tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post3043856782034697518..comments2024-03-16T00:21:43.240+00:00Comments on Separated by a Common Language: please find attached...lynneguisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-23838018608747526962022-05-01T09:16:54.403+01:002022-05-01T09:16:54.403+01:00You're talking Quartets here, or Happy Familie...You're talking Quartets here, or Happy Families. The game's pretty much universal, and I too played it as a child. However, in Dutch we would not routinely add the equivalent of "please": we just asked (talking to one of the other players) "Johnny, can I have the Steam Loc from the Trains quartet?" and when it was duly handed over "And do you have the Tender as well?" (if you didn't, he might ask for the Steam Loc back as soon as it got to be his turn).<br />Petra1945https://www.blogger.com/profile/06559677258676647710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-13065154994047733142020-12-03T16:29:35.325+00:002020-12-03T16:29:35.325+00:00I don't know if I'm too late to this discu...I don't know if I'm too late to this discussion, but I'd like to share some curious usages of "please" that have long amused me. <br /><br />I'm British and my grandmother, who is in her 90s, still speaks with a somewhat archaic posh accent of the sort you might have heard on BBC radio circa 1940. When making any enquiry, she will usually just open with "Please...", even if the actual request doesn't come until later.<br />The word "Please" just gets disembodied from the actual request, with whole clauses or even sentences before a question is even asked. <br /><br />For instance, if she's asking for directions at the station, she'll say something like "Please, we're trying to get to Newbury, which platform do we need to be on?" Sometimes she even uses it when asking questions that aren't even a request. I've never been quite sure if this usage was commonplace 70 years ago, or if it's a quirk all of her own.<br /><br />I also have a friend in her 20s who is very shy and often over-compensates in terms of politeness and says things like "Would it please be alright if we stop to buy sandwiches on the way?" It always sounds like she's inserting the word please into random places in the sentence to make it sound less demanding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-72255083186050614622019-07-22T11:43:42.044+01:002019-07-22T11:43:42.044+01:00BrE, mid 60s. I am fairly sure that I do use “plea...BrE, mid 60s. I am fairly sure that I do use “please find attached” or similar in e-mails. This is a bit of a knee-jerk, and maybe I should re-think it. I have found that clerical staff who are very polite and helpful face to face often come across as awkward, bossy or rude in e-mails. I think most of this is due to trying (often unsuccessfully) to use formal business language where it does more harm than good.<br /><br />Since reading the previous “please” post, i’ve been trying to remember to watch what actually happens at checkouts, cafe tills, etc. While please and thank you still seem to be the norm, there are a lot of cases where they are not actually used. As David Crosbie noted, something like “love” or “me duck” often means you don’t really notice the lack of a please or thank you: as many commenters note, it’s to do with tone.<br /><br />So, I know have personal evidence as to why I don’t like “can I get”. Whether used by Americans or Brits, it is rarely used in anything other than an off-hand, dismissive, abrupt tone of voice. Quite frequently, the customer is staring at a smartphone, and does not even make eye contact with whoever is dealing with their request,Shy-replyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891566073375322808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-46793099782119830152017-02-15T13:23:11.327+00:002017-02-15T13:23:11.327+00:00A heartwarming example of "Please find",...A heartwarming example of "Please find", copied from the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-38969714" rel="nofollow">BBC</a>.<br /><br />A note was left on a vending machine at a cancer hospital in Manchester asking people to help themselves to free treats. The note said:<br />"Please find a variety of snacks in the bottom of this machine that have been paid for. I simply wanted to perform some random act of kindness to try and brighten up someone's day. Hopefully there will be something in there for you to enjoy. Finally, if you can, try and spread the kindness."KeithDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10451059429340892054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-24135345703442868962017-01-25T22:17:18.457+00:002017-01-25T22:17:18.457+00:00I tried to reply days ago, but the Preview button ...I tried to reply days ago, but the Preview button magically vanished my comment!