by russell
omg it's andaz
Russell.
Posted: Wed 26 Jun 2013 12:20
by tia
always wondered , what is the difference between saying can I have and may I have?
Posted: Wed 26 Jun 2013 12:32
by Robert Ferrieux
Pithy explanation:
When he was a student in London, Robert wanted to visit the British Museum. It was just before closing time and Rob asked the doorkeeper "Can I go in?"
The doorkeeper replied scornfully, "You can but you may not"..
Posted: Wed 26 Jun 2013 12:33
by tia
thanks helen.
Posted: Wed 26 Jun 2013 12:56
by Allan
'Can I' means 'am I able'
'may I' means 'am I permitted'
Posted: Wed 26 Jun 2013 14:17
by Sue
I always thought can I was the impolite way of asking for something and may I the polite way. A bit like I want or I would like!
Posted: Wed 26 Jun 2013 23:02
by Owens88
I do not really accept 'I would like' as meaningful (and yes I do know the underlying grammar). It always reminds me of half-heartedness e.g. 'planning to get engaged'.
Posted: Wed 26 Jun 2013 23:31
by Allan
Owens88 wrote:I do not really accept 'I would like' as meaningful (and yes I do know the underlying grammar). It always reminds me of half-heartedness e.g. 'planning to get engaged'.
You might not accept it as meaninful but you are out of step with most of the english speaking world that regards it as a polite form of 'I want'.
What's wrong with 'planning to get engaged'? A lot of people regard getting engaged as being an event to celebrate not simply a change of status.
Posted: Wed 26 Jun 2013 23:48
by Owens88
Allan I was being playful. But for the record I love it that you are a stickler for grammar to correct me on one thing then accept a travesty of language to correct me on another.
But the world is a big place and there is plenty of room for us all.
Posted: Thu 27 Jun 2013 07:50
by Pearsonb
Can I is a less formal way of asking for permission than May I.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/can-or-may
Posted: Thu 27 Jun 2013 08:19
by Allan
But only in the context of asking permission.
Take the 2 questions
Can he speak French? May he speak French?
They have entirely different meanings.
It's interesting, I found several online dictionaries with articles on this subject, they all contradicted the view expressed in the one you quoted. It just goes to show that language is constantly evolving and the rules are open to interpretation. Fortunately we all understand the question, whether can or may is used.
Most people regard the Oxford English Dictionary (not the Oxford Dictionary) as the definitive reference. - anyone got a copy?
Posted: Thu 27 Jun 2013 15:35
by Pearsonb
Oxford Dictionaries and OED are the same thing
Posted: Thu 27 Jun 2013 16:54
by Owens88
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/115287
I confess that I did not believe pearsonb, sorry. However...
'... 4. Expressing ability or power; be able, can. Obs. ....'
Oh, if I told them, my kids would wish that they had known that when their assistant headmistress was correcting them.
Posted: Thu 27 Jun 2013 16:58
by Allan
Pearsonb wrote:Oxford Dictionaries and OED are the same thing
Actually they are not :-
This site (
www.oxforddictionaries.com) is not the Oxford English Dictionary
(OED). You’ll find the OED at www.oed.com. You’ll need a subscription to use the OED fully. You may be able to use the OED at home through your local public library: ask your librarian for information.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/the ... dictionary
Posted: Thu 27 Jun 2013 20:27
by Pearsonb
You ate splitting hairs. They are both part of the OUP group. The articles in that site are written by OED staff.
But who cares? It is only a forum. I will always appreciate the help you have given me in the geek forum.
Pearson
Posted: Fri 28 Jun 2013 11:11
by russell
O.K. How about "je veux" vs. "je voudrais"?
Russell.
Posted: Fri 28 Jun 2013 12:51
by Owens88
Russell
Again I remain nonplussed. I believe that Je voudrais is the conditional 'I would like' and I am told it is used as the polite way of saying 'gimme'.
I have just never heard it used by the French.
Another way of regarding the conditional is the 'hypothetical future' hence my earlier playfulness saying that 'I would like' is half-hearted.
Cheers
Posted: Fri 28 Jun 2013 13:37
by Robert Ferrieux
"Je voudrais t'embrasser mais tu as un herpès aux lèvres..........."
"I 'd like to kiss you but you've got a cold sore." (so presumably I shall not...in fact I definitely WILL not!"
"Je veux t'embrasser"....I wanna kiss your hot lips PDQ & ASAP
Helen
Posted: Fri 28 Jun 2013 18:37
by Owens88
Helen
Thanks, yes that is the conditional which I understand.
I just don't see that it is more 'polite' to use the conditional, it is a different sense.
J
Posted: Sat 29 Jun 2013 03:10
by Robert Ferrieux
[quote="Pearsonb"]Can I is a less formal way of asking for permission than May I.
I disagree.
"Can I swim in your pool?" means "Do I know how to/ Am I capable swim..." (in your pool or elsewhere)
"May I swim in your pool?" - "Do I have your permission to swim in your pool?"
See my post on page1. Robert wanted to go into the British Museum near closing time, & he asked the doorkeeper "Can I go in?" The doorkeeper answered "You can....." (i.e. the door is still open & you're physically capable of walking in ) "but you may not" (i.e. I make the rules here and I'm not going to let you in ).
Helen
Posted: Sat 29 Jun 2013 08:14
by carol sheridan
I am a former teacher of English but I try not to be pedantic and to accept that language evolves. I used to teach my pupils the usual mantra - 'Can I?' means 'Am I capable?' and 'May I?' means 'Am I permitted', but I now accept that they are interchangeable.
And when asked 'Who is it?' in answer to my knock, I say 'It's me' although I know the verb 'to be' takes a nominative complement.
Posted: Sat 29 Jun 2013 14:42
by Pearsonb
I've already quoted the Oxford dictionary. Some people argue that Webster's is more authorative. This is what is written there.
Can and may are most frequently interchangeable in senses denoting possibility; because the possibility of one's doing something may depend on another's acquiescence, they have also become interchangeable in the sense denoting permission. The use of can to ask or grant permission has been common since the 19th century and is well established, although some commentators feel may is more appropriate in formal contexts. May is relatively rare in negative constructions (mayn't is not common); cannot and can't are usual in such contexts.
Posted: Sat 16 Nov 2013 14:49
by opas
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lants.html
That headline, I am doubting myself now, should it read ' their poisonous' or they're poisonous?
On first reading the headline it did not make sense......
Posted: Sat 16 Nov 2013 15:47
by Allan
I don't understand your confusion, the headline is perfectly correct as it is.
It couldn't possible be their as that would denote possession.
Posted: Sat 16 Nov 2013 16:23
by opas
That is exactly my confusion.
Should it read that children re afraid of veg in case their poisonous.. as the daily mail have written.....I do not think it should.
Posted: Sat 16 Nov 2013 16:43
by Allan
opas wrote:That is exactly my confusion.
Should it read that children re afraid of veg in case their poisonous.. as the daily mail have written.....I do not think it should.
Sorry I still don't get the confusion.
It reads that Children do not eat their greens (greens belonging to the children) because they (the children) are genetically programmed to avoid plants in case they (the plants) are poisonous
Posted: Sat 16 Nov 2013 18:49
by opas
Ah, now it reads correctly!
When I posted this it actually said.......are genetically programmed to avoid plants in case their poisonous..
So the paper have obviously corrected themselves.