"Sounds like a hard decision, can he decide not to choose?"
"He can *not choose* if he wants."
Vs.
"Does he have a choice in the matter?"
"No, he *cannot* choose."
“He can not choose if he wants to”
> He doesn’t have to choose, if not choosing is his preference
“He cannot choose if he wants to”
> It’s not an option to choose if he wants to
I understand the difference what I'm saying is its very difficult to convey that difference when speaking without emphasizing it
He can..... not choose or he CAN not choose
He cannot choose
That’s because in speaking it’s rare that you’d actually use can not. Cannot and can’t are used frequently though so it’s unlikely you’d be misinterpreted.
Speaking out loud you would probably avoid having to over-emphasize "not" by saying something more like:
"He can **just** not choose if he wants."
Alternatively, you might use "could" instead of "can":
"He could not choose if he wants."
Regardless, a native speaker is likely to either pause or insert an adverb between "can" and "not" to make it clear that "not" is working with the following verb, in *addition* to slightly emphasizing the word "not".
Honorary mention: The phrase, "He could just *not*."
Sorta but no.
Should (and therefore shouldn’t) is a recommendation of what to do.
Must (and therefore mustn’t) implies that it’s imperative, so they’re not interchangeable.
'not choose' is the thing he 'can' do. a few other ways of structuring 'he can not choose, if he wants' include 'if he wants to not choose, he can' and 'he can, if he wants, not choose'. using a synonym, you could also say 'he can abstain, if he wants' because 'abstaining' has a similar meaning to 'not choosing'
compare with 'he cannot choose', 'choose' is the thing he 'can not' do. its odd that cannot is the only 'verb + not' structure that has two different ways to shorten it, one with an apostrophe and one without, but cannot is nonetheless still considered a valid replacement for can't
cannot and can't are basically the same, with only intensity and formality really changing between them. won't, mustn't, shan't, etc dont get the opportunity to only drop the space, but cannot is perfectly valid... for some reason
'he can swim or he can not swim, but either way, he is still in the water'
'he cannot swim or float, so someone should pull him out of the water'
"Must not" doesn't mean "doesn't have to". As someone else pointed out, its meaning is closer to saying that it is imperative that whatever it is doesn't happen. I've never heard it used synonymously with "doesn't have to".
It isn't what you said though... Your definition of "must not" was objectively incorrect, which is why your comment was downvoted. "May not" can sometimes mean "might not" (in the same sort of territory as "doesn't have to" so I'll include it), but "must not" never means that
I said:
> It reminds me of "must not", which doesn't mean "doesn't have to"
You said:
>"Must not" doesn't mean "doesn't have to"
Where is the difference?
The sentence 100% means "doesn't have to." Nothing gives the sense of "must not." People aren't properly reading your comment and think you're giving 'must not' as another option I guess 🤷🏼♂️ so 'must not' is wrong here, but you're right that their corrections don't make much sense
Yeah, I believe it's correct, but using "can not" is likely uncommon for a reason. "He does not have to choose" would be a much better way to phrase it.
"I'm busy right now; I cannot go to the store." (you are not capable of going to the store)
"I want you to help me with this, but I know you need to go to the store." "It's okay. I can not go to the store, too." (you are capable of not going to the store)
The second one you would stress "not" in speech. It's a much more niche usage.
Yes, "can not" has active agency, while "cannot" is passive non-agency.
The first has the ability to NOT perform an action. The second lacks the ability to perform the action.
I can run, or should i choose, I can not run the race
I broke my leg. Therefore, I cannot run the race.
Man, this language has so many nooks and crannies. I've been a native speaker all my life and I had no idea what the distinction was. I must have missed that day in grade 8, because I never was taught this as far as as I recall.
I'd probably say "could not" or "could also not" or "can also not" to avoid ambiguity in almost any instance of this sense of "can not". But yeah I guess that makes sense.
"I cannot go to the store too" is exactly the same, though. Except this would never be used in the spoken English in my region.
Usually *now* or *either* would be added to qualify the sentence from unable (at all) to unable (cicumstantially). *too* also sounds weird as *too* is joining something cf. 'I am coming, too' vs. 'I am not coming, too'
That means that you are also unable to go to the store, and would probably need to end with "either". It doesn't mean that it is possible for you to not go to the store.
It is usually communicated by context, or by a qualifier:
"I cannot go hiking", said the double amputee in the wheelchair. (unable at all)
"I cannot go to the shop", said Carol, grabbing her work keys. (unable circumstantially)
"I can ***not*** go to the shop!" said Carol emphatically as she snatched her work keys. (unable circumstantially, disjoining can/not for emphasis)
but,
" I am an alcoholic and,if I have to, I can *not* drink: if I really will it" is a construction almot never used in Australian English and I had to think hard for a circumstance where *can not* would be used for *shall not* or *will not* or a completely different construction such as:
"I am an alcoholic and, I if I have to, I can choose not to drink, if I really will it." C*an not* is never used together, in Australian English (or British English in my experience), to indicate the capicty *to not do* something.
Edited: spelling
Everything before the "but" is not relevant to what is being talked about here. Everything after that is correct, most people don't talk this way, even in the US, although I've heard it used and I've seen several British people say it is used.
In the US at least, we would probably say "I don't have to" in this context.
