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

[empro2@REDACTED]

Am Tue, 24 Jul 2018 13:16:22 +0000
schrieb Hugo Mills <hugo@REDACTED>:

> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:02:43AM +0200, empro2@REDACTED
> wrote:

> > If it can not be applied independently then it can also
> > be applied independently
> 
>    Eh? In no way is that the implication here.

I know, this is why I continued thus:

> > - which, in this case, is
> > probably not what is meant. But this is guesswork,

Of course this was not pure "guesswork", but I had to
backtrack and rule out the wrong meaning, even if only to
double-check that the already automatic conversion "can
not" -> "cannot" was correct in this case.


> "can *not*", to me as a native speaker of the
> language, is the same as "cannot", with additional
> emphasis. I've been trying to identify other meanings
> using alternative readings or logical inference, but none
> of them come naturally, or would make any sense.

So:
	"can not do" /= 'able to not do'
	"can not do"  = 'not able to do'
	"cannot do"   = 'not able to do'?

Two ways to encode the latter and a need to paraphrase
the first one?

Is there not a reason for people to have invented "cannot"
and (obsolete) "canot" and (slang) "no can": Expression of
different semantics with different syntax?


> You're asking for a change which makes no difference
> whatsoever.

No difference between left and right associative "not"?

	I can (not go to their wedding). (There is no law
	that makes me have to see that person.)

	I (cannot) go to their wedding. (I will be on
	a different* continent on that day.)

	* I try to avoid "another", as it is ambiguous,
	  though it may "feel" more "natural". "Bring me
	  another beer!" - "Do you want a different kind or
	  only one more?" ;->

I wish I could right now find a "can not" in the docs
that cannot be "cannot", to put it in here, but they are so
rare ...

And I am aware that people on this list do not belong to
those myriad of native speakers to whom these sets appear to
be semantical equivalents already: ["you're" |"your"],
["then" | "than"], ["there" | "their" | "they're"].

I do not want to add ["cannot" | "can not"] :-)

Michael

-- 

Reasonable is that which cannot be criticised reasonably.