# may / might



## starlet

How would I say "might not" or "may not". The only thing I can think of is usng the verb pouvoir...


----------



## Gil

"might not" = pourrait ne pas...
"may not" = peut ne pas

With some context, you could get more useful answers.


----------



## Monsieur Hoole

You could use il se peut que

M.H.


----------



## Cath.S.

She* may not* go out tonight = elle* ne peut pas* (= elle *n'a pas le droit* de / elle *n'est pas autorisée* à) sortir ce soir
or
*il se peut* (=il est possible) qu'elle ne sorte pas ce soir

whereas 
I might not go out tonight = *il se pourrait* ( = il y a une petite chance pour ) qu'elle ne sorte pas ce soir, elle *ne* sortirai *peut-être pas* ce soir

but when _might_ just expresses the past of _may_:

_she said she *might* not go out_ = _elle a dit qu'elle *ne pouvait pas* ( = qu'elle *n'avait pas le droit* de ) sortir._

Hope this helps.


----------



## starlet

What I wanted to say is "there may not be enough time". So I thought, "il ne porrait pas assez temps"


----------



## CGH

Bonjour,

"il se peut qu'il n'y ait pas suffisamment de temps"

"nous allons peut-être manquer de temps" (selon le contexte)


Cordialement


----------



## Cath.S.

starlet said:
			
		

> What I wanted to say is "there may not be enough time". So I thought, "il ne porrait pas assez temps"


See my edit, Starlet : I'd left out sortir in my last example, sorry if I confused you.

So the verb (be) is missing in your sentence too, but in French we say il n'y *a *(from *avoir*) pas assez de temps, and it has to be in the subjunctive:

Il se *peut *qu'il n'y *ait* pas assez de temps / (also: / que nous n'*ayons* pas assez de temps / que nous *manquions* de temps).


----------



## fan5

Je voudrais qu'on m'explique la différence entre "may" et "might".merci


----------



## peitho

'may' is slightly more formal, but there isn't really a difference. not that an english person would ever recognise on anyway! 'might' is usually the best word to use, if in doubt!


----------



## jacquesvd

egueule said:


> when _might_ just expresses the past of _may_:
> _she said she *might* not go out_ = _elle a dit qu'elle *ne pouvait pas* ( = qu'elle *n'avait pas le droit* de ) sortir._


 Elle n'a pas le droit se dit de la façon la plus formelle: she must not.


----------



## Anaïsss

Bonjour tout le monde!

Pourriez-vous me dire s'il existe une différence entre "may" et "might"?

Merci d'avance!


----------



## guillaumedemanzac

Yes, these modals all have past tenses which act like conditionals and the past tense therefore makes it *less* likely.
*can - could*, *shall - should*, *may - might*.
I can go with you if you like.
I could go with you if you really want me to.
Cinderalla shall go to the ball.
She should go with her brother but .... (I don't think she will).
I may go to see the match. (not sure)
I might go to the match but it's expensive and I'm not sure i can get there on time.
guillaume
P.S.   A lot of *may* and *might* usages are confusing because a lot depends on the context and what the two speakers *think* about a particular course of action.


----------



## Wordsmyth

guillaumedemanzac said:


> _[...] _P.S.   A lot of *may* and *might* usages are confusing because a lot depends on the context ... _[...]_


 Absolutely! There are some instances where the two are used synonymously (p.ex. pour dire "_Il se peut que .._."); and others where the meanings are more distinct: 
- "You may leave now" _(donner la permission)_
- "You might think of me next time" _(suggestion, souvent réprimande)_

Ws


----------



## Anaïsss

En fait, dans ce cas-ci, c'est pour faire une prédiction.
Par exemple: le ciel devient sombre. Il pourrait pleuvoir. On utilise quoi dans ce cas-là? "It might rain" ou "it may rain"?


----------



## zx81

En classe, on donne un pourcentage de chances pour que l'action se réalise : "may" = env. 70% / "might" = env. 40%
Ça vaut ce que ça vaut, mais ça peut aider à mémoriser.


