The more I think about it, the more I realize the “no problem” rant is stupid.
“No problem” means “don’t worry, you haven’t caused me any problem, and I have therefore been happy to be of service.”
Furthermore, though this is what it means, it will clearly be said (by a polite person) even if there was a problem. This means the expression is used as one of real subservience. You are guaranteed a “no problem” whether you’ve caused a problem or not.
What is objectionable about that from your consumer-type point of view? You’ve got someone pretending to have been happy to do whatever you said.
I know you also talked about their not smiling at you etc. But I’m just talking about the “no problem” portion of your rant, as it seemed to be phrased in a way implying it could stand by itself as making its own independent point.
If you read it literally by its semantics, “No problem” presumes you are the kind of person who cares about others’ problems. Meanwhile, “You’re welcome” does not so presume, and in fact, arguably presumes you do not care abou others’ problems. (Since by saying “you’re welcome” you are inviting the other to disregard any problem they might cause for you.)
“You’re welcome” then should be something you say to someone you suspect to be an ass. “No problem” should be something you say to someone you suspect to be kind.
It took a day or two to get to the reference books, but I guess I needn’t have worried about this thread sinking off the page. There are a lot of strong feelings about this, but without much authority cited. Tom and Canadjun, I know that you offered cites, but to me etymology is not synonymous with etiquette. There may be a definition for overalls as work clothes, but no one would presume to imply that that meant they were acceptable in a business office.
So, let’s go to the authorities. Unfortunately there was no copier available, but I will quote the source and a brief synopsis. All sources are latest edition, and the books include references (for example) to correct email and internet conduct, non-traditional relationships, etc., so they are not outdated or antiquated by any means.
Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior. (Judith Martin) p.204
“You’re welcome” is the only correct response to “Thank you”. She offers “No problem” as an unauthorized response. For those unfamiliar with Ms. Martin’s dry wit, she also offers “Hey! Coming through!” as an unauthorized response to “Excuse me”, and “I’m sorry you feel that way” as an unauthorized response to “I’m sorry”.
In fact, she really focuses on a rather small selection of words as the cornerstone of civility: “Please”, “Thank you”, “You’re welcome”, “I’m sorry”, “Excuse me”. Not unlike the list our parents taught us when we were growing up, I’m sure.
Emily Post’s Etiquette (updated by Peggy Post) p.286
“You’re welcome” is the logical response to “Thank you”. One should accept thanks with grace to encourage others to continue to be polite, so one should think twice before replying “No problem”.
The Amy Vanderbilt Complete Book of Etiquette p.495
She really doesn’t mention “No problem”. She does, however, say that one should avoid “Have a nice day” in oral communications in the workplace. I can’t for the life of me believe that she would accept “No problem” if she didn’t accept “Have a nice day”.
Which forces me to retract an earlier comment made earlier. I had read an etiquette column years ago which stated that a positive response to “Thank you” (“You’re welcome”, “Have a nice day”) is always preferable to a denial of a negative (“No problem”). In the absence of that column, and in the light of this reading, I believe that there is no acceptable response to “Thank you” than “You’re welcome”. Apology below.
If anyone is able to produce opposing cites from those who are accepted as knowledgable in the rules of etiquette, I hope that they will be posted here.
Actually, no. I’m referring to an emotional reaction, not a logical one. Logic would dictate that the most efficient way to ingest sustenance would be to shovel food into our mouths without benefit of utensils. Emotion dictates that, however much we might want to be that person’s drycleaner, we will never go to dinner with that person again. Etiquette deals with social interaction, which has much more to do with emotion that with logic.
My original post (#111) and my follow-up post (#130) were civil enough for any forum on this board, despite this being The Pit. Canadjun, Tomndebb and Hippy Hollow all seemed to be quite capable of disagreeing with my post in their responses without making it personal. In fact, Tom later responded again, and although he seemed a bit irritated with my faulty grammar, he (as usual) kept the tone civil.