<br /><br />David, there is little in your responses to my comment that I disagree with. However I apparently failed to make clear the point of my last three paragraphs, which is off topic but related: that commands to children should be clearly phrased as instructions that cannot be refused, and that when adults use ‘please’ when giving children commands as well as when making requests (deniable or not), this provides a counterproductive lesson.<br /><br />My suggestion of a shift in ‘please’ from its historical but formulaic meaning of ‘pleasing of the person asked’ to a current meaning of ‘pleasing the person asking’, whatever its societal function was/is, is relevant when understanding why a child would think there is any utility in repeatedly saying ‘please’; the child will not be using it as softening or lubricant, or even a required token of politeness, but as a word with power to make requests undeniable. Deconstructing meanings and functions does not add anything to this simple point. (An intuitive appreciation of this could I suppose also be why ‘please’ works as a softener / lubricant and why Brits are comfortable using it when ordering in restaurants; but I am making no claims.)<br /><br />My imaginary ice cream exchanges were intended to be between the same child and adult, separated by a period of time during which the child had internalised the exchange A lesson that saying ‘please’ meant a request would be granted, only to find in exchange B that unhappily this was not so. I was somewhat surprised to see them dissected line by line, when for me only the overall effect was important. They were included in support of my assertion that children should be taught that ‘please’ is a polite word to be used only in requests, which can be refused. Despite what I hear adults say, it ought not to be a polite word used in commands to children, which <b> cannot</b> be refused.<br /><br />You say that “When the greater power lies with the speaker, then <i>please</i> may signal 'I have [the] power to order you, but I'm asking instead'”. A speaker who genuinely thought this would have to be prepared to accept a refusal. If refusal is not possible, the speaker is not ‘asking instead’ but merely cloaking an order in softened, lubricating language, most likely with the aim of demonstrating respect and so saving face for the underling since everyone concerned knows it is an order. Unless of course the underling is a child who has yet to disentangle the minefield of politeness, lubrication, requests and orders.<br />KeithDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10451059429340892054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-11333152327638597962017-01-20T16:53:03.795+00:002017-01-20T16:53:03.795+00:00I suggested five social settings in which please a...I suggested five social settings in which <i>please</i> acted as a social lubricant<br /><br />1. <i>Pass the milk please, dear.</i> (no question of displeasure)<br />2. <i>Help me please, dear.</i> (asking a real favour)<br />3. <i>Please pass the salt, Mrs Jones</i> (avoiding <b>command</b>)<br />4. <i>Free kick please.</i> (disguised command)<br />5. <i>Please can I have an ice cream?</i> (refusal is quite possible)<br /><br />Number 5 is what the child <b>didn't</b> say. The function of <i>please</i> in your dialogue A is not so much a <b>speaking device</b> as a <b>training device</b>.<br /><br /><i>Can I have an ice cream?</i> — (OK here, but a 'dangerous' habit)<br /><i>Not unless you say please.</i> — (not strictly necessary here, but the <i>please</i> habit must be taught)<br /><i>Please.</i> — (habit being learned)<br /><i>OK</i> — (reward)<br /><br />In this interaction, parent and child recognise the norms of interaction and use them to reach a satisfactory outcome: lesson reinforced and the child gets the ice cream.<br /><br />In your dialogue B, it all goes wrong because the child doesn't yet understand how requests work. <br /><br /><i>Can I have an ice cream?</i> — (a reasonable form of request)<br /><i>No</i> — (accepted as a valid request form, but the actual request is declined)<br /><i>Aw. Please.</i> — (possibly attempting a more valid request form, but more likely failing to recognise the parent's power to refuse.)<br /><i>No.</i> — (repeated refusal)<br /><i>PLEASE!</i> — (in the belief that saying things louder produced results)<br /><i>NO!</i> — (ditto)<br /><i> WAAAAH! </i> — (in the belief that discomforting the adult produces results)<br /><br />OK, some of these may represent how requests work <b>in that particular family</b> where the child enjoys appreciable <b>pester power</b>. But that's not how requests are negotiated in the world the child will grow up into.<br /><br />Yes, the child in dialogue B may learn that <i>please</i> is a silly adult convention, an excuse for picking on them. But the child in dialogue A has learnt that <i>please</i> in requests is a social lubricant which may well put the hearer in a better, more compliant mood.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-64612228416863822322017-01-20T16:11:34.199+00:002017-01-20T16:11:34.199+00:00Keith
To recap, please may check possible displea...Keith<br /><br />To recap, <i>please</i> may check possible <b>displeasure</b>, thus acting as a social lubricant...<br /><br />Now this lubricant property of <i>please</i> operates <b>whatever the power balance.</b> <br /><br />• When there is no imbalance and <b>potential for displeasing</b> is negligible, then <i>please</i> makes one or both of the interlocutors feel a little more comfortable. For example I might say to my wife <i>Pass the milk please</i>.<br /><br />• When there is no imbalance but there is a conceivable <b>potential for displeasing</b> is negligible, then <i>please</i> signals the speaker's concern to the hearer. For example, I might say to my wife <i>Help me please</i>.<br /><br />[Having written these two bullet points, it occurs to me that this difference may lay behind the American~British difference as to what to say to a waiter. We Brits don't really care about the waiter's preferences; we just want everybody to feel comfortable.]<br /><br />• When an imperative form might be construed as signalling an assumption of social power, then <i>please</i> signals the speaker's renunciation of such power. For example I might say to a fellow diner <i>Please pass the salt</i> whereas <i>Pass the salt</i> might sound too abrupt or even bossy.<br /><br />• Where a power imbalance exists (or is perceived to exist), then <i>please</i> signals a desire to <b>mitigate the effect</b> of that imbalance. This works<br /><br />† When the greater power lies with the speaker, then <i>please</i> may signal <br /><br />'I have to power to order you, but I'm asking instead'<br /><br />For example your examples: <i>Put your shoes on please/be quiet please/Free kick please</i><br /><br />† When the greater power lies with the hearer, the <i>please</i> partly signals <b>acknowledgement</b> of that power. I say '<i>partly</i>' because we normally combine it with other mitigating devices such as <i>Can I? Would you? Would you mind?</i> etc.<br /><br />The full version of that child's request — the version acceptable to the parents — would be an example, viz<br /><br /><i>Please can I have an ice cream?</i><br /><br />(yet more to come ...)<br />David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-15292104696877254102017-01-20T15:43:56.674+00:002017-01-20T15:43:56.674+00:00Keith
Rather than a 'softening' I'd p...Keith<br /><br />Rather than a 'softening' I'd prefer to speak of a <b>social lubricant</b>.<br /><br />The definition Lynne works on sees <b>politeness</b> as a process of mitigating a narrowly framed interpersonal relationship termed <b>'face'</b>. We don't need to be conversant with the exact proposed nature of 'face' to see that politeness makes social reactions easier, with less friction. That's why I use the word <i>lubricant</i>.<br /><br />When people used to say <i>if it please you</i>, even then it was a lubricant. The ostensible meaning may have referred to nay <b>positive</b> attitude of the hearer, but the speaker <b>used</b> the words to relate to any <b>negative</b> attitude. They were saying, in effect, <i>If it would not <b>displease</b> you </i>.<br /><br />There would have been little call for the ostensive, literal meaning. Something like:<br /><br /><i>Whatever book you may read, seek not always to gain moral sustenance. If it but please you, yet may you be thankful</i><br /><br />The nearest modern equivalents of <i>if it displease you not</i> is <i>if you don't mind</i>. <br /><br />Often when there's a binary choice, what is pleasing to one party in a two-part interaction may displeasing to the other. In both <i>Do it, if you don't</i> and <i>Yes, if you don't mind</i> the speaker is <br /><br />• signalling that one choice would please him/her<br />• checking that the other choice would not displease the hearer<br /><br />This <b>checking</b> feature is what makes it a <b>lubricant</b><br /><br />(more to follow ...)David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-20294510461320915152017-01-19T14:30:18.260+00:002017-01-19T14:30:18.260+00:00'Please' originated as a shortening of ...'Please' originated as a shortening of 'If it please you' and similar constructions. Nowadays it often seems to me to mean 'It would please me'. I suggest that this is the 'softening' form, and the form in responses to offers - 'Yes, please!' So: 'Please would you update the online version to this' would mean 'It would please me if you would update the online version to this'; and that needs no further softening for this Brit, not even a 'could'.<br /><br />In requests, polite or otherwise, 'please' should always allow the possibility, however remote, of a refusal; otherwise it is a command. For this reason I (stupidly, I know) get annoyed when I hear adults in positions of authority give children commands that need to be obeyed but soften them with 'please'. For example: parents - 'Please put your shoes on' / 'Put your shoes on please'; teachers: 'Be quiet, please'; football referees: 'Free kick, please'. Children quickly learn that their saying 'please' is no guarantee that their request will be granted, and, as children must, they internalise that lesson and assume that such 'requests' from adults can also be refused or ignored. They then have to be taught, sometimes painfully, that the 'please' convention works differently depending on direction.