# Yes, you may



## alexcarr

Hola a todos 

Saben que me he encontrado con este diálogo donde la madre de una estudiante le dice a la secretaria del colegio lo siguiente:

Student's mother: May I see the principal?
The secretary: Yes, *you may*

¿es esa frase "yes, you may" una respuesta aceptable?

Gracias de antemano


----------



## Chris K

Sí, es completamente correcta.


----------



## alexcarr

Gracias Chris 
Entonces me pregunto si siempre podemos dar respuestas simples como estas, sin elaborar más:
Yes, you might
No, you shall not
Yes, you'd better
Yes, I would
No, you ought not to


----------



## Forero

alexcarr said:


> Gracias Chris
> Entonces me pregunto si siempre podemos dar respuestas simples como estas, sin elaborar más:
> Yes, you might
> No, you shall not
> Yes, you'd better
> Yes, I would
> No, you ought not to


Sí, pero _shall_ es raro, especialmente como respuesta, y _ought not_ es raro con _to_ y raro como respuesta.


----------



## inib

Forero said:


> Sí, pero _shall_ es raro, especialmente como respuesta, y _ought not_ es raro con _to_ y raro como respuesta.


In British English they are not so "raros". There are other more common alternatives, but from what I've learnt on this forum, they sound a lot less weird to us than to you lot


----------



## Chris K

alexcarr said:


> Gracias Chris
> Entonces me pregunto si siempre podemos dar respuestas simples como estas, sin elaborar más:
> [...]



Como regla general, sí, si el contexto está claro.


----------



## Agró

alexcarr said:


> Gracias Chris
> Entonces me pregunto si siempre podemos dar respuestas simples como estas, sin elaborar más:
> Yes, you might
> No, you shall not
> Yes, you'd better
> Yes, I would
> No, you ought not to



Son lo que se llaman "short answers", toda una institución en el proceso de aprendizaje del inglés.
Respecto a la tercera, aún se podría acortar más: _Yes, you had_.


----------



## Chris K

Agró said:


> Son lo que se llaman "short answers", toda una institución en el proceso de aprendizaje del inglés.
> Respecto a la tercera, aún se podría acortar más: _Yes, you had_.



Pero no se dice "yes, you had" con este sentido en AE (a lo menos no sería común). Decimos "you better" o más formalmente "you'd better."


----------



## Agró

Chris K said:


> Pero no se dice "yes, you had" con este sentido en AE (a lo menos no sería común). Decimos "you better" o más formalmente "you'd better."



Aparentemente, no seguís la regla de repetición del auxiliar correspondiente ("had", en este caso).
Reconozco que la situación sería como mínimo rarita:

_-Had I better leave now?
-Yes, you had_.

(Inib, please?)


----------



## Chris K

Agró said:


> Aparentemente, no seguís la regla de repetición del auxiliar correspondiente ("had", en este caso).
> Reconozco que la situación sería como mínimo rarita:
> 
> _-Had I better leave now?
> -Yes, you had_.
> 
> (Inib, please?)



En general, no se dice "had I better...?" tampoco. La conversación sería:

Should I leave now?
Yes, you['d] better. (O "yes, you should", por supuesto.)

O:

I'd better leave now, right?
Yes, you['d] better.


----------



## inib

Agró said:


> Aparentemente, no seguís la regla de repetición del auxiliar correspondiente ("had", en este caso).
> Reconozco que la situación sería como mínimo rarita:
> 
> _-Had I better leave now?
> -Yes, you had_.
> 
> (Inib, please?)


Sounds fine to me. In Br E, we don't drop the "had" so easily as in Am E. We contract it, but we still know it's there!


----------



## inib

Having thought about it a bit more, I think my short answer might vary according to the previous comment/question, (which is missing in post #3, and may explain our difference in reactions). 
If someone said to me "Perhaps I'd better start now", I would reply "Yes, you *had*" (emphasising the _had_).
But if the enquirer doesn't mention the word "better" himself, I'd use Chris's version:
"Shall/should I start now?" ...."Yes, you'd better".


----------



## duvija

You'll find 'yes, you may' as an answer correcting a 'bad' question.
_Can I go to the bathroom?
Yes, you may. 
_(Or "I don't know if you can, but you may". It depends on the teacher's mood)


----------



## gengo

Agró said:


> Aparentemente, no seguís la regla de repetición del auxiliar correspondiente ("had", en este caso).
> Reconozco que la situación sería como mínimo rarita:
> 
> _-Had I better leave now?
> -Yes, you had_.



I completely agree with what Chris has said about American usage, but I'll add that your example is perfectly correct in American grammar.  It's just that we don't usually speak that way, and to us it sounds very British and/or a bit snobbish.  However, in a certain context, I could imagine two Americans using those words for effect.


----------



## Chris K

gengo said:


> I completely agree with what Chris has said about American usage, but I'll add that your example is perfectly correct in American grammar.  It's just that we don't usually speak that way, and to us it sounds very British and/or a bit snobbish.  However, in a certain context, I could imagine two Americans using those words for effect.



I'm not sure at what point usage practices harden into grammar rules. To me, American English doesn't permit that construction. We understand it — it strikes us as British or affected, as you say — but it's not in our sentence-making toolbox.


----------



## Forero

There is nothing "British" sounding to me in the following:

_I think they had best get that done before five.
Yes, they had._

_I'm afraid I'd better bring it in first thing in the morning.
Yes, you had._

But to me "Had I better ...?" sounds a little odd. "Hadn't you better ...?" sounds fine. Go figure.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

On a different note, "yes, you had" could be more literal.

