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

[empro2@REDACTED]

Am Tue, 24 Jul 2018 15:17:10 +0200
schrieb Marc Worrell <marc@REDACTED>:

> “Cannot” and “can not” are both acceptable spellings.

With "spellings" = 'symbols', OK, with 'encodings for the
same meaning': I am used to something else :-)


> And there is no difference in meaning.

There used to be - at least.

 
> See also:
> https://www.dailywritingtips.com/cannot-or-can-not/

So I see: hmm ... BA, PhD ... might be worthwhile ...

	Although my personal Error Alarm buzzes
	whenever I see cannot written as two words, both
	forms are acceptable usage.

Is "Error Alarm" a trademark? why the capitals? who
cares ...

But it does buzz, so "can not" must at least be unusual in
your idiolect.

	Both forms are acceptable

A strange conclusion drawn from a buzzing alarm, but this is
a contrast that started with "Although", so: who cares ...

Yes, of course, the "forms" (words? symbols?) are, but for
what meanings?

And this is a mere claim - but the following text will
surely support this claim, so:

	Merriam-Webster lists "cannot" as one word.

And looking up "can not" has you see "cannot"?

Que? These oppose your claim. This must be one more
contrast, so:

	OED, cannot is the ordinary modern way of writing
	can not

For which meaning?

	historical illustrations given for the negative in
	the OED shows cannot, can not, and even canot

	Whethir it be thus or non I can not say.

So apart from the ordinary modern way of writing
'whether' you want to say that it is also acceptable to
encode it as "whethir"? or what? This is from century 15 or
16 and etymological proof of obsolete "forms" hardly
supports your claim - not as much as it opposes it.

	The experts at AskOxford seem to prefer cannot

What an analysis of:

	Both cannot and can not are acceptable spellings
	but the first is much more usual.

Yes, more usual, more frequent, but for which meanings?

	You would use "can not" when the ‘not’ forms part of
	another construction such as ‘not only.’

At last! meaning! - but opposing your claim - again. If the
"not" forms part of a different construction, it is not
part of the "can", it is right-associative. If such a
construction happens to be preceded by a "can", it does not
change the meaning of "can" but is itself modified by it,
becomes an ability, a choice, an option. Any resulting "can
not" is a mere collocation of two words, not an acceptable
alternative spelling of "cannot".

Why do you keep contradicting your own premise ...?

	The Washington State University language site says:
	These two spellings [cannot/can not] are largely
	interchangeable

OK, support, at last (though it looks like ['(cannot/can)
not'] due to the missing space around the solidus, but that
does not make sense and who cares about typography anyway,
so: backtrack), but lo!

	but by far the most common is “cannot”

So: puff! *support vanishes in a cloud of smoke*
(not completely, I admit)

	you should probably use it

"should probably"? Like: 'roll dice'? or 'do not ask me'?

	except when you want to be emphatic: “No, you can
	not wash the dog in the Maytag.”

Sounds like "Yes, I can!" - "No, you can'not!" (with the '
imitating an IPA emphasis mark). So the sole exception is
merely a badly encoded shift of emphasis in the
pronunciation of the word "cannot". Do they also suggest we
now write "No, im port, not ex port"?

	Bottom line 
	There’s no difference in meaning between cannot and
	can not.

Well, yes, there is and more than "largely" and more
certainly than "probably" - and according to your own
argumentation. One of the only two more or less supporting
arguments is clearly restricted to a wish of expressing
emphasis. And it is not complete:

"Yes, you can 'not wash the dog and go fishing instead, but
then I will have it washed professionally and you will have
to pay the bill." (Which is not so bad in Washington
state, as there one can pay bills with bills ;-)


> Could it be that you see “can not only” where it says
> “can not” ?

I see someone telling me of an option to omit, a
possibility of not doing, an ability to avoid.

Why did I get along for 30 years and only now (2 or 3
years?), reading the Erlang docs, my mapping crumbles? I
think the "largely" in that article above is even larger and
the "probably" almost 'always' - but not for much longer
as colloquial usage seems to have changed already. Languages
do change (and there are words that mean one thing and the
opposite) but rendering of such prosodic emphasis like that
in the example above is not part of the Erlang
documentation, nor should it be. The modal verbs and "not"
convey much too much meaning to become poetic and mess
around with them.

But it appears I am too late - and old, and my idiolect may
be outdated or outdating (which is not to be confused with
"out dating" ;-).

People think there was a "must not" but there is not: there
is only a "must" = 'have to' used in both 'must (do)' and
'must (not do)'; the obligation itself is never negated:
"must not go" = 'have to stay', /= 'do not have to go'.

Though the syntax suggests left associativeness of the
"not", even "mustn't do" solely means 'have to (not do)'.

Or am I already outdated here too? Does anyone here happen
to read
	"can  not do" = '(not able to) do'
	"must not do" = '(not have to) do'?

This one

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

defines neither CAN nor CANNOT nor CAN NOT. To avoid all
this confusion?

But if people with a BA in English and a PhD in literature
write "dailywritingtips" like the one I commented
on above: who cares? :-)

Michael

-- 

If a bank in need of money is systematically important,
then that system is not important.