Etiquette went to a lot of trouble to invent short code-words and expressions to indicate goodwill in the daily give-and-take of life. The prime examples are "please" and "thank you," which your mother annoyingly called The Magic Words.

Miss Manners will thank you to remember that these are merely grace notes intended to soothe and excuse the jostling of one person's needs against another's. To subject them to psychological and sociological analysis is not just silly but tedious.

Nor should they be put to a truth test. It is their job to create the fiction that people who use them do not wish to disturb others and are grateful for even the smallest favors.

So naturally, during the Age of Querulousness, people started objecting to them as not just unnecessary but degrading. Even now, when society has become as graceless as those people might have wished, some still grumble.

Because the expressions ceased to be universally taught, generations grew up without learning how to use them. As the need to get along with others remains, people of goodwill are stumbling along as best they can, often with awkward or easily misunderstood substitutes.

Here, then, is a glossary of, ah, magic words. Just learn them. Please.

-- Please: Precedes any request, however trivial or perfunctory. Unauthorized replacements: "Here's what I need" or "I need you to..."

-- Thank you: Follows any granted request, however trivial or perfunctory.

(Note to Gentle Reader who argues that he is "not obliged to be profusely grateful for a person's actions or requests in the normal course of their work": No, but you are obliged to say "please" and "thank you" to them.)

-- You're welcome: Response to "thank you." Unauthorized replacements: "No problem" and "Thank YOU."

(Note to Gentle Reader who argues that "we need to assure customers that there is not anything that cannot be done to assist them": Yes, there probably is, but you can create that impression by saying "Certainly, I'd be happy to..." when the request is made, and then by cheerfully fulfilling it.)

-- No, thank you: Negative response to offers, typically of refreshments. Unauthorized replacement: "I'm fine."

-- Yes, please: Positive response to offers. Unauthorized replacement: "OK."

-- Excuse me: Preface to interrupting or otherwise inconveniencing someone. Unauthorized replacements: "Hey," "I'm just going to sneak by you here," "Coming through!" "Let me just steal that" and "Well, excuse YOU."

(Note to numerous Gentle Readers who point out that "Excuse me" is often the immediate prelude to grabbing and shoving: Deplorably true, but would you really be happier with the unannounced rude action?)

-- I'm sorry: Response to complaints about mistakes made by oneself or one's place of employment. Unauthorized replacements: "I'm sorry you feel that way," "I can see you're upset," "I wasn't here that day" and "OK, here's what you have to do..."

-- That's quite all right: Response to an apology. Can be said graciously if the apology is satisfactory or coldly if it is not. Unauthorized replacement: "Well, you ought to be."

-- Sir, Madam, Ma'am, Miss: Courtesy titles to people whose names are not known to the speaker. Unauthorized replacement: "You guys." Response to the argument that such titles makes one "feel old": Perhaps you are, but whatever your age, you can't alter it by being rude to people who treat you with dignity.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Does etiquette or tradition dictate a time when women are supposed to stop wearing engagement rings and opt for the wedding band alone?

GENTLE READER: If etiquette considered itself authorized to go around confiscating married ladies' diamond rings, Miss Manners would have long since retired in luxury on the proceeds. That is, presuming that she hadn't been shot first by the indignant victims or the gentlemen who gave them these very solid symbols of sentiment.

The only case in which etiquette insists that a lady has to surrender her engagement ring is when she breaks her engagement. After marriage, or whatever else follows, she is presumed to have fulfilled the engagement.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I'm a 30-year-old female, and normally only date one person at a time. However, since I want to get married and have children before I'm too old, I felt that I should.

I've been seeing Steve for the past year, but I keep breaking up with him because, although he is a wonderful guy, I'm not falling in love and he is. Still, Steve manages to talk me back into spending time with him, which leads back to dating.

I also have recently been on a few dates with another gentleman I will call Ray. I told Steve about this, but I haven't told Ray about the situation with Steve.

