May Not Post To The Usa

[RWL]

I'm not actively searching for another concertina but I do follow the eBay postings. With increasing frequency I see the notation "May not post to the USA", mostly from UK sellers. Has something changed? Why are they restricting sales to anyone except the USA?

[MatthewVanitas]

a) that's "may not" as in "maybe not" as opposed to "shan't". (Is that a dialect nuance?)

 

it's not necessarily singling out the US; likely it's noting you're in the US, noting the seller only checked the box for UK or UK/Europe so it's telling you "hey US customer, this guy hasn't said anything about shipping to the US, so maybe we won't ship to you, best to check."

Edited October 31, 2014 by MatthewVanitas

[Peter Laban]

You're probably using the US ebay site. They will inform you seller 'may not' post to your country. I don't think it's a matter of sellers indicating they won't specifically sell to the US.

 

Looking at this from the other side, most US based auctions tell me sellers won't (or 'may not') post to Ireland. Which, I am sure, isn't because the sellers singled out the country as a non-destination.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Peter Laban

[Mike Franch]

Things would be clearer if listings used "might not" rather than "may not." Our language seems to have lost that distinction, although the use of "may" for "might" goes way back, so we lost it a long time ago. Still, as this discussion shows, it's a helpful distinction.

[Mikefule]

Although historically, "might" was used for the past tense.

 

I think that the problem is that "may not" is indecisive rather than unclear. It would be best to write, "Will not". I think in each individual case, the vendor may have different reasons. It may be little more than being lazy about calculating the postage, or it may be fear of falling foul of some US import regulations that they don't understand.

[RAc]

.

Edited March 4, 2016 by RAc

[Anglo-Irishman]

Although historically, "might" was used for the past tense.

 

What about, "Don't set your Edeophone on the table - it might roll off!"

 

That's how we'd have said it in the middle of the last century, anyway.

 

I think "Might not ship to the [your country]" would be better. Less ambiguous.

 

Cheers,

John

[Mikefule]

May/might are part of an irregular verb and the rules are unconventional and not the same in every dialect.

 

Your edeophone "may" roll off the table means that it is a possibility in the future. People get confused over "may" because of the way that the word is often associated with a request for permission as in, "May I borrow...".

 

Might is also used these days in roughly the same way to mean that something is a possibility in the future. However, historically, it was definitely the past tense. I can only think of one comparable example, and that is archaic: "hight" which is the past tense of an old verb meaning "to be called". The only example of this I can give off the top of my head is, "The castle that hight Terrabil" from Le Mort d'Arthur.

[RWL]

It makes sense that "May not" just means that the seller didn't specifically check off the box for shipping to other parts of the world than the UK. Here is what I was seeing:

http://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/e11021.m43.l3160/7?euid=718724ca7dcf4f06a2c4833f1e45681b&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.co.uk%2Fws%2FeBayISAPI.dll%3FViewItem%26item%3D281483385447%26ssPageName%3DADME%3ASS%3ASS%3AUS%3A3160&exe=9844&ext=24778&sojTags=exe=exe,ext=ext

On the other hand I also see ones like this:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Lachenal-48-Key-English-Concertina-Requires-A-Complete-Restoration-/281483385447?ssPageName=ADME:SS:SS:US:3160

 

That seller highlights in red that s/he's not selling in the USA.

In another forum I used to participate in, one of the members was a used machinery dealer and because of problems with Canadian customs he wouldn't ship to Canada. I had wondered if there were some problem with our US regulations that was inhibiting sales to us.

[JimLucas]

In another forum I used to participate in, one of the members was a used machinery dealer and because of problems with Canadian customs he wouldn't ship to Canada. I had wondered if there were some problem with our US regulations that was inhibiting sales to us.

 

I'd be surprised if there weren't.

 

Which, by the way, is another example of what you folks seem to be confused about: The form of the verb ("weren't") is the same as the past tense, but its usage expresses potential or possibility (there's a proper grammatical term, but right now I can't remember it) rather than certainty or fact... and in the future, not the past. This usage to express potential can be applied to virtually any verb, and it always has the same form as the past tense, but it's meaning is different.

 

Another example of this usage, and a very common one, would be, "If he went to the store, he would buy some ice cream." One could say, "If he goes to the store, he will buy some ice cream," but using "went" is both proper and common for expressing that the occurrence is both in the future and uncertain.

[Anglo-Irishman]

May/might are part of an irregular verb and the rules are unconventional and not the same in every dialect.

 

Yes, divided by the common language, and all that!

 

My usage of "might" to refer to a future possibility is also found in the well-known song:

 

"Are ye right, there, Michael, are ye right?

Do ye think that we'll get there before the night?"

"Sure, it's all depending whether

The oul' engine holds together,

And it might, now, Michael, so it might!"

 

I've always regarded this as perfectly normal English usage, but perhaps it's only normal in Ireland.

 

As to the word for "to be called" (akin to the German "heissen"), the start of Chaucer's "The Knight's Tale" comes to mind:

"Whilom, as olde stories tellen us,

Ther was a Duc that highte Theseus ..."

 

But that was long before there were concertinas that might have rolled off tables ...

 

Cheers,

John

[Stephen Chambers]

It doesn't help that "may not" can also mean "not allowed to"...

[Mike Pierceall]

Of course, not 'shipping' to the USA is not the same as not 'selling' to the USA.

[Wolf Molkentin]

 

In another forum I used to participate in, one of the members was a used machinery dealer and because of problems with Canadian customs he wouldn't ship to Canada. I had wondered if there were some problem with our US regulations that was inhibiting sales to us.

 

I'd be surprised if there weren't.

 

Which, by the way, is another example of what you folks seem to be confused about: The form of the verb ("weren't") is the same as the past tense, but its usage expresses potential or possibility (there's a proper grammatical term, but right now I can't remember it) rather than certainty or fact... and in the future, not the past. This usage to express potential can be applied to virtually any verb, and it always has the same form as the past tense, but it's meaning is different.

 

Another example of this usage, and a very common one, would be, "If he went to the store, he would buy some ice cream." One could say, "If he goes to the store, he will buy some ice cream," but using "went" is both proper and common for expressing that the occurrence is both in the future and uncertain.

 

Isn't it just that some forms of subjunctive are spelled and pronounced same as certain forms of indicative (of a different tense then)? That's would apply to the German language as well...

 

edited to add: may / might would be particular insofar as "may" already has sort of a subjunctive meaning (which, well, might be strengthened by using the subjunctive form)...

Edited November 5, 2014 by blue eyed sailor