Comments on: Should you pay for someone else’s lunch? http://www.greengar.com/2009/12/should-you-pay-for-someone-elses-lunch/ Simple, fun, useful Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:34:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: jb http://www.greengar.com/2009/12/should-you-pay-for-someone-elses-lunch/comment-page-1/#comment-585 jb Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:41:59 +0000 http://www.greengar.com/?p=166#comment-585 It is so easy to be ambiguous, but so hard to be clear with intentions. "can I take you to lunch?" implies I am buying. "can we have lunch?, do you want lunch?" are open ended. "Who's buying" should have been cleared on the outset. Replying, "You buying?" solves the question instantly and allows everyone to enjoy lunch without the inevitable anxiety accompanied by the check. When finished with lunch, "Can I buy your lunch, or would you prefer to split it?" can set you up as cheap, but adding motivation resolves intent: "i wouldn't want to create a situation where you might feel obliged to reciprocate or give an appearance of impropriety with your constituents or shareholders." would resolve the very valid conflict presented by the first commentator. Aren't many government officials prevented from accepting lunches for that very reason? English can be both clear and ambiguous, but people are rarely clear when they speak, leaving more to the unsaid and mysterious social conventions that vary from region to region. Why is it so hard to just say what we mean? It is so easy to be ambiguous, but so hard to be clear with intentions. “can I take you to lunch?” implies I am buying. “can we have lunch?, do you want lunch?” are open ended. “Who’s buying” should have been cleared on the outset. Replying, “You buying?” solves the question instantly and allows everyone to enjoy lunch without the inevitable anxiety accompanied by the check.

When finished with lunch, “Can I buy your lunch, or would you prefer to split it?” can set you up as cheap, but adding motivation resolves intent: “i wouldn’t want to create a situation where you might feel obliged to reciprocate or give an appearance of impropriety with your constituents or shareholders.” would resolve the very valid conflict presented by the first commentator. Aren’t many government officials prevented from accepting lunches for that very reason?
English can be both clear and ambiguous, but people are rarely clear when they speak, leaving more to the unsaid and mysterious social conventions that vary from region to region. Why is it so hard to just say what we mean?

]]>