When is the appropriate time to tell Ray he's not the only person I'm dating? I'm under the impression that he thinks I'm only seeing him. Also, he seems to really like me, and I'm feeling a little pressure because he wants to spend more time with me than I'm ready for, since I don't want to jump into another exclusive relationship.

GENTLE READER: As you are not eager to spend more time with either of these gentlemen, Miss Manners assumes you are not involving them in any activity likely to lead immediately to your stated goal.

Was that a "No, of course not"? (Or did Miss Manners state this too euphemistically for you to see what on Earth she means?) In that case, no gentleman should assume that he has an exclusive arrangement with you unless you have explicitly agreed to one.

Kindness is another matter. As a hedge against dashing his ill-founded hopes, you should let drop that you have many friends, of whom he is one of the most valued.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What is a polite yet honest way to decline an invitation disguised as a party?

Generally, this party is held by a hostess who is displaying and selling products such as plastic-ware, kitchen gadgets, home decorating supplies or similar items. Not only do I find these parties boring, but equate them to a live "infomercial" that I can't turn off. I have many other ways I would prefer to spend my free time than to waste an evening away listening to a sales pitch.

I also consider it rude for a friend or acquaintance to entertain in exchange for the purchase of something, which I feel obligated to buy. It's difficult to continually make excuses for not attending and I am often invited again at a later date from the same person or an acquaintance of theirs. Although it is rude on my part to not respond to the hostess's R.S.V.P., I have resorted to that method.

GENTLE READER: Fortunately, you can be polite in this situation without being honest. Or -- before Miss Manners is accused of missing all her morals -- dishonest.

An invitation to purchase does not require an answer, or we would all be spending our lives responding to advertisements. However, the people you know may believe that they have fooled you into thinking they want your company rather than your money, and so it is politer to respond, anyway.

Nevertheless, no excuse is needed in declining an invitation, even a well-meant one. All politeness requires is responding that you cannot attend and -- admittedly stretching the truth -- to express regret.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am an attorney. From time to time, I have lunch with my colleagues, both male and female, either for business, or pleasure, or both.

When I need to excuse myself to the ladies' room, I am never sure whether to take my purse and/or coat with me or leave it at the table, especially if it is at the end of the meal. I do not want my colleagues to feel obligated to watch my personal items, but I also don't want my colleagues to feel as though I don't trust them enough to leave these things behind.

When I'm with my friends, I just leave the items at the table, but I don't know if the business setting or the gender of my colleagues alters the protocol. What is the proper thing to do?

GENTLE READER: You may be worried about your possessions, but Miss Manners is worried about your colleagues. Why do you suspect them, unlike your friends? And what, exactly, do you suspect they'll do? Rifle your purse? Sit idly by while a stranger dons your coat and marches out? Or perhaps that they'll commit the etiquette crime of leaving without warning while you are in the ladies' room?

If so, you can take your things with you without fear of giving offense. The presumption will be that you took your purse because it contains lipstick that you will reapply in the ladies' room, and your coat because you plan to put it on there. Or -- if they are as suspicious of you as you are of them -- because you plan to slip out the back door and stick them with the bill.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: We live in one state, my son is marrying in a small wedding in a second state, and they will live across the country in a third state, where he is employed by a branch of our federal justice department.

The agents in this branch take great pains to protect information about their home addresses and telephone numbers, and all mail for them is sent to an agency box number. Packages that cannot be mailed to a box are shipped to the office address.

We are helping them by arranging for engraved announcements to be mailed on the day of the wedding, in the proper traditional form with the bride's parents announcing the wedding. How could we do "at home" cards? His and our friends, in town and out, do not know where they live.

GENTLE READER: And they don't want anyone to find out. This suggests that they should not be sending out "at home" cards, as the purpose of "at home" cards is to let interested people know where a newly married couple will be living. There is no formal way of saying, "We've moved, but we're not going to tell you where."

Miss Manners supposes that you merely want to assist polite people who will want to send congratulations (or even presents, although they should not be expected from announcements). She suggests putting whatever mailing address the couple uses as a return address on the envelope.

: