[erlang-questions] 'cannot' /= 'can not'

[empro2@REDACTED]

I will try to summarise (and briefly too):

The great language keepers (Oxford, Cambridge, Collins,
Webster) mostly recommend "cannot"; they except cases in
which the "not" belongs to the following phrase. So:

	You cannot smoke here.
	You must not smoke here!
	You need not smoke here,
	though this is a smoking club.
	You can  not smoke here, but
	the others will sneer at you.
	You can not only M but also Q.
	You cannot only say A - without saying B. 

Webster gives an example for an emphasis of "not" by
splitting it off, but neglects to mention the resulting
collision. They all give the meaning of "cannot" as
'can not' instead of less confusing 'be not able/possible
to'.

So shame on them! (and a little thank-you for the
free-of-cost web service :-)


Further reading:

In the good old time (1997 CE), the subject matter seems to
have caused no question:

http://faqs.cs.uu.nl/na-dir/alt-usage-english-faq.html

For emphasis they simply used "*cannot*".

In ancient times (1987 CE), compelled by metre,
these blokes seem to have felt a need to clarify with a
"no can" at 2:43

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16bFBzx7I_0

In prehistoric times (1922 CE) there was
"to-morrow" (together with "tonight" in one sentence),

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100111.txt

and the author seems to have had no problem using:
	"he went on to collect"
	"he had got on to his camel".

So (valid for any gender):

He who is right today, may tomorrow be

https://archive.org/details/TheLastManOnEarth_72

Michael

-- 

Reasonable is that which cannot be criticised reasonably.