<br /><br />What is the function of 'please' in these typical child/adult exchanges? (A) 'Can I have an ice cream?' 'Not unless you say please.' 'Please!' 'OK.' (B) 'Can I have an ice cream' 'No.' 'Aw. Please.' 'No.' 'PLEASE!' 'NO!'. 'WAAAAH'! In (A) it seems to be a tag that needs to be added to make a request effective. In (B) it seems to mean: 'I'm asking just like you've taught me to, so how can you continue to refuse my request?'<br /><br />I maintain that adults should keep 'please' for genuine requests to children (eg 'Could you do X for me, please?') even though the power imbalance means that these are expected to be complied with, and should give instructions as unsoftened imperatives that MUST be complied with. Of course the adults believe that they need to say 'please' and 'thank you' as examples, so the children will learn to say the magic words. But that is counterproductive because, while many children's 'pleases' can be refused, most adult 'pleases' cannot; and many children's 'thank yous' are forced out of them and insincere, while many adult 'thank yous' are sarcastic. So what the children learn is that these words are not functional but merely a convention that adults nag them about. In my experience, and I think at least in part as a result of this, young BrE people (the ones I know are 15-25) are more likely to use AmE forms of politeness/softening than the traditional BrE 'please'.<br /><br />There seems to be no separate post on 'Sorry' (yet!), so here is my comment on that. In my BrE experience it is generally understood as indicating an apology; so much so that I often have to make it explicit when I am expressing sympathy or regret rather than apologising. The 'sympathy' meaning is understood in the clichéd 'Sorry for your loss', but, I suggest, seldom elsewhere. This distinction (plus passive rather than active voice) is what turns an apology: 'I'm sorry that I said/did X' into a non-apology insincere expression of regret: 'I'm sorry if anyone was upset that I said/did X'.KeithDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10451059429340892054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-18366309458343116522016-12-14T11:26:34.432+00:002016-12-14T11:26:34.432+00:00Think of it this way. In America, it would be rude...Think of it this way. In America, it would be rude to refuse a request made with a "please." So wording in an indirect way is preferred, so that the other party has the option to say "no" without seeming unhelpful or rude. You might say, "Would it be possible for you to change to this new version?" rather than "Please change this to the new version," because the latter sounds like an order, while the former really carries the meaning "If you please" much more effectively. Sadiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11118190693184491316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-57414631867191549522015-11-16T02:29:41.724+00:002015-11-16T02:29:41.724+00:00Neither in BrE nor in AmE is there any call [when ...<i>Neither in BrE nor in AmE is there any call [when speaking to a waiter] for Do you think you could ? I wonder if I might ask ...? and other devices that may defuse social tensions.</i><br /><br />There is, at least for me, when asking for something off-menu. "Could I have that with toast instead of plain bread?", for example, is a true request, because I have no idea whether it will be granted. Perhaps the chef has no time to toast bread, or considers it an abomination with this particular dish. Inserting "please" before "have" would be over the top for me, but not for every American, I think.John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-3273542285736143002015-09-21T20:31:23.895+01:002015-09-21T20:31:23.895+01:00Yes, I was sending some documents to someone the o...Yes, I was sending some documents to someone the other day, and thought of this thread - I automatically wrote Please find attached, which to me is the normal and natural way of saying it! Mrs Redboots (Annabel Smyth)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11270027663691257254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-9199029519403658262015-09-21T18:28:15.679+01:002015-09-21T18:28:15.679+01:00What a fascinating thread! I think it underlines t...What a fascinating thread! I think it underlines the fact that you never really know the author's real intentions unless you hear the sentence spoken and can perceive the tone and where the emphasis is placed. I am English and was brought up to say please every time I make a request and thank you upon receiving anything. My partner is American ad hardy ever does, it is enfuriating as he seems so rude and I get embarrassed by him in public. But we are both changing to meet somewhere in the middle as with so many language issues?<br />As a teacher,do I say please to my pupils as a marker of respect or politeness? Since my status gives me the right to make the request then it must be politeness! The more important question is does the use of please make people in general and my students in particular, more disposed to comply with the request? That seems to depend on age, experience or level of maturity, (young children don't know the implied threats underlying the tone of voice) but surely british people generally respond better to please? No need to rely on indirect questions or use of the passive or subjunctive! Let's be clear!<br />However I would still say "please find enclosed" if I wanted the person to do something with the document or it was the main reason for the communication, but. I would use "I have attached/enclosed if I had just included it for further information or non essential purposes like filing.<br />Does BrE have more subtle differences like this than American??<br />Curioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09781691512626392369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-9029291504512005552015-09-15T10:33:49.959+01:002015-09-15T10:33:49.959+01:00I don't think I could do any kind of command, ...I don't think I could do any kind of command, even with an 'if possible' in this case. That may have something to do with the lines of command at a university. The office staff don't answer to academics like me, they're managed by another manager, and so you never really do know if you can tell someone to do something.<br /><br />I've also probably been very influenced by friends who have worked in service parts of the university, who have very strong opinions about which academics ask nicely and which don't. Not asking nicely = presuming that it's their job to help you with your thing now. Part of that is because they are professionals with complex jobs and reasons to prioritise different parts of their job than you do, and that needs to be appreciated. Part of it goes back to the echoes of the class system (which comes up strongly in the discussion at the restaurant post).lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-58999203643656528262015-09-15T10:05:49.388+01:002015-09-15T10:05:49.388+01:00Hmm. On the postscript I'd write it as 'pl...Hmm. On the postscript I'd write it as 'please update the online version to this, if possible.'<br /><br />As for original restaurant question I'd only say please if altering the item. Such as 'no mayo please' or 'please put the sauce on the side.' <br /><br />Mostly I phrase things as 'could we get a ....?' Or simply I will have the .... which I suppose is what you mean by declaritive.<br />specialnewbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928769959846844073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-90511445880107668202015-09-11T18:56:57.503+01:002015-09-11T18:56:57.503+01:00I think markers like please, sir, mi' duck, sq...I think markers like <i>please, sir, mi' duck, squire, love</i>, etc are not themselves since or insincere but can be <b>used</b> sincerely or otherwise.<br /><br />Usually the addressee accepts the marker as sincerely meant; anything else would damage the smooth flow of interaction. It's possible, however, to use a relationship marker (or a better term of you can think of one) in a context where it's obvious to both parties that the speaker is not being sincere. That's how an ostensible mark of respect can be deployed as an insult.<br /><br />And yes, I suppose it's fair to say there are people who deploy respect markers or solidarity markers with less care for how the addressees might feel than how the speech pattern contribute to their persona — whether it's <i>I'm a civil and polite person</i> or <i>I'm a regular guy like you</i>. Here too, I'd say that the marker is still the same signal; it's just that the <b>use</b> of the marker is in fact an abuse.<br /><br />I'll have to think about Kate Fox's line on not having the right to interact. There may well be something in it, but I think that in the case of <i>please find enclosed</i> there's another factor at play. An important difference between <i>I've enclosed</i> and <i>Please find enclosed</i> is that the former focuses only on the <b>writer</b>, while an imperative has the psychological advantage that it focusses on the <b>reader</b>. Of course, this means that <i>please</i> is more than a respect marker. So here's a revised suggestion.<br /><br />FUNCTION ONE<br /><b>discourse marker</b> signalling 'not ORDER but REQUEST'<br /><br />FUNCTION TWO<br /><b>discourse marker</b> signalling 'not ORDER but ALERT'<br /><br />FUNCTION THREE<br /><b>relationship marker</b> signalling <b>respect, solidarity</b> etc.<br /><br />A further thought on the right to interact. It's not something to have doubts about when you've already begun. The non-interacting option would be to put an enclosure in the envelope and then say nothing about it. Or perhaps the real non-interactive option is not to write in the first place. So I think <i>Please find</i> belongs in an interaction that's already under way.<br /><br /><i>Please note</i> on public notices is another matter. There I'm inclined to agree with you that it's an <b>appeal</b> for the attention necessary to create an interaction.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-42153826915992600552015-09-11T16:37:56.036+01:002015-09-11T16:37:56.036+01:00Very useful, David. But is it really a (sincere) r...Very useful, David. But is it really a (sincere) relationship marker--i.e. really about marking something in the relationship with the other person (e.g. 'I respect you'), or is it maybe more like an identity marker--'I'm a civil and polite person'?<br /><br />In many cases, it is used when correcting or even shaming people--i.e. disrespecting them. Of course, we can go with the 'respect marker' interpretation and then call those cases of 'mock politeness' in the service of impoliteness. <br /><br />In alerts (not just 'please find enclosed' but also the many more 'please note's and 'please be aware' and the like), the difference isn't just the 'please' but the use of an imperative at all. That is, the difference between BrE & AmE isn't 'please find attached' and 'please note' versus 'find attached' and 'note', it's the difference between marking the utterance as a directive and not marking it as such. That reminds me of someone (I think Kate Fox, but I can't find it--it was possibly in the context of talking about 'sorry') that the British often act as if they don't have the right to interact with others, and so (my words, not theirs) have to verbally mitigate the very fact of their existence and their desire to interact. Giving a directive isn't usually seen as mitigation, but it does make explicit the fact that there is an implicit directive in anything we say. So, maybe what it does in cases like 'please note' is to essentially 'claim the floor' for what follows. Rather than presumptuously assuming that the other person will listen to them, the speaker/writer calls for their attention. Sounds presumptuous/bossy in American because the addressee is claiming the authority to give the other directive. But maybe doesn't sound (as?) bossy in BrE because without it the authority to make an indirect directive is assumed? Dunno. <br /><br />It makes some sense in my head, if not in this comment! What do you think?lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-88498473006684523752015-09-11T15:13:01.292+01:002015-09-11T15:13:01.292+01:00I think I've come to a conclusion about please...I think I've come to a conclusion about <i>please</i> and the trouble it sometimes causes. <br /><br /><i>Please</i>,I now reckon, has <b>two</b> functions — unusually but nat always compatible.<br /><br />FUNCTION ONE (the obvious one) <br />a <b>discourse marker</b> signalling a REQUEST (as opposed to an order, instruction etc)<br /><br />FUNCTION TWO<br />a <b>relationship marker</b> comparable to <i>Madam</i> or to <i>Dr Murphy</i> rather then <i>Lynne</i><br /><br /><i>Please</i> and <i>Madam</i> are signals of respect when addressing strangers. They contrast with signals of solidarity, of which <br />• some are narrowly geographical such as <i>love</i> and <i>mi duck</i> <br />• some rather gendered such as <i>my dear</i> (although this is going out of favour) and <i>my friend</i><br /><br />No BrE or AmE speaker objects when the two functions go together in <br />• <b>a respectful request to a stranger</b> <i>Could you pass the salt please?</i><br />• <b>a non-threatening, well-mannered request to a non-stranger</b> <i>Pass the salt please</i><br /><br />BrE and AmE part company when an utterance <b>masquerades</b> as a request<br />• <b>an indirect order</b> to a restaurant kitchen through a waiter/waitress<br />• <b>an alert</b> to the recipient of a document with enclosures etc<br /><br />In these cases, BrE embraces <i>please</i> as <b>relationship marker</b>. AmE sees little use as it can't mark a <b>request</b><br /><br />A speaker of either dialect may feel discomfort when the utterance is ambiguous — open to interpretation as <br />• a request <br />• something less challenging such as a genuine question <i>Would it be technically possible to update the document that's currently online?</i><br />• a deliberate fudge concealing an implicit request <i>Is there any way that we</i> [sic!] <i>could get the new version up there instead?</i><br /><br />In the second two cases, the speaker's politeness strategy is to <b>avoid making a request</b> (well, avoid an explicit request). FUNCTION ONE of <i>please</i> would run counter to that intention.<br /><br />In these cases <i>please</i> is potentially unsettling because FUNCTION ONE precludes any non-request interpretationDavid Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-41641027798754063382015-09-11T01:53:22.097+01:002015-09-11T01:53:22.097+01:00Lynne, I'm not too happy with please there as...Lynne, I'm not too happy with <i>please</i> there as a BrE utterance — for much the same reason.<br /><br />To make it an unambiguous non-request (or a heavily disguised indirect request), I could replace <i>Could it be updated?