Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, April 9, 1990 TAG: 9004090259
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: ????????????????? EDITION: EVENING
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
THE SPRING session of the Court of Peeves, Irks and Crotchets will resume with a vigorous complaint from Michael Aldieri of Omaha, Neb.:
"One phrase gnaws at my literate soul: `Can I have your attention?' No! `May I have your attention?' Yes! `Can I have, can I do, can I say, can I read, can I ...' Stop, I say, stop! Does anyone realize anymore the difference between `can I' and `may I'?"
The court will grapple with this ancient issue. Distinctions have to be accommodated between casual speech and formal writing. The court finds nothing especially felonious in a child's asking, "Can I go to the movie?" The auxiliary verb ought to be "may," but no rule-bound schoolmarm or finicky editor is standing over us.
Having lapsed into permissiveness, the court will now go back to pontification. The distinction between "can" and "may" is simply this: "Can" applies to the possible; "may" deals with what is permissible. It is a distinction worth preserving. We mean one thing when we write, "The senator can speak for an hour," and we mean something else when we note a ruling of the presiding officer: "The senator may speak for an hour."
In the former usage, we mean that the old windbag is physically capable of speaking; in the latter, we mean that he has permission to speak.
The preservation of such nice distinctions is an important element in writing. There is a difference between envy and jealousy; there is a difference between anxious and eager; there is a difference between farther and further.
The next case is in point. Ed F. Still of Birmingham, Ala., sends along a clipping from the Post-Herald about the use of alcohol: "Some Christian religions enjoin abstinence, including the Christian Scientists, Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, Pentecostalists, and some Baptists and Methodists."
The gentleman's valid point is that there are few "religions" but many "denominations." Christianity is a religion, but it is a house of many mansions. Within Judaism, the religion, one finds Orthodox Jews, Reformed Jews and Conservative Jews. Within denominations are further distinctions: Hasidic Jews, Total Immersion Baptists.
Donald Murray of Fulton, Ill., complains about the misuse of "take" and "bring," and offers in evidence a sentence from the Chicago Tribune. "Most parents who have had to bring their children to work admit it's rarely the ideal situation." The operative verb, he submits, should be "take." The court is in doubt and seeks guidance.
The distinction is easy to remember, but sometimes it can be difficult to apply. "To bring" implies movement toward; "to take" implies movement away. In the example cited, the parent takes the child away from home; once at the office, she has brought the child with her. Webster's Dictionary of English Usage devotes a page and a half to confusing the issue by pointing out that often the direction of movement is irrelevant. "Don't forget to bring (take?) your passport." Not all distinctions are simple distinctions.
This next one ought not to give trouble, but it does. Vera Heminger of Auburn, Wash., seeks a ruling on "immigrate" and "emigrate," and offers as Exhibit A a feature in the Valley Daily News about Maria Colson. "A native of Poland, Colson already spoke English when she immigrated to the United States." She has made friends with other Poles "who immigrated from Poland four months ago." This time the court is decisive: wrong verb. To "immigrate" is to enter; to "emigrate" is to leave.
Finally, the court must overrule a complaint from Manuel D. Pass of Denver, who objects to this sentence from an account of a tennis match: "Connors became nauseous, and his whole lower body continued to cramp up . . . ." It is true that "nauseous" can mean "causing nausea," in both the emetic and the figurative sense, and in his feckless period Connors' behavior may have made some of his fans want to throw up.
But in the context of the news story, it was not a crime to use "nauseous" simply in the sense of being "sick," that is, experiencing nausea. To avoid confusion, the writer might better have said that Connors "became nauseated." Universal Press Syndicate
by CNB