However, in post #133, you implied that I was petty and insignificant, and called me a Grand Poohbah and a nitpicker. In post #134, mhendo called me a nitpicking moron. Seeing as we are not in a business relationship where mutual respect is expected, or in another forum where civil discourse is required, I offer no apologies for responding in kind. If I offended anyone else, I do apologize (see below).
I have no idea what you’re on about. I can’t tell from your location tag if you’re in the UK, but here in the States we don’t have a lot of use for class structure. You seem to be implying once again that etiquette is only for the pretentious.
When you see the doctor, you may want to ask about that cough as well.
No, I owe VT an apology.
I originally took your response to “Have a nice day” as quite serious, and I should have realized that you were treating the whole subject with your usual humor. Your response to me was brilliant, and this post above is comedy genius. And, of course: You were quite correct. “Have a nice day” is no more acceptable than “No problem”. I humbly beg your pardon and beg your forgiveness.
I agree that etiquette has as much to do with emotion as logic.
But you specifically said, earlier in this thread:
You repeated this argument on numerous occasions. It’s not merely an appeal to emotion, but a (rather poor) attempt to find some internal linguistic logic to support your emotional preferences.
As i said, and as you conveniently ignored, “You’re welcome” can just as easily be conditional. Telling someone they are welcome implies, in much the same way as “no problem,” that there would be some circumstances where they would not, in fact, be welcome.
Of course, as tomndebb pointed out, these social conventions often become detached from the specific literal meaning of the words anyway, and tend to be repeated by rote. The intention behind them, and the manner in which they are conveyed, is often as important as the words themselves.
The problem for you is that you run into trouble whether you take either side of the issue. If you insist on hewing to the literal definition of the words being used, and to their logical linguistic implications, then “You’re welcome” is no less “conditional” (your rather messy term) than “No problem” or even “Have a nice day.”
But if you accept that the literal meaning isn’t the only issue, and that common usage and intent matter, then either is perfectly acceptable.
And trotting out Emily Post and Miss Manners adds no weight to your argument. Sure it’s a citation, of sorts. But from people whom i, and many others, do not consider to be the final word on the acceptable parameters of human interaction. As i said earlier, i don’t care whether you like “No problem” or not; you’re perfectly welcome to avoid using it. Just stop trying to pretend that “You’re welcome” has some sort of objective merit that “No problem” lacks.
First, thank you for the civility of your response. I’ll endeavor to do the same.
I think that your response above may illustrate the divide between our thinking. So let me phrase it this way:
In writing, various style guides will usually differ in their exact interpretation of a particular usage, but are generally agreed as to the rules to be followed. While many choose not to follow these rules in casual conversation, the rules are important in business communications.
If a group of SDMB members felt that some language usage was correct in a formal setting, and if it was demonstrated to them that that usage was not acceptable according to any style guide, I believe that most would accept that they were incorrect.
As has been mentioned by many above, language and etiquette are intermingled. In the same vein, I believe that the same rules of etiquette need not be followed with close and personal friends or family as should be followed in a business setting.
Remembering that the OP addressed a business transaction, I think that the cites provided exactly address the topic at hand. Exactly whom do you consider to be the final word? Popular opinion? If so, then should we let “irregardless” and “mute point” slide? (On preview, I recognize that sounds a bit snarky, but that was not my intent.) At any rate, these are authors who have sold hundreds of thousands of books, and have credibility and authority. And if you accept that (and it sounds like you do not), then yes, “You’re welcome” does have merits that “No problem” does not.
We’re not talking about business communication (in the sense of suits meeting to close a deal) or formal setting. We’re talking about getting offended when the McDonald’s cashier or JC Penney’s clerk says “No problem” in response to “Thank you.” (Note that the OP griped about retail workers, not colleagues or business associates.)
I think few here would argue that in formal situations, “No problem” doesn’t cut it. But these are not formal situations. They are polite and friendly interactions, or should be, but polite and formal are not interchangeable.
It may be that you think any transaction involving money in exchange for goods should be considered formal business transactions, with all that implies, but that would be where the line between the sides is drawn, I believe.
Or what? What happens if we don’t let those words slide? We bitch at people? We throw a fit in the Pit and get hit with shit?
People keep acting as if they and their noble language are the only thing standing between us and anarchy! Death! Destruction! Fruit pies with no real fruit!
I don’t disagree, although i wouldn’t use the term “business communications.” I would, instead, draw a distinction between formal and informal settings, and communications. A setting can be formal, without being business, and it can also be informal and business.
They would probably accept that they were incorrect to use such language in a formal setting, but might argue that it was still fine to use it in an informal setting. There may even be some who would argue for broader acceptability, but i’ll leave the more radical descriptivists like Left Hand of Dorkness to argue their own positions.
Well, if you can’t discern any difference between a formal business environment, on the one hand, and an everyday retail transaction in a grocery store or supermarket, on the other, then i guess we have very little left to talk about.
Because, for me, everyday retail interactions are informal affairs, casual encounters that have no special importance and no momentous implications for the future. I don’t enter such situations with any particular expectations about the character of the people that i’m dealing with, and i don’t expect them to do anything more than process my transaction in an efficient manner. Sure, it’s nice if our exchange is pleasant, but i draw no inference about the person’s level of politeness or professionalism from their choice among the idioms we have been discussing.
As i said earlier in the thread, i’ve run into service workers who can make “You’re welcome” or “Have a nice day” sound like a mortal insult. If they’re not rude or abrupt with me, then i’m happy; if they’re pleasant and friendly, all the better. And in either case, i don’t care whether they say “No problem” or “You’re welcome” in response to my thanks.
Firstly, that’s a poor comparison. Those are matters of grammar, not just etiquette. I’m not saying one is more important than the other, only that they’re not the same thing.
Second, i like to think that if a service worker or someone else i encountered in my day to day activities used a term like “irregardless” or “mute point,” it wouldn’t worry me in the slightest, and i like to think that i would have the courtesy not to point out their grammatical faux pas. And anyone who would correct a stranger over that sort of thing is a jackass of the highest order, IMO.
I’m a big fan of correct grammar in formal settings. I correct the grammar and usage on my students’ papers all the time, and if one of them used a term like “irregardless” or “mute point” i would let them know that this was incorrect, and would demonstrate the appropriate usage. My own take on grammar and usage, especially in formal settings, tends to lean more to the prescriptivist than the descriptivist side, and i sometimes bitch and moan about the decline of good grammar in what (IMO) should be considered formal settings, like news reports.
But i also recognize that, for the most part, we can understand what people mean in everyday situations even when they use words and phrases that we would not choose for ourselves. It’s clear to me, if i say thankyou and the person behind the cash register gives a cheery “No problem,” that the meaning behind their words is functionally identical to “You’re welcome.” And if i ask a waiter for a beer, and he says “No problem,” it’s clear to me that he means exactly the same thing as if he’d said “Yes, i’ll bring you one.” I don’t get why this is such a problem for some people.
But, by all means, spend your life correcting random strangers on their grammar and usage, or make smartass comments like blinkingblinking’s “Why would it be a problem?” Just don’t be surprised if it makes your life harder rather than easier.
Personally, i think Miss Manners is hopelessly antiquated and self-important. But there is a kernel of truth on the page you quote. She says, at the very beginning of that chapter:
This is correct.
The problem is that some people are apparently too hidebound and obtuse to appreciate that, like many other aspects of language, the code words of goodwill can change or be augmented over time. Now, in Miss Manners’ case, her stodgy ahistoricism has a very understandable economic motive—she wants to remain an authority and continue selling books to people who feel the need to be told how to act. What’s your excuse?
At any rate, sure. Plynck asks who should be the final word on whether a response is appropriate. My answer? I’ll give that final word to the same person who decides whether a particular recipe for cherry pie is appropriate, or whether a particular book is good, or whether a particular song is mellifluous.