----------



## Wordsmyth

zx81 said:


> En classe, on donne un pourcentage de chances pour que l'action se réalise : "may" = env. 70% / "might" = env. 40% [...]


 ...  !!

Certains disent que 'might' signifie moins de probabilité que 'may' (cf post #2 de guillaume), mais (désolé, zx81) mettre des pourcentages n'a aucun sens. Que dois-je dire si je pense qu'il y a 10% ou 25% ou 90% de chance?! Y a-t-il des mots différents pour ces pourcentages-là? 

En réalité, même la tendance évoquée par guillaume est loin d'être utilisée universellement. Je viens de faire un petit sondage, utilisant "It may/might rain" : une dizaine d'anglophones, sans exception, ne voyaient aucune différence. Trois disaient naturellement 'may', les sept autres 'might', mais aucun ne changerait de l'un à l'autre selon la probabilité. Question plutôt de style de langage que de sens.

Ws


----------



## zx81

Wordsmyth said:


> ...  !!
> 
> Certains disent que 'might' signifie moins de probabilité que 'may' (cf post #2 de guillaume), mais (désolé, zx81) mettre des pourcentages n'a aucun sens. Que dois-je dire si je pense qu'il y a 10% ou 25% ou 90% de chance?! Y a-t-il des mots différents pour ces pourcentages-là?



Il n'y a que deux mots en lice : "may" et "might". Savoir que la probabilité est plus forte avec "may" qu'avec "might" est important pour les étudiants. Si les pourcentages peuvent les y aider, pourquoi pas ? 
En tout cas, en français "il se peut" et "il se pourrait" n'ont pas le même sens.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Wordsmyth said:


> ... Que dois-je dire si je pense qu'il y a 10% ou 25% ou 90% de chance?! Y a-t-il des mots différents pour ces pourcentages-là? ...


Et pourquoi pas ?

It could possibly rain
It might just rain
It will very likely rain etc. etc.

That's what language is for, to express nuances.


----------



## Kindrea

Wordsmyth said:


> […] mettre des pourcentages n'a  aucun sens. Que dois-je dire si je pense qu'il y a 10% ou 25% ou 90% de  chance?! Y a-t-il des mots différents pour ces pourcentages-là?


Enseigner les langues secondes, même enseigner la langue maternelle, c'est pas toujours de tout repos. Je pense que des fois on prend des raccourcis, en expliquant la relativité de ce principe aux étudiants, cela peut quand même les aider.  



Wordsmyth said:


> En réalité, même la tendance évoquée par guillaume est loin d'être  utilisée universellement. Je viens de faire un petit sondage, utilisant  "It may/might rain" : une dizaine d'anglophones, sans exception, ne  voyaient aucune différence. Trois disaient naturellement 'may', les sept  autres 'might', mais aucun ne changerait de l'un à l'autre selon la  probabilité. Question plutôt de style de langage que de sens.


Ce qu'il y a c'est qu pour beaucoup d'anglophones, du moins de ma connaissance (et par là je veux dire des gens de 40 ans et moins, principalement nés en Amérique du Nord), "shall" and "may" sont des formes peu maitrisées et presque oubliées. Certains les jugent un peu rétrogrades. Comme l'anglais américain prend beaucoup de place, cette tendance se propage peut-être?


----------



## djweaverbeaver

Il ne faut pas oublier que "might" est le passé de 'may'. Par exemple, "*May I go to the movies?*"  devient au passé "*He asked whether he might go to the movies*."  Et pourtant, cet exemple pour moi est assez formel.  On opterait plutôt pour "_He asked if he could/can (très familier) go to the movies._",  du moins c'est ce que diraient la plupart des Américains. A part cela,  le choix pour nos les Anglophones est souvent difficile parce que les  nuances sont si proches.  On confond souvent 'may' et 'might' dans les  'contrary-to-fact statements' (= phrases irréelles du conditionnel); on  dirait 'may' là où la grammaire prescriptive dit 'might'.  Même les  journalistes ont tendance à trop utiliser 'may', peut-être parce que  c'est plus court que might.


----------



## Miss. Charlotte

Anaïsss said:


> le ciel devient sombre. Il pourrait pleuvoir. On utilise quoi dans ce cas-là? "It might rain" ou "it may rain"?



I think here we'd use might just because the sky is becoming dark, so there is therefore a greater (70% if we go by zx81's guide) chance of it raining.

So _The sky is becoming dark. It might rain_​.


----------



## Wordsmyth

zx81 said:


> _[...]_ Savoir que la probabilité *est* plus forte avec "may" qu'avec "might" est important pour les étudiants. _[...]_


 ... que la probabilité *pourrait être* plus forte. Il y a des preuves, dans ce fil et ailleurs, que beaucoup d'anglophones (mis à part linguistes et enseignants) n'entendent aucune différence de probabilité. Savoir cela est aussi important pour les étudiants.





zx81 said:


> _[...]_ En tout cas, en français "il se peut" et "il se pourrait" n'ont pas le même sens.


 Comme en anglais, "it's possible" and "it might/may be possible" n'ont pas le même sens.





Keith Bradford said:


> Et pourquoi pas ?
> 
> It could possibly rain
> It might just rain
> It will very likely rain etc. etc.
> 
> That's what language is for, to express nuances.


Absolutely, Keith, language can express nuances; the language of maths can express precise probabilities. "Might", "may", "could possibly", "very likely" are not precise probabilities. I'd certainly hesitate to teach students a totally artificial scale of percentages for each word or expression, when in reality one person's "might" could be 40%, and another's could be 60% — which would make a big difference in the understanding of, say, an election prediction! 


zx81 said:


> _[...] _Si les pourcentages peuvent les y aider, pourquoi pas ?_ [...]_.


 Pour les raisons que je cite ci-dessus et ci-dessous.


Kindrea said:


> Enseigner les langues secondes, même enseigner la langue maternelle, c'est pas toujours de tout repos. Je pense que des fois on prend des raccourcis, en expliquant la relativité de ce principe aux étudiants, cela peut quand même les aider.  _[...]_


 D'accord, Kindrea, s'ils comprennent que c'est rélatif et en aucun cas absolu. Pourtant, je trouve l'exemple donné par zx81 dangereux, car les étudiants, même en reconnaissant que c'est approximatif, pourraient facilement penser que "might" est systématiquement <50% (donc plutôt improbable), et que "may" est toujours >50% (donc plutôt probable) — et ce n'est pas du tout le cas. 





Kindrea said:


> [...] Comme l'anglais américain prend beaucoup de place, cette tendance se propage peut-être?


 Sûrement : Parmi les dix anglophones de mon petit sondage, pas un seul Américain. 

PS for Kindrea: I thought 'm8' was 'mate'. 

Ws


----------



## La Compte de Monte-Cristo

zx81 said:


> En classe, on donne un pourcentage de chances pour que l'action se réalise : "may" = env. 70% / "might" = env. 40%
> Ça vaut ce que ça vaut, mais ça peut aider à mémoriser.



Je ne pense pas que ce soit correct. De nos jours, je pense pas qu'on utilise _may_. Il semble très étrange, très distingué. Alors utilisez cette mot seulement si on est dans une situation très formal. On dit _might_ presque tous les temps. Et pour indiquer la permission normalement on dit _can_.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Dans ton milieu, peut-être, CdM-C. Mais moi, j'utilise _may_ souvent, et je connais plein d'autres anglophones qui l'utilise sans que ce soit formel, étrange ou distingué.

Ws


----------



## La Compte de Monte-Cristo

Wordsmyth said:


> Dans ton milieu, peut-être, CdM-C. Mais moi, j'utilise _may_ souvent, et je connais plein d'autres anglophones qui l'utilise sans que ce soit formel, étrange ou distingué.
> 
> Ws



Vraiment? Vous êtes d'où?


----------



## Maître Capello

It *may*  be a regional difference, LCdMC, but I fully agree with Wordsmyth: using _may_ is quite natural to express uncertainty.



La Compte de Monte-Cristo said:


> Et pour indiquer la permission normalement on dit _can_.


It is also possible to use _may_ to indicate permission.

_You may sit down._


----------



## guillaumedemanzac

Maître Capello said:


> It *may*  be a regional difference, LCdMC, but I fully agree with Wordsmyth: using _may_ is quite natural to express uncertainty.
> It is also possible to use _may_ to indicate permission.     _You may sit down._


  

"Et pour indiquer la permission normalement on dit _can_."     Ok, so I'm a teacher but, if someone asks me "Can I use the toilet?", then I check if they have been potty-trained   !   ... and I still use my grandfather's phrase when I am asked for something with "Can I .. ?"   =  I'm sure you *can* but, if you are asking me for permission, the answer is 'Yes, you *may* do/have that."

I think this is more English than American however and is just a bit pedantic.  However I concur that _"may"_ is a sign of correct upbringing and correct use of language which is alien to some speakers of English as wot she is spoke.


----------



## La Compte de Monte-Cristo

Maître Capello said:


> It is also possible to use _may_ to indicate permission.
> _You may sit down._


It is possible but I just don't hear it used except in exceptionally formal situations. Normally it would be _"You can sit down", __"(Do) have a seat" _or even just _"sit down"_. I know it's not incorrect to use _"may"_ but all the suggestions I've listed would seem far more common to me.



guillaumedemanzac said:


> "Et pour indiquer la permission normalement on dit _can_."     Ok, so I'm a teacher but, if someone asks me "Can I use the toilet?", then I check if they have been potty-trained   !   ... and I still use my grandfather's phrase when I am asked for something with "Can I .. ?"   =  I'm sure you *can* but, if you are asking me for permission, the answer is 'Yes, you *may* do/have that."
> 
> I think this is more English than American however and is just a bit pedantic.  However I concur that _"may"_ is a sign of correct upbringing and correct use of language which is alien to some speakers of English as wot she is spoke.


That's the point though. Your grandfather says it. I am talking about current use and I think times have changed. _"May" _certainly does sound more proper but I don't think it is so commonly used. Therefore I would recommend that if non-native speakers wish to sound more authentic, they should choose _"might" _over "_may". _Although now I think about it, all the views I have expressed only apply to spoken English or informal writing. For anything academic, _"may_​" would probably be better.


----------



## Wordsmyth

La Compte de Monte-Cristo said:


> Vraiment? Vous êtes d'où?


 I was brought up in several different parts of the UK, and I have lived and worked in a number of UK and overseas environments; so my usage of _might_ and _may_ is unlikely to have a particular regional bias. As for the native English speakers I hear using _may_, they're of all ages, from many different regions and countries, and from a wide range of social and professional backgrounds. 

I'm not making a case for a rigid distinction, because (as I said in post #13) there are some instances where the two are used synonymously. However, I can't agree that "might" is any more 'authentic' than "may", and I certainly wouldn't discourage non-native speakers from using "may".

How about you, LCdM-C? If your conviction that _might _is almost always used (and that may is _étrange_, _distingué_ and _formel_) is based on your personal experience, could that be influenced by the usage in a particular region or social environment?

Ws


----------



## guillaumedemanzac

La Compte de Monte-Cristo said:


> It is possible but I just don't hear it used except in exceptionally formal situations. Normally it would be _"You can sit down", __"(Do) have a seat" _or even just _"sit down"_. I know it's not incorrect to use _"may"_ but all the suggestions I've listed would seem far more common to me. That's the point though. Your grandfather says it. I am talking about current use and I think times have changed. _"May" _certainly does sound more proper but I don't think it is so commonly used. Therefore I would recommend that if non-native speakers wish to sound more authentic, they should choose _"might" _over "_may". _Although now I think about it, all the views I have expressed only apply to spoken English or informal writing. For anything academic, _"may_​" would probably be better.



I don't know why you are confusing may, might and can - they are quite different to me in my usage (and my grandfather's - though he never had the internet problem of being unable to correct these modern "wrong" usages).  And I agree there is widespread misuse of can and may. Your example of "You can sit down." is just plain wrong/incorrect. It falls into my category of "Have you been potty-trained?" and I would reply "Of course I can sit down. I'm 62 years old. It's getting up again that I'm not sure about." Although it's very formal, the usher (USA American) in Judge Judy always says: "You may be seated." to the court who must rise when she enters and wait *for permission* to sit down ("be seated" is even more formal language).

May and might are easier to differentiate as they are like can and could = If you go, you can have a chance to win £1,000.  If you went, you could win £1.000.

If you go, you may be able to get in free.  1st Conditional.           If you went, you might be able to get in.   2nd Conditional.

Yes, I may be able to come to the meeting. That is different in tone and intention from:  Well, I'm not sure; I might be able to attend.

In the Conditional examples, most people would not really see a difference between 1st and 2nd Conditionals.

Maybe correct usage is only for teachers and grammarians - they do say that you have to teach something before you really understand how it works and how to use it - and that applies to a lot of practical things as well as the theory of language.

Finally, I repeat my comment in #27 above in bold and changing the first verb which I didn't like:    *  However I think that "may" is a sign of correct upbringing and correct use of language which is alien to some speakers of English as wot she is spoke.*


----------



## La Compte de Monte-Cristo

I'm not saying "may" should not be used, I'm just suggesting that (as obviously one cannot use both) if non-native speakers are unsure of which one to use, "might" would normally be better (unless the situation is formal). I have also travelled quite a bit (I guess we all have if we are linguists) and met people from all around the country and I can't really explain where I have got this idea from, it's just an idea that is very strongly in my head. I guess it's partly like guillaumedemanzac said; "'may' is a sign of correct upbringing". To me it is a sign of very correct upbringing, i.e. formal. Although I think he only means that in relation to the difference between "can" and "might", which is a different topic. Anyway, I am set on my opinion and you appear set on yours so I don't think there's much else left to say unless you have something you think will convince me?



guillaumedemanzac said:


> I agree there is widespread misuse of can and may. Your example of "You can sit down." is just plain wrong/incorrect. It falls into my category of "Have you been potty-trained?" and I would reply "Of course I can sit down. I'm 62 years old. It's getting up again that I'm not sure about."


It's only wrong when 50.1% of the population says so. As soon as it's 49.9% saying it, it becomes correct. I went to English classes at a French university (I wanted an easy pass alright?) and we were taught (by an Englishman) that "can" can be used to give permission. If you google "uses of can", all the results will list "asking for/giving permission" as one of its uses. It might well have been wrong when you were taught English but I think that times have changed and it is now accepted. (Incidentally if you're reading this Wordsmyth, this is a quote from one of said websites: "We use 'can' to ask for and give permission. (We also use 'may' for this but is more formal and much less common.)". Perhaps I apply this to all uses of may?)



> If you go, you can have a chance to win £1,000. If you went, you could win £1.000.
> […]
> However I think that _"may"_ is a sign of correct upbringing and correct use of language which is alien to some speakers of English as wot she is spoke.


You see I would say "If you go, you COULD have a chance to win £1,000". Isn't that what they say on TV? "Enter now and you could win...". I still agree with you about "may" being a sign of good upbringing, which is why I use it in formal situations


----------



## Wordsmyth

La Compte de Monte-Cristo said:


> _[...] _(Incidentally if you're reading this Wordsmyth, this is a quote from one of said websites: "We use 'can' to ask for and give permission. (We also use 'may' for this but is more formal and much less common.)". Perhaps I apply this to all uses of may?) _[...]_


Perhaps you do. I hadn't yet pitched in on the _can/might_ discussion, but there I agree ('correctness' aside) that "can", for permission, is far more common than "may" these days. But in my experience, with _may/might_ expressing uncertainty, they're both commonly used.


La Compte de Monte-Cristo said:


> _[...]_ Anyway, I am set on my opinion and you appear set on yours so I don't think there's much else left to say unless you have something you think will convince me? _[...]_


 No, I'm OK with that. What's very helpful in WRF is that future readers see whether there's a unanimous view on a topic, or a general consensus, or a range of differing opinions. (Some threads get an astonishing number of views, without the viewers ever participating in the discussion; and I've even had PMs about topics, months or years after the thread in question.)

This is clearly a thread where there are different opinions and observations, and that's fine.

Ws


----------



## La Compte de Monte-Cristo

Glad there's something we can agree on


----------



## guillaumedemanzac

La Compte de Monte-Cristo said:


> I know it's not incorrect to use _"may"_ but all the suggestions I've listed would seem far more common to me. _"May" _certainly does sound more proper but I don't think it is so commonly used. For anything academic, _"may_​" would probably be better.



Sorry to quote you using only the weird parts - selective memory.
I came back to this thread after a discussion with French teachers and found it useful. Especially the idea that the variety exists to fit different classes/people, situations and interlocutors. The old socio-linguistic rule applies "Who is speaking, to who(m), where and why?"
I think the thread covers most of those situations very well for my French/English discussion on modals and usage - the modals modify the verb.
Common has two meanings and the quote from Dumas is very apt - I said earlier that the usage "may" instead of "can" was a little bit semantic/pedantic and used by people (like my grandfather) who disliked English incorrectness as used by the common rabble who speak English as wot she shouldn't be spoke.  No offence to the highbrow Countess of Monte-Cristo is but being "common" is not always good and certainly not right  .


----------



## La Compte de Monte-Cristo

guillaumedemanzac said:


> No offence to the highbrow Countess of Monte-Cristo is but being "common" is not always good and certainly not right  .



One of my teachers once said "Something is only incorrect while less than 50% of the population say it that way. As soon as the majority use it, it is correct." I stated this idea in a previous post. Rules change. Languages are alive and their usage changes. "Can" is a perfectly acceptable verb to use for asking permission now because the majority use it. I know that is not what you were taught but that is the situation today. You can of course still use "may" but it sounds formal and strange in everyday situations. Being common may not always be right initially but eventually it will be


----------



## guillaumedemanzac

I think you misunderstood my use of the word "common" - common language is vulgaire - vulgar therefore by definition low-class and incorrect. Everybody may copy David Beckham - a classic example of Estuary English, but teachers will still correct him when he says : "The boy done good!".  "There was two of them on him." "I seen him cross the road over there."
Actually I agree with you that language changes (and have said so several times previously). The "there was" as a plural is now so frequently used that almost everyone except us (the linguistic pedants) uses it. Like the French il y a. I think I should start a campaign to get my French colleagues and voisins to say il y avaient trois vaches. Don't think I would get very far with that one!!


----------



## La Compte de Monte-Cristo

guillaumedemanzac said:


> I think you misunderstood my use of the word "common" - common language is vulgaire - vulgar therefore by definition low-class and incorrect. Everybody may copy David Beckham - a classic example of Estuary English, but teachers will still correct him when he says : "The boy done good!".  "There was two of them on him." "I seen him cross the road over there."
> Actually I agree with you that language changes (and have said so several times previously). The "there was" as a plural is now so frequently used that almost everyone except us (the linguistic pedants) uses it. Like the French il y a. I think I should start a campaign to get my French colleagues and voisins to say il y avaient trois vaches. Don't think I would get very far with that one!!



So do you think using "can" as a verb to give permission is correct or incorrect?


----------



## guillaumedemanzac

La Compte de Monte-Cristo said:


> So do you think using "can" as a verb to give permission is correct or incorrect?


Yes.  .  It may be very common to use can but it gives you away as being "common".
I've already answered that question - Can I go to the toilet, sir? is a common mistake and a grammarian's answer should be "I hope you can and of course you may if it is urgent."
  I wonder if you could possibly ...... is very polite = if you wouldn't mind -ing.
I wonder if I might be allowed to make a comment here. ..... is a very diffident and polite request.
Actually, the question "Can I ......" is a bit of a non-question because the person you are asking doesn't know if you can. e.g. Can I speak Russian?  ??????? 
Can you speak Russian? is a genuine question.
Personally, I would *not* use "you can" to give someone permission. Contexte???
Another modal verb is better (depending on the context).
You have my permission to drive my car = You may drive my car. You could drive my car if you had a licence and were over 25. Can you drive?(ability to drive) Do you have a licence to drive in France? Are you insured? Then you may/can take my car.
I still don't like the use of can in the last example.


----------



## Schnapps00

I have to agree with la Compte here; 'can' when asking permission is common use to my (younger generation) ears; even at my very traditional school full of older teachers 20 years ago we were not made to say 'May I..!' Guillame I maintain that this is less wrong than all your common uses above! 
I've recently had the may/might discussion with my English class also, they were taught (il y a 50 ans) the same % rule with 'may' being more probable than 'might', which baffled me as I admitted to them, as to me they are interchangeable, in spoken English at least (but I actually never use 'may' myself informally). As ever, context & tone of voice can be everything, eg.
Are you going to the party?
Weelll, I might go.. (<50%)
I might go actually! (>50%)


----------



## Wordsmyth

guillaumedemanzac said:


> I think you misunderstood my use of the word "common" - common language is vulgaire - vulgar therefore by definition low-class and incorrect._ [...]_


 How do you define low-class, guillaume? If you're referring to a social or socio-economic class, I'd say you're pushing it a bit (a lot, in fact) to suggest that _everyone_ in a given group speaks _incorrect_ English. 


guillaumedemanzac said:


> _ [...] _Everybody may copy David Beckham - a classic example of Estuary English,_ [...]_


 I think you're misunderstanding the term _Estuary English_. It refers to an _accent_, not to grammatical misuse or non-standard syntax. It's an accent which is a sort of 'middle ground' between RP and the so-called 'working class' accents of the London area. It's widely used by 'middle-class' speakers in the South-East — particularly, but not exclusively, by younger people (say, under-40s). It might affect the way 'may', 'might' and 'can' are _pronounced_, but not which of them is used in a given context.


guillaumedemanzac said:


> _ [...]_ Like the French il y a. I think I should start a campaign to get my French colleagues and voisins to say il y avaient trois vaches. Don't think I would get very far with that one!!


 I don't think you would get far! The subject in the clause _"Il y a_ ..." is the impersonal _il _(singular); it therefore takes a singular verb. In _'Il y avait trois vaches'_, _'trois vaches'_ is the object. A verb doesn't agree with its object. If it did, you'd have to say _'Il y ont trois vaches'_! But that's not the topic here, so 'nuff said.

Ws


----------



## La Compte de Monte-Cristo

guillaumedemanzac said:


> Yes.  .  It may be very common to use can but it gives you away as being "common".
> I've already answered that question - Can I go to the toilet, sir? is a common *mistake* and a grammarian's answer should be "I hope you can and of course you may if it is urgent."



Except it is not a mistake. Not anymore. Times have changed. This is how the majority speak now. This is how English is taught in schools now. If it is how English is being taught, if it is how it is being spoken, it is CORRECT. An English teacher would not teach someone to say "The boy done good". Like you said, they would correct the student. They would not correct a student using "can" to ask permission because it is most probably what they taught the student to say. It's how my teachers taught me, how my friends and family talk to me and how my students talk to me (and they were taught this rule before I got there). It is how all interactions I see on TV take place. Are you saying that almost the entire English speaking world, teachers and all, are incorrect?


