Re: Can vs. May

["Meek, DavidX L" <davidx -dot- l -dot- meek -at- INTEL -dot- COM>]

Susan W. Gallagher wrotoe

>>>
Bullpuckie!
I'm sorry. I don't mean to be obstinate. But, IMO, here we go again,
creating all sorts of whimsical workarounds for perfectly good words
because we somehow perceive, without substantial evidence, that others
interpret the words negatively. And we state our perceptions with such
force of conviction that we convince ourself that perception equals fact.
>>>

At this point, you and I will have to agree to disagree.  I'd like to point
out, however, that in every dictionary I can reference, the first definition
of "may" has a meaning of "to be allowed or permitted to," whereas the first
definition of "can" has a meaning of "Used to indicate: a. Mental or
physical ability."  Such definitions would indicate a distinction between
the two words that is *not* a "whimsical workaround" or "without substantial
evidence."  For me, these distinctions are highly useful, and the improper
application of them in colloquial usage is not a legitimate excuse for me to
improperly apply them as well.

Having lived in the U.S. South for several years in the past, I heard (and
sometimes uttered) "y'all" and "ain't," but I never used (and would never
use) such colloquialisms in my professional writing.  My experience has been
that my audience expects me to understand and apply proper usage, regardless
of what's colloquially acceptable.

Dave
(Any statements made above are mine, and mine alone.)

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=