That is, nobody, or rather, anybody. There is no “final word” on the subject. There is nobody who gets to dictate linguistic patterns, recipes, literature, or melodies for the rest of the world. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else for satisfaction.
Someone says “no problem,” and it pisses you off so much that you stew about it for days? Fine. Go shop elsewhere. Someone says, “you’re welcome,” and it pisses you off so much that you stew about it for days? Fine. Go shop elsewhere. Easy peasy.
But don’t pretend that the Ancient God of Correctness, as Channeled By His Avatar Emily Post, backs you up. No such god exists.
If, however, you MUST pretend that such a god exists, then reread the scripture. Specifically, Plynck, look up what Pope Post says about calling people on their supposedly poor manners, as did blinkingsquared.
Plynck, if you feel that your life is best spent picking the motes out of others’ eyes (leetle tiny motes, at that) and getting up in a snit about it and spending a bunch of time researching what The Goddesses of Etiquette themselves have deemed acceptable, you go right ahead.
I think it’s a pitiful waste of time, energy, and goodwill, but hey, everybody has to have a hobby.
[Jaw’s theme]Just when you all thought this had safely sunk off the page…[/Jaw’s theme]
Bolding mine, but I’ll address it later.
I agree that this is where we disagree, although your point about politeness and formality is well argued. I don’t believe that the financial magnitude of the transaction dictates the formality; it is whether the interaction is between two people who know each other, or between those who are strangers. In your example, two suits who have been working together for some time to close a deal may develop a close relationship, knowing each other’s likes, dislikes, family, etc. On the other hand, it is rare that someone serving food, punching a register, or selling an appliance actually knows the customer. There is a difference between friendly behavior, and friendship. While “no problem” might be perfectly acceptable among friends (heck, “knucklehead” might be acceptable among friends), it is not between strangers. Obviously if one has been eating breakfast at the same diner for years, for example, a friendship may well develop between the proprietor and the customers. This seems to be a lot more prevalent in smaller towns where everyone knows everyone else. But then at that point they aren’t strangers, are they?
With respect to my bolding above: I believe that you were only talking in generalities above about people taking “offence”, but others were far more explicit in attributing that response to me. There is very little about language usage that offends me. I believe that the most I expressed was some rueful resignation that this is where etiquette has led us. As many have said here, including me (albeit clumsily), I recognize that there is no ill will, and in fact there is usually every intent of politeness when I am in a business transaction with someone who may phrase something incorrectly. And yes, intent is what we ultimately should recognize when judge the interaction. I only take offence when language is deliberately used to offend, intimidate, humiliate or otherwise abase another person. In a previous poster’s commentary, he did just that in responding to what was probably an innocent and well intended comment, trying to deliberately humiliate a (probably) harried and busy service person. There is no doubt in my mind that his reaction was the offensive one. I would no more dream of correcting someone performing their job for saying “No problem” than I would dream of saying “No problem” myself.
And as you went on talking at some length, I assume that by “we” you were referring to me. Still, that’s fine with me. After I respond, of course…
And as I do no such thing, I will assume that this was fired into the air, and not aimed at me.
Oh gosh, it was aimed at me! If by random strangers you mean fellow Dopers, then get used to it. Grammar and usage corrections take place around here on a daily basis. If you are talking about me correcting service personnel, then I await your apology.
I do find it interesting that, on a board that has made “Cite?” a motto, there is a mad rush to discredit three established and reputable sources when they doesn’t happen to fit your own view of the world.
Kernel of truth notwithstanding? And these sheeple differ from people who rely on style guides……how?
Hmmm… Fighting ignorance?
And this differs from any other debates on the SDMB……how? Still, follow the history of the conversation if you are able. My comments were civil until you chose to change the tone. The snit is all yours.
In keeping with the religious theme: I’m sure the view is terrific up there, Daniel, but pace yourself; Easter is still a few weeks away. Look above to my comment to mhendo. I have never done such a thing, and also await your apology.
I’m a radical descriptivist! Awesome!