----------



## guillaumedemanzac

I have already said that I agree with you on the can/may question and that usage actually is language not grammar. Estuary English has its own grammar - e.g the common (in both senses of the word) use of past participles as past tenses and the use of adjectives as adverbs.  I fink they seen us proper. I fought they done it good.  It is not only accent but grammar differences - often quite similar to Negro New York American: I ain't done nuffin'.
However the Can and May question is different as it is ambiguous and depends on who is speaking. Can you swim? Can I swim? Can you do that? Can I do that?
I would say May for the second of each pair simply because it makes it clear.
Translate to French and you can see the difference and the English synonyms.
Can you swim? Est-ce que tu sais nager? Do you know how to swim? Are you able to swim? Are you capable of swimming?
Can you? often means just that - are you able to? pouvoir/savoir.
May I? for permission is best as "Tu permets?" Can/May I have your permission to use your pool? - I think May I? is less definite and therefore more polite here.
Note that you can't find a context for May you? *  Similarly I don't see a context for Can I? except in common speech!!!!
Only context tells you which meaning is "correct". So the use of can/may is not a question of "correctness" but of accuracy. The question of Can I? also has a double meaning, only clear in context. : Can I (have your permission to) swim in your pool? Can I swim in your pool or is it too deep for me as I can't swim very well?

* Of course with a totally different meaning the phrase "May you always ....... !" is a blessing not a question. May the sun always shine on you! May the gentle rain from heaven fall softly on you! May you live happily all your life.


----------



## Wordsmyth

guillaumedemanzac said:


> _ [...] _Estuary English has its own grammar - e.g the common (in both senses of the word) use of past participles as past tenses and the use of adjectives as adverbs. I fink they seen us proper. I fought they done it good. It is not only accent but grammar differences _[...]_


You seem to have invented your own definition of _Estuary English._. If you care to do a little research (here, here, here, for example), you'll see that the term, as popularised by Rosewarne in 1984 and used by many others since, refers to pronunciation only. I don't know why you insist on linking it to substandard grammar. Would you say the same of everyone who has a Liverpudlian accent or or an Edinburgh accent? Whatever, it has nothing to do with the use of _may_ or _might_.


guillaumedemanzac said:


> _ [...]_ Translate to French and you can see the difference and the English synonyms.
> Can you swim? Est-ce que tu sais nager? Do you know how to swim? Are you able to swim? Are you capable of swimming?
> Can you? often means just that - are you able to? pouvoir/savoir.
> May I? for permission is best as "Tu permets?" _[...]_


Firstly, I wouldn't say that _"Tu permets?"_ is a normal equivalent of "May I?" Being quite formal, it's more likely to be used with the formal _vous_: _"Vous permettez?_ It is, however, sometimes used with a touch of sarcasm or annoyance (as here).

Secondly, equating _pouvoir_ solely to capability, and not to permission, is simply wrong. Educated native speakers use _pouvoir_ all the time in the context of permission (_Est-ce que je peux/pourrais ...?, Puis-je ...?, Pourrais-je ...?_). See post #4 in this thread, for example: 





Cath.S. said:


> She* may not* go out tonight = elle* ne peut pas* (= elle *n'a pas le droit* de / elle *n'est pas autorisée* à) sortir ce soir


 Look in any dictionary you care to choose — Larousse, for instance: Avoir la permission, la latitude de faire quelque chose.

So by all means take French as a basis, and equate appropriate forms of _pouvoir_ to _can_: it makes a perfect case in favour of "can" expressing permission, possibility, ability, ... (and all the other uses of _pouvoir_). 

Finally, if you consider that "Can I go to the toilet?" is a mistake, then you disagree with a large number of dictionaries, and even with Fowler. You also presumably consider Alfred, Lord Tennyson to be common/low-class/vulgar (or any other such adjectives as you've used): "Can I speak with the Count?" _(The Falcon, 1879)_. There are plenty of other examples of the use of "can", indicating permission, in respected literature.

Ws


----------



## La Compte de Monte-Cristo

guillaumedemanzac said:


> The question of Can I? also has a double meaning, only clear in context. : Can I (have your permission to) swim in your pool? Can I swim in your pool or is it too deep for me as I can't swim very well



Interesting, because if I wanted permission to swim in someone's pool I would say: "Can I swim in your pool?". If I was worried about not being able to swim in it because it was too deep, I would specifically state as much, to ensure that the person to whom I had asked the question understood that I was not using "can" in the normal sense of asking permission but asking about my physical capabilities. If someone simply asks: "Can I...?" I myself, and I believe most others, would assume they were asking for permission. We assume that others know their own capabilities so if they ask: "Can I?" then they are surely asking for permission.


----------

