TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Can vs. May From:"Susan W. Gallagher" <sgallagher -at- EXPERSOFT -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:28:59 -0800
I wrote:
>>>>
>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.
>>>>
>
And David Meek answered:
>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.
Me again:
I do not deny the meaning of "can", nor do I deny the primary meaning
of the word "may" in any dictionary. But I do maintain that the second
definition in any dictionary cannot be dismissed as colloquial and
improper usage. My tizzy-fit was over the statement that "popular
perception" of the word was "thus and so" and so we should avoid it --
not because of any user testing, not as the result of any acceptable
methods of proof, just somebody's gut reaction.
Well, my gut reaction is different and my impression of the general
populace is different and I believe the dictionary when it says that
a word can just as easily mean one thing as another. So excuse me for
not joining Chicken Little in this sky-is-falling dance. Until someone
offers me legitimate proof that "popular perception" ignores or mis-
understands a legitimate meaning of a word, I'll continue to use it.
