| Author |
Message |
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:59 pm
Post subject: Re: "cannot" and "can not" |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:45:10 GMT, Bob Cunningham
<exw6sxq@earthlink.net> said:
[...]
| Quote: | This seems to be more of a problem in the UK, [*]where usage
tend to accept[*] "didn't used to", than in the US, where most
usage guides recognize its ungrammaticality.
|
* Make that "where usage guides tend to".
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Richard Yates
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:41 am
Post subject: Re: "cannot" and "can not" |
|
|
"> >> "Mum, can I take this bottle of whisky to Tracy's party?"
| Quote: | "No, you can not!"
Not in these parts (Oregon). "No, you cannot!" is the only correct form
of
this sentence.
Richard Yates
Doesn't that depend on what effect the sentence is intended to convey?
If you are writing dialog or replicating conversation, I can "hear"
Mum saying "No, you can not!" because Mum is giving quite a bit of
emphasis to the "not". The "cannot" seems softer and less determined-
Mum-like.
|
Emphasis in articulation does not necessarily imply difference in spelling.
But, I agree I overstated (having first misthought). "No, you cannot!" can
be correct but, in some contexts "No, you can not!" could be also.
Richard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:35 am
Post subject: Stress and articulation [was: Re: "cannot" and "can not"] |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:41:49 -0700, "Richard Yates"
<rayates53@comcast.net> said:
[...]
| Quote: | Emphasis in articulation does not necessarily imply
difference in spelling.
|
But differences of emphasis in articulation are sometimes
reflected in differences in spelling.
For example, the adverb "anymore" is often articulated
differently from the way the adjectival phrase "any more" is
articulated. "Any more" can receive equal stress on the two
words, or the "more" can be stressed more than the "any",
while "anymore" normally has falling stress on "more".
But there's an important exception in the case of "anymore".
When it's used in the positive sense as in "Anymore, I read
only detective stories", the "any" and the "more" are
stressed equally.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Yates
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:52 am
Post subject: Re: Stress and articulation [was: Re: "cannot" and "can not" |
|
|
| Quote: | Emphasis in articulation does not necessarily imply
difference in spelling.
But differences of emphasis in articulation are sometimes
reflected in differences in spelling.
|
These two sentences do not contradict each other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:01 am
Post subject: Re: Stress and articulation [was: Re: "cannot" and "can not" |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:52:31 -0700, "Richard Yates"
<rayates53@comcast.net> said:
| Quote: | Emphasis in articulation does not necessarily imply
difference in spelling.
But differences of emphasis in articulation are sometimes
reflected in differences in spelling.
These two sentences do not contradict each other.
|
In a sense, they do. The first sentence leaves open the
possibility that there is NO spelling difference that is
related to emphasis in articulation.
The second sentence, because of the word "sometimes",
implies without question that there is at least one case
where emphasis in articulation in articulation and
difference in spelling are related. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Yates
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:20 pm
Post subject: Re: Stress and articulation [was: Re: "cannot" and "can not" |
|
|
| Quote: | Emphasis in articulation does not necessarily imply
difference in spelling.
But differences of emphasis in articulation are sometimes
reflected in differences in spelling.
These two sentences do not contradict each other.
In a sense, they do. The first sentence leaves open the
possibility that there is NO spelling difference that is
related to emphasis in articulation.
The second sentence, because of the word "sometimes",
implies without question that there is at least one case
where emphasis in articulation and
difference in spelling are related.
|
The first does leaves open the possibility, but only by being silent on the
matter. So, it does not have the same meaning as the second sentence, but
does that imply a contradiction?
The first says "Some differences in emphasis do not appear as differences in
spelling."
The second says "Some differences in emphasis do appear as differences in
spelling."
Both true.
Richard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:04 am
Post subject: Re: "cannot" and "can not" |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| Quote: | Barbara Need wrote:
In article <1128926064.632705.51470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Raymond S. Wise" <mplsray@my-deja.com> wrote:
Numeromania wrote:
Barbara Need wrote:
He can not go to school tomorrow (it is an optional day)
That's incorrect usage -- "can not" means exactly the same thing as
"cannot". If you want to express an absence of necessity, you use "need
not", as in "He need not go to school tomorrow".
"He can _not_ go to school tomorrow." is not incorrect when it means
"He has the option of not going to school together." "Cannot" in such a
sentence cannot be substituted for "can _not._" "Can not," however,
cannot be substituted for "can _not_": Italics, which represent the
emphasis which occurs in speech, must be used.
You are making a graphical distinction, not a linguistic one. And I
don't have a problem with can not with not unitalicized.
