English Language - what "Does your head in" ??

[Audax67]

[Cyril Haearn]

Heard 'gel' incessantly recently on the phone to Kelsterbach (Mainhattan), not sure how far it has reached beyond the Weisswurstequator
'Na' is an alternative

[mjr]

Congratulations to Cyril on disrupting yet another topic (!). I think you're wrecking this forum and the mods are allowing it.

[Cyril Haearn]

Congratulations to Cyril on disrupting yet another topic (!). I think you're wrecking this forum and the mods are allowing it.

Thread drift is allowed, happens a lot in real life
Maybe the discussion about can and may could be made into a new thread

One imagines that right-thinking people are generally against swearing, that is a no-brainer, right?

[Cyril Haearn]

It would be interesting if we could look at how this develops on this Forum over the years. In some ways it is already behind general society in that language and jokes that would go unremarked on a light hearted TV programme such as Taskmaster would be censored here.

Nearly two years have gone by, anything changed?

I think, the language is so rich, there is no need to use bad language

[pwa]

It would be interesting if we could look at how this develops on this Forum over the years. In some ways it is already behind general society in that language and jokes that would go unremarked on a light hearted TV programme such as Taskmaster would be censored here.

Nearly two years have gone by, anything changed?

I think, the language is so rich, there is no need to use bad language

The world outside this Forum is moving, but the Forum is not moving with it. Does that matter? Perhaps not, but it is amusing. Is there such a thing as "bad language", and if so, what makes it bad? Who decides, and using which criteria? Can I say "bum", because I am pretty sure I can't say another word that begins with an "a", ends in an "e" and sounds a bit like an equine animal? And if I can't say "bum", what word can I use for the portion of my body that I sit on, and why is that word any better? It can be really arbitrary and funny.

[Cyril Haearn]

One may refer to one's tender behind, or 'bottom', there are countless possibilities that do not offend, but please, what is society? Chums at the pub, all male?
BBC and other depictions?
The sort of language one might speak to one's grandchildren?
Old-fashioned is often good IMHO

[gaz]

...what word can I use for the portion of my body that I sit on...

Saddle interface, at least when posting an enquiry on the technical board .

[pwa]

Bryn, can you explain how you think "may" and "can" should be used? Without checking official definitions, I think that both words are ambiguous, so find it hard to get upset about usage.
..

I think 'can' includes many things that are possible but senseless, illegal, not permitted
I think 'may' means allowed, permitted, legal

There are many things one can do but one may not do many of them

One would hope that the expensively educated civil servants who issue quarantine regulations would use the words correctly, likewise the police, whose job involves frequently trying to explain the difference between 'can' and 'may'

Over time, word use changes. Words and their meanings are not frozen. The word "can" is now often used in the manner you reserve for "may", so whether you like it or not its meaning has shifted. Your rules for these words are dead and gone.

[Cyril Haearn]

Plenty of people still use them correctly

How do you distinguish between actions that are possible but not allowed, and actions that are allowed and possible?

[rfryer]

How do you distinguish between actions that are possible but not allowed, and actions that are allowed and possible?

By employing the richness of the language to ensure that my text is not ambiguous. And not just ambiguous to myself, but to any reader that might stumble across it.

I don't like pushing for simple, single definitions of words like "can", "may", "moton", etc. Even if myself and some chums could reach agreement, it still doesn't mean that I could rely on these definitions being understood by all readers, so the exercise is ultimately futile.

It's better, IMO, to assume the widest interpretation of words, and add clarification where there might be ambiguity.

Your question, above, rather answers itself. You were able to clearly distinguish between permissible and capable in the question (though you needed, really, to be more explicit about who is doing the allowing), so why not use similar approaches in normal use? I realize you're on a mission to use less characters (hence the lack of full stops), but I'm sure that Cugel would lend you a few from his, seemingly bottomless supply.

[Paulatic]

There’s a topic title been showing up for a few days. Every day I’ve to stop myself from posting my reply which would be," No I haven’t got a passport"

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

I do wish the moderators would correct wrong use of 'can' and 'may'

I simply can not understand you Cyril, but I may wish to blight you for wasting my time reading this $#|¥

[simonineaston]

I do wish the moderators would correct wrong use of 'can' and 'may'

Fixing grammar would be a full time job.

If it was part of their job, which it isn't. Fortunately for them. A parable: the other day, I met with friends in the local park. We sat at 2 metres distance, and enjoyed "carry-out" coffee and fabulous goey, American-style, chocolate-chip cookies. I had eaten half mine when, unnoticed by me, an elderly Retriever had advanced near enough to make a discrete dash for the remaining biscuit, in which endevour it succeeded. In a trice, the biscuit was gone.
Dogs do what dogs do - evolution has made them good scavengers. My friends were surprised when I was not angry with the dog. Thus it is unfair to get cross with people who can't spell, don't know how to use apostrophes and can't employ the complex arrangements that form the spider's * web that is English grammar. It's not their fault that they are ignorant, but rather that of their teachers and parents. Better to get cross with them, if they can be found!
* You might at first assume that the spiders that could weave a web big enough to represent the English language would be many in number, and so require the apostrophe to be placed after the s of the plural noun, however I would argue that only one spider ever weaves one web - a web is never a communal effort - so I'm going to stick to spider's...

[mjr]

Why do people use "tin" when they mean "can"?