-Had(n't) I already spoken to him before that happened?
-Yes, you had. / No, you hadn't.


----------



## gengo

> _-Had I better leave now?
> -Yes, you had._





Chris K said:


> I'm not sure at what point usage practices harden into grammar rules. To me, American English doesn't permit that construction.



What I mean is that from a purely grammatical standpoint it is correct.  We have the affirmative statement "I had better leave."  The interrogative form of that is "Had I better leave?"  To test this, try to form the interrogative another way, without using other words such as "should."  Again, we don't talk like that in the US, but there is nothing wrong with it grammatically in any flavor of English.


----------



## Chris K

gengo said:


> What I mean is that from a purely grammatical standpoint it is correct.  We have the affirmative statement "I had better leave."  The interrogative form of that is "Had I better leave?"  To test this, try to form the interrogative another way, without using other words such as "should."  Again, we don't talk like that in the US, but there is nothing wrong with it grammatically in any flavor of English.



Yes, I think you're right. If "I had better leave" is permissible, then the rest follows. I think part of my reluctance is that in conversation we tend to drop the "had," in which case there's not much you can do with "I better leave."


----------



## gengo

Chris K said:


> ...in conversation we tend to drop the "had," in which case there's not much you can do with "I better leave."



Agreed.  In real life, we would probably say one of the following.

Should I leave?  (Yes, you should)
Do I need to leave? (Yes, you do)
I guess I (I'd) better leave.  (Yes, you had (not very common), or Yes, you should)


----------



## Forero

gengo said:


> Agreed.  In real life, we would probably say one of the following.
> 
> Should I leave?  (Yes, you should)
> Do I need to leave? (Yes, you do)
> I guess I (I'd) better leave.  (Yes, you had (not very common), or Yes, you should)


or "Yes, you('d) better."


----------



## gengo

Forero said:


> or "Yes, you('d) better."



Thanks, I should have included that one, as it is a natural fit.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

Chris K said:


> I think part of my reluctance is that in conversation we tend to drop the "had," in which case there's not much you can do with "I better leave."



I'm not sure if "I better leave" is necessarily an auxiliary ellipsis of "I had better leave." At least in Spanish (obviously English and Spanish have different language families but...) you can say "Mejor me voy" and it doesn't come from "Mejor me habia ido."

I don't know the validity of such cross-linguistic semantic/syntactic comparison, but it's an observation.


----------



## gengo

estoy_lerniendo said:


> I'm not sure if "I better leave" is necessarily an auxiliary ellipsis of "I had better leave." At least in Spanish (obviously English and Spanish have different language families but...) you can say "Mejor me voy" and it doesn't come from "Mejor me habia ido."



First, "I better leave" is most definitely an ellipsis of "I had better leave."  Second, the "had" that is omitted is not the auxiliary "to have" that is used in compound tenses such as "I had left by the time he arrived."  It is "to have" as in "I have to go now."  The Spanish counterpart is not haber, but tener, as in "Tengo que irme."


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

How do you know that the connection is between "I have to go" and "I had better go"? (the ambiguity of "have" in English makes it hard to analyze)


----------



## gengo

estoy_lerniendo said:


> How do you know that the connection is between "I have to go" and "I had better go"? (the ambiguity of "have" in English makes it hard to analyze)



Simple.  It could only be the auxiliary verb if there were a main verb that was conjugated as a past participle.  
For example, in "I had already gone," the main verb is "to go," and it is conjugated as a past participle, paired with the auxiliary "had."  In "I had better go," the main verb (to go) is in bare infinitive form (without the "to").  Therefore, the "to have" verb used in "had better" is the same as in "to have to (go)."

Although the meaning of "had better" is present or future, the "had" is an unreal past.  It must be odd for English learners to use the past tense form for present or future situations, but English is a rather odd language overall.


----------



## Forero

estoy_lerniendo said:


> How do you know that the connection is between "I have to go" and "I had better go"? (the ambiguity of "have" in English makes it hard to analyze)


It is followed by an infinitive, not a participle.

On the other hand, we can ask "Hadn't I better go?" but not "Haven't I to go", and we can say "I used to have to go" but not "I used to have better go".

And when we include the "had" with "better", it is always in past tense, and this reminds me of _ought_, originally a past tense of _owe_, and _must_, also originally a past tense.


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

So is the analysis of "I had better go." as such: Pronoun (I) - Past Tense Main Verb (had) - Adverb (better) - Infinitive (go) ?

Idioms are strange because their syntactic structure isn't consistent with typical language.


----------



## gengo

I'm not sure how a grammar expert would label it, but I have always just considered "had better (do)" as a single, fixed construction, and I would consider the verb that follows "better" to be the main verb of the clause.  It is an idiom, and therefore doesn't really follow the normal pattern and rules of English grammar.

The dictionary gives the following, treating the words as a unit.
*had better  *should or must _I thought I had better destroy the list so that no one else would see it._ _You'd better get moving if you want to catch your train._Usage notes: _had_ is sometimes not said: _If we have a problem you better hope somebody is there to help you._

(BTW, it should be "their" and not "they're.")


----------



## estoy_lerniendo

gengo said:


> (BTW, it should be "their" and not "they're.")



Yes, indeed, _its _a mistake _four_ _witch_ _they're_ is no excuse.


----------

