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

[Raimo Niskanen]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:02:43AM +0200, empro2@REDACTED wrote:
> This is only the most recent occurrence that finally
> makes me write this:
> 
> <quote>
> [erlang-questions] Patch package OTP 20.3.8.3 released
> Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:13:22 +0200
> [...]
> Note! The kernel-5.4.3.2 application can *not* be applied
>       independently of other applications on an arbitrary
>       OTP 20 installation.
> [...]
> </quote>
> 
> If it can not be applied independently then it can also be
> applied independently - which, in this case, is
> probably not what is meant. But this is guesswork, relying
> on the reader already knowing the meaning of what is
> being said, rendering the saying it much less useful.
> 
> Modals are a mess (spoken languages are, after ceturies of
> abuse like the one discussed in "[erlang-questions] Orelse
> and andalso as short-hand for case"), but they convey
> critical meaning.
> 
> Nine(?) of ten "can not"s in the Erlang docs must be
> "cannot" to convey the correct meaning. Reading the docs has
> already made me convert every "can not" I read into
> "cannot" - I mean *every*, not only those in the Erlang
> docs - and then back again (only about 1 of 10 in the
> Erlang docs). This is a real, and substantial, waste of
> post-orbital CPU cycles; not the conversion itself, but the
> distraction from understanding whatever meaning the author
> actually tries to get across.



I have tried to get a grip on this (not having English as my native
language), and found these sites seems to say that there is no difference
in meaning between "cannot" and "can not":

    https://www.dailywritingtips.com/cannot-or-can-not/
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/204006/cannot-vs-can-not
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/4510/why-is-cannot-spelled-as-one-word
    https://www.grammarly.com/blog/cannot-or-can-not/
    http://grammarist.com/usage/cannot-or-can-not/

And some of them point out that large dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster
and Oxford Dictionaries define "cannot" and "can not" to have the same
meaning:

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cannot
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cannot

But I also found this site says that it is *wrong* to use "can not" as
a replacement for "cannot" (although comments besides the article disagrees):

    https://painintheenglish.com/case/4513/

And this site says to always use "cannot" unless you have to use "can not",
but not that it is wrong to do otherwise:

    https://writingexplained.org/cannot-or-can-not-difference



It seems to me that "cannot" and "can not" *has* got the same meaning, but
that "can not" must be used in some special cases.  And now "cannot" is
so much more common to use over "can not" that if you use "can not" where
it is not necessary some readers get confused that the use is due to some
of the special cases and assumes it has a different meaning.

My point of view (until I have to alter it) is:

* "The word "can't" is an abbreviation of "cannot" that should only be used
  in informal text.
* The word "cannot" and the phrase "can not" has the same meaning.
* The phrase "can not" has to be used when the "not" is part of another
  phrase; for example "I can not only program in Erlang" where "not" is part
  of "not only".  Another example is "I can or can not program in Erlang"
  where the "not" belongs to one of the two choices "program" or "not program".
  I think it is the latter example that has spawned the point of view that
  "can not 'do something'" could indicate that there is an option to
  'do something' anyway, while "cannot 'do something'" would not allow it.
* The phrase "can not" _may_ also be used when you want to emphasize the
  "not" as making a pause when you speak it.  But some _may_ find that use
  confusing.



Therefore I do not think that the particular phrase in question:
"can *not* be applied" is in error since it emphasizes that the patch
really really cannot be applied.

But I am not against rewriting all strings, binaries and comments in the
Erlang/OTP repository to use "cannot" in favour of "can not" where possible
since it the more common usage today, and does not confuse any readers.


> 
> If someone with authority (and authorisation) could and
> would please write and run a script and convert all "can
> not" -> "cannot" in all OTP strings, binaries and comments?
> This will introduce errors, as there actually are a few,
> rare correct "can not"s, but it will correct about 9 times
> more of wrong ones that really need to be "cannot".
> 
> At least in the doc strings?
> 
> Please?

Anyone can clone the OTP repository, make the changes (with a script
if desired), and make a pull request on GitHub.

> 
> Michael
> 
> -- 
> 
> Time is not money, but money is time: life-time people have
> spent transforming their environment.
> 
> 

-- 

/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB