Cannot: Why one word? (can't vs. cannot vs. can not)

[Elz]

How would I would I change the word Can't in this saying...would I use can not or cannot? I have read many of the comments and I am still not 100%

Be it a boy or a girl, we simply can’t say.
So let’s shower the mommy
before the delivery day!

thanks

[OxfordBlues]

you could say either can not or cannot in this case. I believe the point made above is that 'can not' may be used when the speaker needs to say that 'not doing something' is possible.

Observe:

We can go to the cinema.

We can NOT go to the cinema and stay home and watch a movie for a lot less! (caps added to show emphasis on here only)
_________________
There's no such thing as an exception to the rule...

My blog: http://calleteach.wordpress.com

[Kitosdad]

Cannot is used as one word in most situations, but as OB says, you separate it into two words to add emphasis;

"No, you can NOT go to the party!"
"No, you can NOT have my car keys!"
_________________
Keep it simple ... Keep it interesting.

[Rummidge]

Interesting discussion. I'm not decided either way, but I have some misgivings about the notion that "cannot" is different in kind from "will not," "should not," etc. I'd be interested in people's take on these two issues:

1) In one post (#15), Logical (champion of difference in kind) writes at one point: "Can it not be both ways?"

Is this just a case of "cannot" being divisible in certain constructions? Or does (not) this construction (not) suggest that "can not" is in fact closer to the other modals than Logical allows?

(If the former: How would one distinguish (in writing) the interrogative forms of "It cannot be both ways" and "It can not be both ways"? Would one have to use "Cannot it be both ways" to turn the first statement into a question?)

2) The sentence "I cannot not pay my rent and live in my home" seems to have persuaded some that "cannot" is special. I'm not sure, however, that the awkwardness of 2 "not"s in a row isn't what makes this example seem powerful, rather than the underlying logic. One could similarly say:

I should not not pay my rent, or they'll kick me out.
(or, "I shouldn't not pay my rent," colloquially)

I don't see that the "cannot not pay rent" example is especially compelling or unique in making Logical's case.

I (can ((not pay)) rent and continue to support you at the same time.
I (can (not (not pay))) my rent and and continue to live in my home.

The logic's the same. And it's the same, it seems to me, as:

I (should (not pay)) rent.
I (should (not (not pay))) rent.

---
Maybe "cannot" is preferable to "can not," but I'm not sure its logical distinction from "should not" and so on is the reason. Tradition, perhaps. (Although I would note, in response to one post, that an example from Treasure Island (1883) hardly makes the case that cannot has "always" been used! Of course, codified spelling rules in English are in fact of rather recent vintage, in the scheme of things.)

[OxfordBlues]

I think the real debate was more of whether there are two semantically different ideas of cannot as a unit with opposite meaning of can, and cannot/can not/can't as still having the same meaning as can + a negated proposition.
_________________
There's no such thing as an exception to the rule...

My blog: http://calleteach.wordpress.com

[Logical]

Rummidge, I agree that arguments such as "should vs. can" or "will vs. can" are not the reason for the difference. I wrote about that only to respond to someone else, who suggested that the can in "can not" usage is better replaced by other words. I do not believe that to be correct. They're different words for a reason ;-)

Re: "I cannot not pay my rent" being equivalent in form to "I should not not pay my rent."

Can is distinct from will or shall in that it describes ability, not expectation or intent. My argument is that there are different levels of ability. "Can not" means able to either do a thing or not, since the not can be removed. But -not is an inherent part of the word in "cannot," and therefore implies utter inability. There is no choice in the matter. I can not write this message, but I cannot fly to the moon on gossamer wings.

[Rummidge]

Thanks for your replies, OxfordBlues & Logical. I didn’t specifically address the question of semantics, but it lay behind what I meant to say. Basically, I’m not convinced that the semantic argument is correct, or at least that it is the best way to think about the issue. (Forgive me my long-winded posts, but when I searched for "'can not' cannot," this page was the #4 Google result, while Logical’s blog post in which he links to this page was #1. So it strikes me as a worthwhile debate!)

Logical states that the single word "cannot" should be used to mean "to be (utterly) unable to": "I cannot fly (no matter how hard I flap my arms)." (Note that this is the most common use of cannot/can't/can not.) By contrast, it should be separated into 2 words "can" and "not" only in the case where it's implied that one in fact is able to do whatever it is: "I can not fly (and can drive, instead, but I need to be there in 3 hours, so I can and will fly to L.A. on the next plane).” (Emphasis added to underline the distinction by indicating how it might be spoken.) Logical describes these as two semantically distinct uses of “can(not),” which justifies the 1-word vs. 2-word spellings. (I also understand the argument to include the claim that this semantic distinction between "cannot" and "can not" makes "can" different from, say, "must" or "should," for which different levels of meaning don't exist as they do for can/ability, which is why there is only "should not" and no "shouldnot." I believe Logical stated this in post #13, for example, and essentially reiterated it now in #36. In my previous post (#34), I was questioning the semantic argument by questioning this alleged uniqueness of “can/not.” Of course, please correct me if I misunderstood this or other parts of the debate.)

I think this is a misreading (or at least not the best reading). What’s really going on, as others have stated, is that the first sentence (I cannot fly) is a negative use of “can,” while the second (I can not fly) is an affirmative use of “can.” In the first sentence, the “not” negates “can,” while in the second sentence, "not" negates the proposition "to fly.”

(I’m not sure whether this analysis violates the contemporary way of analyzing modals, which -- as I understand it from Oxfordblues’s postings in this thread -- doesn’t allow the negation of modal verbs, only the subordinated phrase. Regardless, I believe it’s the best way to understand what’s going on.)

1) I cannot fly = I am not able [to fly] (no matter how hard I flap).
2) I can not fly = I am able [not to fly] (and can drive, instead – but I prefer to fly).

That’s all that’s going on. I don’t think there’s a need to devise special gradations of meaning for “can” to explain it. The same situation exists with other auxiliary verbs:

1) I should not [get out of bed] (because I need my rest).
2) I should [not get out of bed] (and should sleep in, instead).

In either case, the distinction between (1) and (2) is essentially the same, and is made in spoken English by emphasizing different words. In written English, the difference in meaning generally comes from the context. If we choose to make the distinction through the use of different words/spellings, then shouldnot would in fact be a proper equivalent to cannot.

As for “I cannot not pay my rent,” it’s just the opposite (negation) of the type-2 sentence, “I can [not pay my rent]." (Similar to: I should not [not get out of bed].)

Note that it’s important to analyze the sentences properly. In post #17, Logical writes:

For me, your "be+able" example makes sense with "cannot" but not with "can not," which demonstrates my point:

David cannot drive. (David lacks the skill set for driving.)
David is not able to drive. (This accurately describes David's state.)

Carol can not drive. (Carol could drive, but can choose to let someone else do it, or to walk instead.)
Carol is not able to drive. (This doesn't accurately describe Carol's state.)

In the Carol sentence, the translation of “can” to “to be able to” is not done properly. It should be:

Carol can not drive. (But she chooses not to.)
Carol is able not to drive. (This does accurately describes Carol’s state.)

Bottom line: I don't think that the supposed semantic distinction is a good reason for insisting on the different spellings of “can/not.”

P.S. The question arises, it seems to me, of the use of "could" rather than "can." My Webster's New Collegiate gives as one of the uses of could: "an alternative to can suggesting less force or certainty." Perhaps Logical's argument about choice vs. "utter inability" in the meaning of can not vs. cannot is really about could vs. can? "I could drive (and not fly), but I want to get there quickly." Or: "I could not pay my rent, but I don't want to be evicted."

[OxfordBlues]

Your analysis of the should statements is correct, but there can be no opposite of should (it can't be negated). Think about it, what would the opposite idea of should be?

The point that logical brought up and which I came to agree with him on is that can does have an opposite (and thus can be negated). The opposite of having ability is not having ability.

This puts can and may into a special category that is different from the other germanic modals which have no opposites and cannot be negated.
_________________
There's no such thing as an exception to the rule...

My blog: http://calleteach.wordpress.com

[Rummidge]

Hmm. I guess the point that I'm making about "can" having an opposite meaning is -- it doesn't really matter.

Lots of verbs don't have obvious opposites, but they can still be negated. So I'm not sure I understand that point. What's the opposite of drive, fly, or pay?

I submit that the true "opposite" of a verb IS its negation -- not drive, not fly, not pay. Just as -- as you write -- the opposite of having ability is not having ability: i.e., the opposite of "can" is "can not."

Logical's argument brings this into question: the opposite of "can" is NOT "can not" (2 words) in his analysis, because "can not" does NOT mean "not to be able to" -- that meaning is reserved for "cannot" (2 words). That would, I think, make "can" a unique case in which a verb's opposite is not formed by its negation with "not" (as a separate word).

To make things clearer, instead of comparing "can" to "should," let's use "must." I can certainly think of an opposite meaning, exactly along the lines of "not to be able to": "not to be required to." Does this mean that Can and May should make room for Must in their special category? I think it makes more sense to question the usefulness of categorizing the words in this way.

[OxfordBlues]

Are you sure about must?

What are you REALLY saying when you tell someone "You must not drink the water." (it's poison)?

Compare that with "You must drink the water." (you're dehydrated).
_________________
There's no such thing as an exception to the rule...

My blog: http://calleteach.wordpress.com

[Rummidge]

Fair enough. I added the "must" definition part rather hastily.

But how about this: one meaning of must is "to be required to"; its opposite is "to be forbidden from." This can be seen as parallel to "to be able/unable" (forbidden = opposite of required; unable = opposite of able).

"Must" can also be used to mean "to be urged to"; its opposite is "to be discouraged from," or "urged against."

Part of the difficulty is that each of these auxiliary verbs is used in a number of quite different ways (think of all the meanings "would" can have). Sometimes the negated version of the proposition lends itself to being seen as "opposite" in meaning, sometimes not, sometimes the meanings (in affirmative and negative) depend upon context, interpretation, emphasis. Sometimes the "wrong" verb or tense has become part of common and accepted usage. (For the issue at hand, I would bring up the comment I made earlier about "can" vs. "could." But there are of course many examples -- shall, will, should, etc.) I just don't see that "can" is so distinct that it (uniquely in the language) requires the invention of a new word, "cannot."

Or maybe "cannot" shouldn't be unique? I'd be interested to know whether Logical and Oxfordblues believe that logic would dictate the birth of cannot's cousin, "maynot."

Likewise, to reiterate an earlier question: Should (logically and ideally) Logical's semantic distinction between "cannot" and "can not" be preserved in the interrogative? In other words, was Logical's question, "Can it not be both ways?", a faulty way of asking, "Cannot it be both ways?"

I'm open to being persuaded that Logical's position is correct! But I believe I have raised some issues in this discussion that remain unaddressed.

[JoeyBeanz]

It's simple. One is definite, one is not.

"I cannot do it" = I do not have the ability to do it

"I can not do it" = I have to ability to not do it (does not mean you lack the ability to do it)

"Can not" taken in it's literal meaning would almost never be used simply on the basis that nobody really talks in that manner. Although in most cases these days they can usually be used interchangeably, both with the "cannot" meaning and nobody will fault you for it, and if someone does they're probably just being an overcritical jerk.

[JoeyBeanz]

[E2e4]

[Wordsmith]

I'm going to have to go ahead and agree with Logical's argument on the definitive nature of both "cannot" and "can not." Cannot in my opinion is a closed class word with the morpheme "-not" being bound to the modal verb "can-." In this instance the portmanteau alters the semantic argument of "cannot" and changes it from the indefinite definition of the conscious "ability/opportunity to not" act upon a certain situation/event; to that of the definitive definition of "not being able/having the capability of/opportunity to" accomplish something. Therefore making the distinction between these two instances clear. The "cannot" expresses itself with a finality, a clear indication of impossibility in a task, while "can not" expresses the choice that comes with having the "ability to" accomplish.
Examples of each instance would include:
"cannot": I cannot get across the river. (declares definite, universal, inactivity and incapability to complete a task)

"can not": I can (possible insert of an adverb) not go to the river today/yet/ever/right now/anymore/etc... (gives an option to inactivity, the incapability is merely self-invoked not universally)