The graphical distinction represents a linguistic one. Writing is an
imperfect representation of speech, and the written form "He can not go
to school tomorrow" with the intended sense that the subject has the
option of not going is imperfect to the extent of seriously
jeopardizing comprehension.
This is fairly easy thing to test. Present the written form "He can not
go to school tomorrow" to one group of people and the form "He can
_not_ go to school tomorrow" to another group of people. I predict that
the vast majority of the first group, when asked to explain the
meaning, will treat "can not" the same as they would "cannot." Most of
the second group will not.
This is the sort of subtlety of speech which, because of the
imperfections of writing, a writer should probably avoid. The spoken
sentence would likely be understand by any native speaker of English,
but the written version, even with "not" italicized, is likely to be
misinterpreted.
|
I wonder if this counts as an example of Skitt's Law. In the last
paragraph above, the second sentence should read, "The spoken sentence
would likely be understood by any native speaker of English...."
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:04 am
Post subject: Re: "cannot" and "can not" |
|
|
Barbara Need wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1128926064.632705.51470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Raymond S. Wise" <mplsray@my-deja.com> wrote:
Numeromania wrote:
Barbara Need wrote:
He can not go to school tomorrow (it is an optional day)
That's incorrect usage -- "can not" means exactly the same thing as
"cannot". If you want to express an absence of necessity, you use "need
not", as in "He need not go to school tomorrow".
"He can _not_ go to school tomorrow." is not incorrect when it means
"He has the option of not going to school together." "Cannot" in such a
sentence cannot be substituted for "can _not._" "Can not," however,
cannot be substituted for "can _not_": Italics, which represent the
emphasis which occurs in speech, must be used.
You are making a graphical distinction, not a linguistic one. And I
don't have a problem with can not with not unitalicized.
|
The graphical distinction represents a linguistic one. Writing is an
imperfect representation of speech, and the written form "He can not go
to school tomorrow" with the intended sense that the subject has the
option of not going is imperfect to the extent of seriously
jeopardizing comprehension.
This is fairly easy thing to test. Present the written form "He can not
go to school tomorrow" to one group of people and the form "He can
_not_ go to school tomorrow" to another group of people. I predict that
the vast majority of the first group, when asked to explain the
meaning, will treat "can not" the same as they would "cannot." Most of
the second group will not.
This is the sort of subtlety of speech which, because of the
imperfections of writing, a writer should probably avoid. The spoken
sentence would likely be understand by any native speaker of English,
but the written version, even with "not" italicized, is likely to be
misinterpreted.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barbara Need
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:38 pm
Post subject: Re: "cannot" and "can not" |
|
|
In article <1129092342.833519.61930@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Raymond S. Wise" <mplsray@my-deja.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Barbara Need wrote:
In article <1128926064.632705.51470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Raymond S. Wise" <mplsray@my-deja.com> wrote:
Numeromania wrote:
Barbara Need wrote:
He can not go to school tomorrow (it is an optional day)
That's incorrect usage -- "can not" means exactly the same thing as
"cannot". If you want to express an absence of necessity, you use "need
not", as in "He need not go to school tomorrow".
"He can _not_ go to school tomorrow." is not incorrect when it means
"He has the option of not going to school together." "Cannot" in such a
sentence cannot be substituted for "can _not._" "Can not," however,
cannot be substituted for "can _not_": Italics, which represent the
emphasis which occurs in speech, must be used.
You are making a graphical distinction, not a linguistic one. And I
don't have a problem with can not with not unitalicized.
The graphical distinction represents a linguistic one. Writing is an
imperfect representation of speech, and the written form "He can not go
to school tomorrow" with the intended sense that the subject has the
option of not going is imperfect to the extent of seriously
jeopardizing comprehension.
|
Not for me. I don't feel that there is necessarily significant stress on
the negative particle. What IS present is a signficant pause (and
possbily _equal_ stress on the verb and the negative.
| Quote: | This is fairly easy thing to test. Present the written form "He can not
go to school tomorrow" to one group of people and the form "He can
_not_ go to school tomorrow" to another group of people. I predict that
the vast majority of the first group, when asked to explain the
meaning, will treat "can not" the same as they would "cannot." Most of
the second group will not.
|
Certainly a good empirical test. I suspect, however, that it will not be
determinative. And I also suspect that sociological variables such as
age, race, sex [gender is a grammatical term in my usage!], education
and the like will be a factor.
| Quote: | This is the sort of subtlety of speech which, because of the
imperfections of writing, a writer should probably avoid. The spoken
sentence would likely be understand by any native speaker of English,
but the written version, even with "not" italicized, is likely to be
misinterpreted.
|
I disagree. Especially in context. Language is so very redundant and not
much occurs outside of a linguistic or non-linguistic context which
clarifies.
Barbara Need |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Salvatore Volatile
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Stress and articulation [was: Re: "cannot" and "can not" |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.usage.english.]
Skitt wrote:
| Quote: | sage wrote:
Bob Cunningham wrote:
But there's an important exception in the case of "anymore".
When it's used in the positive sense as in "Anymore, I read
only detective stories", the "any" and the "more" are
stressed equally.
I've never heard "anymore" used as you've shown it here. Is this
regional US?
The usage note in M-W Online says, in part:
The positive use appears to have been of Midland origin, but
it is now reported to be widespread in all speech areas of
the U.S. except New England.
|
Examples of the usage of positive anymore "in the wild", so to say, can be
found in some of the postings of our own Tony Cooper, a native of the
Midland (spec. Broad Ripple, Indianapolis, Ind.). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sage
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:32 am
Post subject: Re: Stress and articulation [was: Re: "cannot" and "can not" |
|
|
Bob Cunningham wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:41:49 -0700, "Richard Yates"
rayates53@comcast.net> said:
[...]
(Snip)
But there's an important exception in the case of "anymore".
When it's used in the positive sense as in "Anymore, I read
only detective stories", the "any" and the "more" are
stressed equally.
I've never heard "anymore" used as you've shown it here. Is this |
regional US?
Cheers, Sage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:38 am
Post subject: Re: Stress and articulation [was: Re: "cannot" and "can not" |
|
|
sage wrote:
| Quote: | Bob Cunningham wrote:
But there's an important exception in the case of "anymore".
When it's used in the positive sense as in "Anymore, I read
only detective stories", the "any" and the "more" are
stressed equally.
I've never heard "anymore" used as you've shown it here. Is this
regional US?
|
The usage note in M-W Online says, in part:
The positive use appears to have been of Midland origin, but
it is now reported to be widespread in all speech areas of
the U.S. except New England.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Holmes
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Stress and articulation [was: Re: "cannot" and "can not" |
|
|
sage wrote:
| Quote: | Bob Cunningham wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:41:49 -0700, "Richard Yates"
rayates53@comcast.net> said:
[...]
(Snip)
But there's an important exception in the case of "anymore".
When it's used in the positive sense as in "Anymore, I read
only detective stories", the "any" and the "more" are
stressed equally.
I've never heard "anymore" used as you've shown it here. Is this
regional US?
|
It seems to be regarded as acceptable by about 5% of the US population,
according to this survey:
http://cfprod01.imt.uwm.edu/Dept/FLL/linguistics/dialect/staticmaps/q_54
..html
The maps don't show much in the way of a regional trend.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:50 pm
Post subject: Positive "anymore" [was: Re: Stress and articulation [was: R |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:21:18 +1000, "John Holmes" <see sig>
said:
| Quote: | sage wrote:
Bob Cunningham wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:41:49 -0700, "Richard Yates"
rayates53@comcast.net> said:
[...]
(Snip)
But there's an important exception in the case of "anymore".
When it's used in the positive sense as in "Anymore, I read
only detective stories", the "any" and the "more" are
stressed equally.
I've never heard "anymore" used as you've shown it here. Is this
regional US?
It seems to be regarded as acceptable by about 5% of the US population,
according to this survey:
http://cfprod01.imt.uwm.edu/Dept/FLL/linguistics/dialect/staticmaps/q_54
.html
The maps don't show much in the way of a regional trend.
|
See http://tinyurl.com/d9jz6 for remarks on "anymore" in the
_Dictionary of American Regional English_.
Of particular interest to me is that positive "anymore" is
still found in the speech of Northern Ireland and that the
earliest recorded examples are from there.
I wonder, though, what they mean by "recorded". It could
mean attested, or it could mean recorded on a mechanical or
electronic recording device. I'm guessing they mean the
former. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:52 pm
Post subject: Re: Positive "anymore" [was: Re: Stress and articulation [wa |
|
|
Bob Cunningham wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | See http://tinyurl.com/d9jz6 for remarks on "anymore" in the
_Dictionary of American Regional English_.
Of particular interest to me is that positive "anymore" is
still found in the speech of Northern Ireland and that the
earliest recorded examples are from there.
I wonder, though, what they mean by "recorded". It could
mean attested, or it could mean recorded on a mechanical or
electronic recording device. I'm guessing they mean the
former.
|
It doesn't seem to have reached the ears of OED1 or its '33
_Supplement_. (I looked under "more", too.)
And another interesting thing is that I don't seem to find the
negative sense -- whether as two words or one -- in there, either.
Even the negative sense strikes me as a distinctive enough usage to
have deserved mention, so is it possible that it's rather recent?
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in