</i> with <i>Would it be possible to update it?</i><br /><br />This ploy would totally misfire with the wording <i>Would it be possible to update it please?</i>David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-70303499546894499762015-09-11T00:22:48.806+01:002015-09-11T00:22:48.806+01:00Yes, I could see that I could put the 'please&...Yes, I could see that I could put the 'please' there in BrE, but to my AmE sensibilities, that's precisely where it makes it sound bossy. It would take something that isn't a direct request and make it into one. I just couldn't bring myself to do that because of the presumptuousness. <br /><br />The presumptive 'thanks' is one that I do worry about when using it in UK. I started to write here about it, but I think it deserves its own blog post. lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-5303470399290468882015-09-10T23:59:46.219+01:002015-09-10T23:59:46.219+01:00Emilio
Adding thanks is a dangerous strategy in E...Emilio<br /><br />Adding <i><b>thanks</b></i> is a dangerous strategy in English. It may come across as friendly, but there's always the danger that it may appear to ba a <b>presumption</b>.<br /><br />When I was a small boy, some English speakers (typically bureaucrats) still wrote <i>Your humble and obedient servant</i>, but this hasn't been an acceptable sign-off for half a century and more.<br /><br />The problem is that you can have <b>too many</b> politeness markers. Lynne's first instinct was to use what goes under the delightful term I've recently discovered a <b>whimperative</b> replacing an imoerative with a question form using a modal verb: <i>Could you ... ?</i>.<br /><br />Actually, there's nothing in BrE to disallow a whimperative followed by <i>please</i>. It would be unexceptional to ask <i>Could you pass the salt please?</i>. The problem lies, I believe, not in any linguistic rules of politeness but in the nature of the request. It's nobody's job to pass alt to a fellow diner, but it <b>is</b> that woman's job to maintain the website. For that added <i>please</i> to sound appropriate, it would be better for Lynne to preface the whimperative+please with something to mark it as a sincere request, not a disguised instruction. Something along the lines of:<br /><br /><i>I realise it isn't part of your job but ...<br />I'm sorry make extra work for you but ...<br />I know it's a bore but ...<br />As a special favour to me, ...</i><br /><br />That said, it's usually perfectly safe to add <i>please</i> or even <i>thanks</i> to a <b><i>spoken</i></b> request because the tone of voice identifies the utterance as a genuine request, a disguised instruction or whatever.<br /><br />So why it is dodgy to use please with <i>Could it be updated?</i> but fine with <i>Steak and chips</i> or <i>Find enclosed ...</i> or <i>Pass the salt</i>? I can only suggest that <i>please</i> is a risk-free marker with utterances that are unambiguous requests or unambiguous non-requestsDavid Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-54585681921035672262015-09-10T22:30:53.644+01:002015-09-10T22:30:53.644+01:00Sorry, Lynne. This is what the sensible portion of...Sorry, Lynne. This is what the sensible portion of my brain wanted to express in the first instance:<br /><br />About your 10 September P.S.: A literal translation of “So...could the online version be updated to this please?” into Spanish would sound impatiently (or even fussily) bossy. My choice would have been “So...could the online version be updated to this? Thanks!”<br /><br />Again, your most faithful humble servant.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762196203762970377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-44563330961253996432015-09-10T22:09:58.797+01:002015-09-10T22:09:58.797+01:00@ Emilio:
Would be have been? Ha! Ha!@ Emilio:<br /><br />Would be have been? Ha! Ha!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762196203762970377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-64409964152178114332015-09-10T18:42:15.398+01:002015-09-10T18:42:15.398+01:00About your 10 September P.S.: A literal translatio...About your 10 September P.S.: A literal translation in Spanish would sound impatiently (or even fussily) bossy. My choice would be have been “So...could the online version be updated to this? Thanks!”<br />Your most faithful humble servant.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762196203762970377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-61819155783316423952015-09-02T19:10:21.455+01:002015-09-02T19:10:21.455+01:00One use of please that I have found myself using a...One use of please that I have found myself using a lot is in the response to questions.<br /><br />"Would you like a receipt?"<br />"Please." (with the implied "Yes")<br /><br />I doubt this is particularly AmE or BrE, but while I still conform to most of the American thoughts about "Please", particularly in restaurants, I DO find myself saying Please quite a lot.Billnoreply@blogger.com