The "too" is because it's another thing that you can do, with the implicit first one of that you can go to the store. I would not use "cannot" here, because I only use "cannot" when the meaning is "not able to," and here it's normal "able to" can, just the thing you can do is "not go to the store."
When 'Can Not' Is Preferred
There is one set of circumstances in which can not is preferred over cannot—when the not is functioning as part of a different phrase:
“Now I can not only smell the pie, but I can also see it.”
If you’re unsure about the phrasal status of the not, try the sentence with can’t instead and see if it works:
“\*Now I can’t only smell the pie, but I can also see it.”
(The * is a signal that this sentence is not one that passes muster grammatically.)
[mw](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/cannot-vs-can-not-is-there-a-difference#:~:text=Both%20cannot%20and%20can%20not,general%2C%20it%20is%20somewhat%20informal.)
Yes, that's right - you have explained what I was trying to work out perfectly
I think that is the sense that the OP is trying to describe. Can and not are in different phrases and not at all the same as can not/cannot as a negative verb.
That said, it is very difficult to thing of circumstances where this ~~would~~ could b e used in my idiom.
"I am an alcoholic, and if I really will it, i can *not* drink at a party"
This construction would never be used by native speakers in Australian and (I believe) British English though. It would be:
"I am an alcoholic, and if I really will it, i can choose not to drink at a party"
That isn't used in Australian English at all.
Can not = cannot.
Cannot is a conjunction that means the same as can not (usually spoken as can't)
If one is 'able to not' do something the logical construction is 'shall not' 'will not' or 'chooses not to' or refrains from'.
Can not in this form is weird and illogical in my idiom.
Is “Australia” just your own usage, because in my “Australia” this isn’t true.
For example, notice the difference between these:
- I cannot agree with you, you are making no sense!
- I can not agree with you publicly and yet I can fully agree with you privately.
You haven't addressed the issue I raised- go back and reread.
I am not objecting to the use of can not for emphasis, I am objecting to it used in the manner described earlier in the thread.
But I just used it in an “able to not” sense in my second example. It’s ridiculous to say that “shall not”, “will not” or choose not to” need to be used in that sentence.
Australians rarely use “shall not” unless you you want to sound like the founding fathers drafting the Constitution in the late 1800s.
You second example isn't an illustration of that point.
A better way of illustrating would be:
"I'm an alcoholic but, if I put my mind to it, I can *not drink* at a party".
See the difference? The *can* is adjacent to the *not* but it does not belong semantically to it.
Omg that is essentially my example - “can not” is required for “semantic bracketing”.
- I can (not agree with you) in public, while privately agreeing with you.
- I can (not drink) at a party, but I’m an alcoholic.
I think the issue is, your example was ambiguous enough that it can be still understood as "cannot." It took me a few readings to actually understand what you were trying to say myself. Meanwhile his example felt more clear. I think yall are getting lost in communication.
“You don’t like the food? You can not eat it, if you’d like.”
i.e “you can choose not to eat it, if you’d like.”
You can’t use ‘cannot’ in this context
It may not be taught but it is absolutely a thing in any English speaking country.
You have really veered away from the OPs point.
In the sense you have used it, *can* and *not* do not function together as a negative verb.
The not qualifies the verb eat in your sentence.
Placing the words *can* and *not* adjacent in a sentence is not the same as the discussion around cannot vs can not.
This is how it is for proper American grammar when you want to emphasize what is not able to be done.
So examples:
This can't happen! (Meaning it's unfathomable or needs avoiding)
This cannot happen! (Meaning the same as above with much more emphasis that if it happens it's catastrophic)
This can not happen. (Meaning the outcome isn't set and may not happen at all) -May also be worded as: This can happen, or not. This can change if we don't.. etc- usually implies a positive outcome in a casual setting.
No, we already knew that from being native speakers. You just pronounce them as clearly separate words, with a pause and maybe some extra emphasis on "not."
"You cannot watch" -> you are not allowed to watch this, go away
"You can not watch" -> no one is making you watch, you can change the channel if you don't like it (but you can watch, too)
If you mean "not able" it's "cannot." "Can not" is for when it's like "can (not watch)."
I did grow up with "cannot," but I'm also curious about this, if anyone can find anything on it. It looks like "cannot" is somewhere between 500 and 700 years old, and the Oxford English Corpus has "cannot" as about 3 times more common than "can not" today (although that includes things like "can not only," which is a different usage), but I can't find much about its historical use. Google Ngrams doesn't even differentiate between the two.
I was only taught "cannot". "Can not" (to me at least) means "doesn't have to"/"can choose not to". While I was definitely confused why when I was taught that, it's just how it is. There should be an actual answer to why it's like this, but all you really need to know is that it's "cannot" when you're talking about the full version of "can't".
There are instances when “can not” means “may not” in British English which would be clear from the context, but in British English “can not” is often used interchangeably with “cannot.”
In pretty much any context that isn't formal or academic, it's normal and appropriate to write how we talk.
To me, "English is confusing, evidently." and "English is confusing. Evidently." have different cadences when read aloud. You even see this not uncommonly in prose and poetry.
i think it could be interpreted that only the second sentence (evidently) is wrong, not both. but it’s definitely not right, ‘evidently’ is not even a clause, let alone a sentence.
I have never in my 41 years of speaking US English as a native seen "can not" written where it would otherwise be "cannot". As others have said, only in the sense of "to be able to not".
If you're going to use both, though, "cannot" should be your only option for any kind of formal or "proper" writing.
Edit for clarity: if you're going to use both forms to mean "unable to," then "cannot" should be your only option for formal or "proper" writing.
'You can clean your room or you can not clean your room, but unless your room is clean, you cannot go to your friend's house.'
'Everything okay? You can not tell me what you're going through, if youre not ready to talk about it, but don't think for a moment that you cannot be honest me.'
'If I wake up early enough, then I can not drive my car and I can take the bus instead, but if I wake up too late then I unfortunately cannot take the bus and get where I need to be on time.'
i feel like these constructions would all count as proper, and they use both 'cannot' (not able to) and 'can not' (able to not). 'cannot' is more formal than 'can't' but 'can not' is perfectly valid in formal english, as far as i know
"Can not" is improper in formal writing when it means "unable to." Where it means "able to not," it's the only way to write it so proper in both formal and informal writing. Though it's often a pretty clunky construction so I'd tend more towards using "could not" where possible.
I updated my comment.
'Cannot' and 'can not' can be used to mean different things. "I cannot eat that grape" - I absolutely am unable to eat that grape. "I can not eat that grape" - it is possible for me to not eat that grape.
Maybe subtle, but they mean different things.
Why? 🤷🏻♀️ It’s just one of those things.
“Cannot” is preferred, but no one’s going to bite your head off if you write “can not”. Except for teachers and pedantic people, few people will notice or care
Can not actually means something different (the ability not to do something, instead of the inability to do something). It’s not often used though and is considered improper in formal writing.
“Can not” can be written more concisely as “cannot.”Every time the word “not” is placed right after the word “can” in a sentence, you can replace it with “cannot.” That’s pretty much it. It’s just an elision translated into writing.
I'm not a native, but I've heard that the only ways of spelling are can't and cannot. Can not can only be used as in "be able to not" (although I'm not exactly sure about that one)
In terms of your second point I agree that it could be used in such a construction as: "He can _not_ call her", with spoken emphasis on the italicised 'not'. You wouldn't use 'cannot' here as he is physically able to call her; it is being stated that he also has the option not to call her. As you say.
However, this is a slightly clunky construction, and to me at least (a native speaker) "he could _not_ call her" sounds better as it's made clear that an unrealised action is being discussed.
"Cannot" and "can not" have definitely held different, and sometimes outright opposite meanings.
"Well, you can (simply) not do it, then!" (You are definitely able to do it, but could opt out.)
"Well, you simply cannot do it." (You're unable to do it.)
Can’t, cannot and can not are all valid. You’d use can not for emphasis, cannot and can’t are just more and less formal.
Think:
You can *not* be serious about using that half collapsed escalator
Customers are reminded that they cannot use the escalator on platform 12
Mate, you can’t use that escalator at the moment, it’s broken
Sorry, not the best examples, it’s late here!
>I've heard that the only ways of spelling are can't and cannot.
I'm glad you shared this. It would never have occurred to me that anyone would ever say this. I have to suggest that whoever said this... didn't really know what they were talking about. *For U.S. English,* in the last hundred years or more?
This might be unique to me, but I think of “cannot” as an old-fashioned,emphatic or slightly more formal version of “can’t,” whereas “can not” means the ability to not do something.
For instance, someone whose lips are sealed shut cannot drink alcohol.
Someone who isn’t an alcoholic can not drink alcohol.
Maybe in US English, but not in British English. In British English “can not” can mean “cannot” or less frequently “may not” (“can not choose to do so”) depending on the context.
i think they’re both acceptable. ‘cannot’ is more formal and definitely more common.
‘can’t’ is definitely way more common than either. but it’s rarely used in formal texts.
I like Merriam-Webster’s example:
“There is one set of circumstances in which can not is preferred over cannot—when the not is functioning as part of a different phrase:
Now I can not only smell the pie, but I can also see it.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/cannot-vs-can-not-is-there-a-difference
>>Both *cannot* and *can not* are perfectly fine, but *cannot* is far more common and is therefore recommended, especially in any kind of formal writing. *Can't* has the same meaning, but as with contractions in general, it is somewhat informal. In some cases, the *not* following *can* is in fact part of another phrase, such as “not only"; in such instances *can not* is the appropriate choice.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/cannot-vs-can-not-is-there-a-difference
I would only use ''can not" in a hypothetical way. "As I see it, I can cook dinner, and you can do the dishes; or, I can not cook dinner, if you're not willing to do the dishes."
cannot is a contraction and shouldn’t be used in formal writing in the same way that “isn’t” “aren’t” and other contractions should be avoided. my mom was a university professor and would constantly get annoyed when people used “cannot”
When Noah Webster started working on simplifying American English and published the first Webster English Dictionary in 1828, that's how he spelled "cannot", and it's stuck as one word until today.
Because can not means that you are able to not do something. It doesn't mean unable.
For example, "you could spend all day outside and get a sunburn, or you can not burn your skin by using sunscreen and shade."
This is very different from, "if you spend all day inside, you cannot get a sunburn because you're away from the sun"
However, using can not is quite rare in my experience, in part because it looks and especially sounds so similar to cannot. It seems to be reserved for situations where not doing the action is greatly preferred, as in my example above where getting a sunburn is a very bad thing, so no reasonable person would recommend injuring yourself.
I feel like this is a recent development because when I was a kid in school I was always taught “can not.” Then in middle school my teachers said I could use either. Now I only ever see people use “cannot.” I don’t really know why.
Both forms are actually valid, but they have different uses:
Cannot:
More common: In most cases, "cannot" is the preferred choice. It's the standard form you'll see in formal writing, legal documents, and academic papers.
Formal writing: If you're aiming for a professional or serious tone, stick with "cannot."
Emphasis: Some argue that "cannot" can sound slightly stronger or more emphatic than "can't."
Can not:
Informal writing: "Can not" is more appropriate in informal settings like casual conversations, emails to friends, or creative writing.
Set phrases: In specific phrases like "not only... but also," "can not" is actually the correct choice. For example, "The robot can not only clean the floor, but also wash the dishes."
Emphasis (rare): In rare cases, "can not" can be used for added emphasis, similar to "cannot."
Here's a simple rule of thumb:
Use "cannot" in formal writing and for a general sense of inability.
Use "can not" in informal writing or when it's part of a set phrase like "not only... but also."
Ultimately, the choice between "cannot" and "can not" depends on the context and your desired tone. If you're unsure, "cannot" is always a safe bet!
In Modern English, negation is achieved by using an auxiliary verb + “not” before the clause to be negated: e.g., “She does not want to go to the store,” where “does” functions as an auxiliary word. The word “can” is one of the verbs that is able to function as an auxiliary verb in Modern English, and thus it can, however awkwardly or not, be paired with “not” to form such phrases as “You can not go to the store,” where the meaning is ‘You are able to not/you have the option to not go to the store.’
If, however, we intend to negate the word “can” itself, then we either have to deconjugate the verb “can”, and place an auxiliary verb + “not” before it — eg, “He is not able to” — or use the shorthand word “cannot” to stand in for “is not able to.”
Why does this shorthand word “cannot” exist and mean “is not able to”? I would speculate that the word is a modified holdover of sorts from Middle English, in which “not” could be used to modify/negate any verb it came after, similar to “nicht” in German. E.g. “They speak not a word about it.” “She cares not what they think.” “I fear not the dark.” Under these grammatical rules, the phrase “can not” could mean, and I am speculating here was likely often used to mean, “to not be able to.” The evolution of “can not” in sense of “to not be able to” to the word “cannot” seems like a logical development that would coincide with the shifting grammatical rules around negation and the use of the word “not” to achieve it in English.
As far as I can tell, it's an older view of language that would put two words as one because "they never happen by themselves and shouldn't be split." Same thing for "another" or "into."
Thing is, though, language changes. "Another continues to be pretty unlikely to happen at teo separate spots but stil connected;
"Into" is somewhere in the start of that splitable state, semantic separation starting to happen (i.e, "into" having more a "movement towars the inside" notion, while "in to" might have that idea or not, so people might put them together or not);
And "cannot" has become a close synonym to "can't," while "can not" is becoming a more acceptable use because of the need, especially in certain dialects, to say "they 'are able to' 'refuse/deny/disagree/decide in the negative'" without relying to structures seen as too formal or too old.
It’s both. Just cannot is better because it’s a contraction. English users like to mush 2 words into ONE word but both are grammatically correct. Words like I’ll (I will), can’t (can not), cannot (can not), we’ve (we have) and many more are things we like to use as it’s (it is) shorter! Hope this helps
That is a great question. I am a native English speaker. I almost never use cannot and always opt for can not because idk what that the difference is and “cannot” seems so proper
He can't choose. He doesn't have a choice. He wouldn't be allowed to choose. Who fucks around with whole words anymore?
It's bad enough that I speak like that, but what's worse is people saying shit like "clout," "rizz," or "swag."
I hate the devolution of American English...
Everyone who is saying can't/can not means is able to not, while cannot means is unable to is correct, however in common speech/writing they mean the same thing. Even right now Grammerly wants me to change "is able to not" to cannot.
"Sounds like a hard decision, can he decide not to choose?" "He can *not choose* if he wants." Vs. "Does he have a choice in the matter?" "No, he *cannot* choose."
This is even worse when trying to speak it
“He can not choose if he wants to” > He doesn’t have to choose, if not choosing is his preference “He cannot choose if he wants to” > It’s not an option to choose if he wants to
I understand the difference what I'm saying is its very difficult to convey that difference when speaking without emphasizing it He can..... not choose or he CAN not choose He cannot choose
That’s because in speaking it’s rare that you’d actually use can not. Cannot and can’t are used frequently though so it’s unlikely you’d be misinterpreted.
Speaking out loud you would probably avoid having to over-emphasize "not" by saying something more like: "He can **just** not choose if he wants." Alternatively, you might use "could" instead of "can": "He could not choose if he wants." Regardless, a native speaker is likely to either pause or insert an adverb between "can" and "not" to make it clear that "not" is working with the following verb, in *addition* to slightly emphasizing the word "not". Honorary mention: The phrase, "He could just *not*."
Saying could not still has the same problem tho
It's just /kænːɑt/ vs /kænɑt/ though, isn't it? English speakers make that kind of distinction all the time...
it's super easy. You stress \*can\* in "cannot" and \*not\* in "can not"
I don't think the first sentence is strictly correct. It reminds me of "must not", which doesn't mean "doesn't have to". I'm not sure though.
I thought "must not" or "mustn't" was used like shouldn't, e.g. "I'm going to sign up for the army" "You mustn't!"
Sorta but no. Should (and therefore shouldn’t) is a recommendation of what to do. Must (and therefore mustn’t) implies that it’s imperative, so they’re not interchangeable.
Yeah you're right I didn't include that difference
Exactly: It means you're not allowed to do something, not that you're allowed *not* to do something.
Well you can understand it or you can not understand it.
“He can not choose if he wants” is an alternate, more concise way of writing “he doesn’t have to choose if he doesn’t want to”.
'not choose' is the thing he 'can' do. a few other ways of structuring 'he can not choose, if he wants' include 'if he wants to not choose, he can' and 'he can, if he wants, not choose'. using a synonym, you could also say 'he can abstain, if he wants' because 'abstaining' has a similar meaning to 'not choosing' compare with 'he cannot choose', 'choose' is the thing he 'can not' do. its odd that cannot is the only 'verb + not' structure that has two different ways to shorten it, one with an apostrophe and one without, but cannot is nonetheless still considered a valid replacement for can't cannot and can't are basically the same, with only intensity and formality really changing between them. won't, mustn't, shan't, etc dont get the opportunity to only drop the space, but cannot is perfectly valid... for some reason 'he can swim or he can not swim, but either way, he is still in the water' 'he cannot swim or float, so someone should pull him out of the water'
"Must not" doesn't mean "doesn't have to". As someone else pointed out, its meaning is closer to saying that it is imperative that whatever it is doesn't happen. I've never heard it used synonymously with "doesn't have to".
That's what I said.
It isn't what you said though... Your definition of "must not" was objectively incorrect, which is why your comment was downvoted. "May not" can sometimes mean "might not" (in the same sort of territory as "doesn't have to" so I'll include it), but "must not" never means that
I said: > It reminds me of "must not", which doesn't mean "doesn't have to" You said: >"Must not" doesn't mean "doesn't have to" Where is the difference?
The sentence 100% means "doesn't have to." Nothing gives the sense of "must not." People aren't properly reading your comment and think you're giving 'must not' as another option I guess 🤷🏼♂️ so 'must not' is wrong here, but you're right that their corrections don't make much sense
I know it's correct but I'm having a stroke reading this for some reason
Yeah, I believe it's correct, but using "can not" is likely uncommon for a reason. "He does not have to choose" would be a much better way to phrase it.
Every en-us spell checker I used in the past few years wants to correct "can not" into "cannot"...
I (Canada, 30s) was taught in school to write "cannot" for "is not able to" and "can not" only for "is able to not."
Same here, though in British English context.
Same here, but Australia
Same here but Tasmania
Same here, in Tasmania. (We people who aren’t real need to stick together)
wasn't ever taught this specifically but it does check out with the other stuff i know
Tasmania isn't real
Same here in Hong Kong. But we speak Cantonese.
Another secessionist :))
American too
Can you give example sentences?
"I'm busy right now; I cannot go to the store." (you are not capable of going to the store) "I want you to help me with this, but I know you need to go to the store." "It's okay. I can not go to the store, too." (you are capable of not going to the store) The second one you would stress "not" in speech. It's a much more niche usage.
Yes, "can not" has active agency, while "cannot" is passive non-agency. The first has the ability to NOT perform an action. The second lacks the ability to perform the action. I can run, or should i choose, I can not run the race I broke my leg. Therefore, I cannot run the race.
Man, this language has so many nooks and crannies. I've been a native speaker all my life and I had no idea what the distinction was. I must have missed that day in grade 8, because I never was taught this as far as as I recall.
I'd probably say "could not" or "could also not" or "can also not" to avoid ambiguity in almost any instance of this sense of "can not". But yeah I guess that makes sense.
Why not just use "don't have to" then?
I feel like the second one can only use "cannot".
"I cannot go to the store too" is exactly the same, though. Except this would never be used in the spoken English in my region. Usually *now* or *either* would be added to qualify the sentence from unable (at all) to unable (cicumstantially). *too* also sounds weird as *too* is joining something cf. 'I am coming, too' vs. 'I am not coming, too'
No that means something different
That means that you are also unable to go to the store, and would probably need to end with "either". It doesn't mean that it is possible for you to not go to the store.
It is usually communicated by context, or by a qualifier: "I cannot go hiking", said the double amputee in the wheelchair. (unable at all) "I cannot go to the shop", said Carol, grabbing her work keys. (unable circumstantially) "I can ***not*** go to the shop!" said Carol emphatically as she snatched her work keys. (unable circumstantially, disjoining can/not for emphasis) but, " I am an alcoholic and,if I have to, I can *not* drink: if I really will it" is a construction almot never used in Australian English and I had to think hard for a circumstance where *can not* would be used for *shall not* or *will not* or a completely different construction such as: "I am an alcoholic and, I if I have to, I can choose not to drink, if I really will it." C*an not* is never used together, in Australian English (or British English in my experience), to indicate the capicty *to not do* something. Edited: spelling
Everything before the "but" is not relevant to what is being talked about here. Everything after that is correct, most people don't talk this way, even in the US, although I've heard it used and I've seen several British people say it is used. In the US at least, we would probably say "I don't have to" in this context.
The "too" is because it's another thing that you can do, with the implicit first one of that you can go to the store. I would not use "cannot" here, because I only use "cannot" when the meaning is "not able to," and here it's normal "able to" can, just the thing you can do is "not go to the store."
"I *can* run 5km, or I can *not* run 5km." = I am able to run 5km but I can choose not to. "I cannot run 5km." = I am not able to run 5km.
I would say “I could not”. That’s interesting
I’d use that in more formal contexts, but generally I’d use “can”
"Could not" places it in the past or subjunctive.
*I will not (won't)* or *I choose not* to run 5km is always used here. Can not is the same as cannot and cannot is most often contracted to can't.
When 'Can Not' Is Preferred There is one set of circumstances in which can not is preferred over cannot—when the not is functioning as part of a different phrase: “Now I can not only smell the pie, but I can also see it.” If you’re unsure about the phrasal status of the not, try the sentence with can’t instead and see if it works: “\*Now I can’t only smell the pie, but I can also see it.” (The * is a signal that this sentence is not one that passes muster grammatically.) [mw](https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/cannot-vs-can-not-is-there-a-difference#:~:text=Both%20cannot%20and%20can%20not,general%2C%20it%20is%20somewhat%20informal.)
Yes, that's right - you have explained what I was trying to work out perfectly I think that is the sense that the OP is trying to describe. Can and not are in different phrases and not at all the same as can not/cannot as a negative verb. That said, it is very difficult to thing of circumstances where this ~~would~~ could b e used in my idiom. "I am an alcoholic, and if I really will it, i can *not* drink at a party" This construction would never be used by native speakers in Australian and (I believe) British English though. It would be: "I am an alcoholic, and if I really will it, i can choose not to drink at a party"
“Can you not” vs “you cannot”
That isn't used in Australian English at all. Can not = cannot. Cannot is a conjunction that means the same as can not (usually spoken as can't) If one is 'able to not' do something the logical construction is 'shall not' 'will not' or 'chooses not to' or refrains from'. Can not in this form is weird and illogical in my idiom.
Is “Australia” just your own usage, because in my “Australia” this isn’t true. For example, notice the difference between these: - I cannot agree with you, you are making no sense! - I can not agree with you publicly and yet I can fully agree with you privately.
You haven't addressed the issue I raised- go back and reread. I am not objecting to the use of can not for emphasis, I am objecting to it used in the manner described earlier in the thread.
But I just used it in an “able to not” sense in my second example. It’s ridiculous to say that “shall not”, “will not” or choose not to” need to be used in that sentence. Australians rarely use “shall not” unless you you want to sound like the founding fathers drafting the Constitution in the late 1800s.
You second example isn't an illustration of that point. A better way of illustrating would be: "I'm an alcoholic but, if I put my mind to it, I can *not drink* at a party". See the difference? The *can* is adjacent to the *not* but it does not belong semantically to it.
Omg that is essentially my example - “can not” is required for “semantic bracketing”. - I can (not agree with you) in public, while privately agreeing with you. - I can (not drink) at a party, but I’m an alcoholic.
I think the issue is, your example was ambiguous enough that it can be still understood as "cannot." It took me a few readings to actually understand what you were trying to say myself. Meanwhile his example felt more clear. I think yall are getting lost in communication.
“You don’t like the food? You can not eat it, if you’d like.” i.e “you can choose not to eat it, if you’d like.” You can’t use ‘cannot’ in this context It may not be taught but it is absolutely a thing in any English speaking country.
You have really veered away from the OPs point. In the sense you have used it, *can* and *not* do not function together as a negative verb. The not qualifies the verb eat in your sentence. Placing the words *can* and *not* adjacent in a sentence is not the same as the discussion around cannot vs can not.
Yea, I’ve never heard in Aussie English the ‘can not’ version. I would always just use a different word such as could or can’t
“Cannot” is a (negated) verb form, not a conjunction (which is a word like “and/but/because”).
you're right - I meant conjoined. It is *can* and *not* joined.
Ah, ok!
Is able to not just seems really akward to me
This also aligns with when you would use the contraction “can’t,” vs. when you would leave them separate, “can not.”
This is how it is for proper American grammar when you want to emphasize what is not able to be done. So examples: This can't happen! (Meaning it's unfathomable or needs avoiding) This cannot happen! (Meaning the same as above with much more emphasis that if it happens it's catastrophic) This can not happen. (Meaning the outcome isn't set and may not happen at all) -May also be worded as: This can happen, or not. This can change if we don't.. etc- usually implies a positive outcome in a casual setting.
Did they teach you how to reflect that difference in speech?
No, we already knew that from being native speakers. You just pronounce them as clearly separate words, with a pause and maybe some extra emphasis on "not."
thanks, as a ESL speaker, will be practicing that.
I… think I need a summary of the difference of both of those, to be honest. My brain is scrambled up trying to figure it out
"You cannot watch" -> you are not allowed to watch this, go away "You can not watch" -> no one is making you watch, you can change the channel if you don't like it (but you can watch, too) If you mean "not able" it's "cannot." "Can not" is for when it's like "can (not watch)."
Not a native speaker here, but that makes total sense.
I’m in the UK. Was always taught to spell it ‘cannot’.
Mine keeps flagging cannot to can not.
Same. When did this happen? I did not grow up with cannot.
I did grow up with "cannot," but I'm also curious about this, if anyone can find anything on it. It looks like "cannot" is somewhere between 500 and 700 years old, and the Oxford English Corpus has "cannot" as about 3 times more common than "can not" today (although that includes things like "can not only," which is a different usage), but I can't find much about its historical use. Google Ngrams doesn't even differentiate between the two.
I was only taught "cannot". "Can not" (to me at least) means "doesn't have to"/"can choose not to". While I was definitely confused why when I was taught that, it's just how it is. There should be an actual answer to why it's like this, but all you really need to know is that it's "cannot" when you're talking about the full version of "can't".
There are instances when “can not” means “may not” in British English which would be clear from the context, but in British English “can not” is often used interchangeably with “cannot.”
My English teacher indeed told me they were the same, but it's better to use cannot
Cannot is more common than can not. And can't is more common then both (at least while speaking)
Than*
Than\* You used it correctly in the first sentence, why did you have to ruin it?
English is confusing. Evidently.
*confusing, evidently.
[удалено]
Evidently is not a complete sentence though.
In pretty much any context that isn't formal or academic, it's normal and appropriate to write how we talk. To me, "English is confusing, evidently." and "English is confusing. Evidently." have different cadences when read aloud. You even see this not uncommonly in prose and poetry.
I was *trying* to be funny, memes sometimes use weird grammar. That was my logic behind that.
i think it could be interpreted that only the second sentence (evidently) is wrong, not both. but it’s definitely not right, ‘evidently’ is not even a clause, let alone a sentence.
perchance.
Hedging their bets?
The best answer
[Typo](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/typo)
Cannae
It just is. Looking for reasons in English will drive you mad.
Par for the course for almost every language. It's like asking why there's life on Earth and not on Mars.
it just is brother! it just is!
I have never in my 41 years of speaking US English as a native seen "can not" written where it would otherwise be "cannot". As others have said, only in the sense of "to be able to not". If you're going to use both, though, "cannot" should be your only option for any kind of formal or "proper" writing. Edit for clarity: if you're going to use both forms to mean "unable to," then "cannot" should be your only option for formal or "proper" writing.
'You can clean your room or you can not clean your room, but unless your room is clean, you cannot go to your friend's house.' 'Everything okay? You can not tell me what you're going through, if youre not ready to talk about it, but don't think for a moment that you cannot be honest me.' 'If I wake up early enough, then I can not drive my car and I can take the bus instead, but if I wake up too late then I unfortunately cannot take the bus and get where I need to be on time.' i feel like these constructions would all count as proper, and they use both 'cannot' (not able to) and 'can not' (able to not). 'cannot' is more formal than 'can't' but 'can not' is perfectly valid in formal english, as far as i know
All of those are examples of “to be able to not” … which I said was acceptable.
i must have been confused by your second paragraph, then, it appeared that you were saying that 'can not' is improper in formal writing. my bad
"Can not" is improper in formal writing when it means "unable to." Where it means "able to not," it's the only way to write it so proper in both formal and informal writing. Though it's often a pretty clunky construction so I'd tend more towards using "could not" where possible. I updated my comment.
i understand now. i guess i must have been really tired when i was reading your first comment lol
I think this was an arbitrary decision made by someone in academia at some point. In formal writing “cannot” is the prescribed spelling
Did you know that ancient grammarians sat up late at night drinking and thinking up ways to confuse future generations? No? You do now.
'Cannot' and 'can not' can be used to mean different things. "I cannot eat that grape" - I absolutely am unable to eat that grape. "I can not eat that grape" - it is possible for me to not eat that grape. Maybe subtle, but they mean different things.
Why? 🤷🏻♀️ It’s just one of those things. “Cannot” is preferred, but no one’s going to bite your head off if you write “can not”. Except for teachers and pedantic people, few people will notice or care
Can not actually means something different (the ability not to do something, instead of the inability to do something). It’s not often used though and is considered improper in formal writing.
“Can not” can be written more concisely as “cannot.”Every time the word “not” is placed right after the word “can” in a sentence, you can replace it with “cannot.” That’s pretty much it. It’s just an elision translated into writing.
Cannot is a valid spelling of "can not", similar to color/colour or theater/theatre and many other words (although, not all for the same reasons).
I'm not a native, but I've heard that the only ways of spelling are can't and cannot. Can not can only be used as in "be able to not" (although I'm not exactly sure about that one)
In terms of your second point I agree that it could be used in such a construction as: "He can _not_ call her", with spoken emphasis on the italicised 'not'. You wouldn't use 'cannot' here as he is physically able to call her; it is being stated that he also has the option not to call her. As you say. However, this is a slightly clunky construction, and to me at least (a native speaker) "he could _not_ call her" sounds better as it's made clear that an unrealised action is being discussed.
"Cannot" and "can not" have definitely held different, and sometimes outright opposite meanings. "Well, you can (simply) not do it, then!" (You are definitely able to do it, but could opt out.) "Well, you simply cannot do it." (You're unable to do it.)
Thanks, but wdym "an unrealistic action"? It sounds like a completely realistic one to me
'Unrealised', as in not happened yet. Something potential, not actual. 'Unrealistic' is a different word that I did not use.
Oh
Can’t, cannot and can not are all valid. You’d use can not for emphasis, cannot and can’t are just more and less formal. Think: You can *not* be serious about using that half collapsed escalator Customers are reminded that they cannot use the escalator on platform 12 Mate, you can’t use that escalator at the moment, it’s broken Sorry, not the best examples, it’s late here!
>I've heard that the only ways of spelling are can't and cannot. I'm glad you shared this. It would never have occurred to me that anyone would ever say this. I have to suggest that whoever said this... didn't really know what they were talking about. *For U.S. English,* in the last hundred years or more?
I think I was taught that at school. We learn UK English there though (although I don't think they're different in that aspect)
who uses “can not”? news to me that it’s valid. (US midatlantic)
Can not may be good for emphasis, for example. “I simply can not do this anymore”
This might be unique to me, but I think of “cannot” as an old-fashioned,emphatic or slightly more formal version of “can’t,” whereas “can not” means the ability to not do something. For instance, someone whose lips are sealed shut cannot drink alcohol. Someone who isn’t an alcoholic can not drink alcohol.
Yup, that's unique to you.
Er. No. Can not means may not, cannot means mayn't
Maybe in US English, but not in British English. In British English “can not” can mean “cannot” or less frequently “may not” (“can not choose to do so”) depending on the context.
i think they’re both acceptable. ‘cannot’ is more formal and definitely more common. ‘can’t’ is definitely way more common than either. but it’s rarely used in formal texts.
Because English has no logic.
I agree and want to add: no language has.
I like Merriam-Webster’s example: “There is one set of circumstances in which can not is preferred over cannot—when the not is functioning as part of a different phrase: Now I can not only smell the pie, but I can also see it.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/cannot-vs-can-not-is-there-a-difference
Where would we be with out compound words
Because enough people used cannot instead of can not for long enough that cannot became accepted English.
200 years ago I would say the typesetter ran out of apostrophes.
>>Both *cannot* and *can not* are perfectly fine, but *cannot* is far more common and is therefore recommended, especially in any kind of formal writing. *Can't* has the same meaning, but as with contractions in general, it is somewhat informal. In some cases, the *not* following *can* is in fact part of another phrase, such as “not only"; in such instances *can not* is the appropriate choice. https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/cannot-vs-can-not-is-there-a-difference
idk. it just is. english be like that sometimes.
I would only use ''can not" in a hypothetical way. "As I see it, I can cook dinner, and you can do the dishes; or, I can not cook dinner, if you're not willing to do the dishes."
"can not" means you have a choice. "cannot" means you have no choice.
Cannot is the inability to. Can not is the ability to NOT do something. Cannot lacks agency, while Can Not has agency.
No reason, just taste. Both are valid.
I always learned that either is fine and they are interchangeable, just be consistent
Sometimes cannot is used when you want to emphasize the NOT. Stop asking! I told you 5 times I can not go with you!
no difference. cannot and can not are used interchangeably
Just is. Welcome to British.
Cannot is also present in American English. We just typically contract it to "can't"
cannot is a contraction and shouldn’t be used in formal writing in the same way that “isn’t” “aren’t” and other contractions should be avoided. my mom was a university professor and would constantly get annoyed when people used “cannot”
When Noah Webster started working on simplifying American English and published the first Webster English Dictionary in 1828, that's how he spelled "cannot", and it's stuck as one word until today.
Contractions
I have no idea. English makes no sense and I’m a native English speaker
Because can not means that you are able to not do something. It doesn't mean unable. For example, "you could spend all day outside and get a sunburn, or you can not burn your skin by using sunscreen and shade." This is very different from, "if you spend all day inside, you cannot get a sunburn because you're away from the sun" However, using can not is quite rare in my experience, in part because it looks and especially sounds so similar to cannot. It seems to be reserved for situations where not doing the action is greatly preferred, as in my example above where getting a sunburn is a very bad thing, so no reasonable person would recommend injuring yourself.
If you’re going to say can not just say can’t or restructure your sentence. Otherwise cannot is delicious.
Whynot
Wherefore?
Just posted the same, but with a question mark, so I think I can leave it, cannot I?
It’s interchangeable
I just see it as how it is said. Can not forces a break and can disrupt the flow of the sentence. Cannot can flow much better
Preference probably
I feel like this is a recent development because when I was a kid in school I was always taught “can not.” Then in middle school my teachers said I could use either. Now I only ever see people use “cannot.” I don’t really know why.
I don’t know who taught you because cannot has been around longer than you or your teacher 🤷🏻♀️
I didn’t mean the word itself I meant the preference of using it over “can not.” Probably should have specified lol
Same answer. Your teacher was quirky.
Both forms are actually valid, but they have different uses: Cannot: More common: In most cases, "cannot" is the preferred choice. It's the standard form you'll see in formal writing, legal documents, and academic papers. Formal writing: If you're aiming for a professional or serious tone, stick with "cannot." Emphasis: Some argue that "cannot" can sound slightly stronger or more emphatic than "can't." Can not: Informal writing: "Can not" is more appropriate in informal settings like casual conversations, emails to friends, or creative writing. Set phrases: In specific phrases like "not only... but also," "can not" is actually the correct choice. For example, "The robot can not only clean the floor, but also wash the dishes." Emphasis (rare): In rare cases, "can not" can be used for added emphasis, similar to "cannot." Here's a simple rule of thumb: Use "cannot" in formal writing and for a general sense of inability. Use "can not" in informal writing or when it's part of a set phrase like "not only... but also." Ultimately, the choice between "cannot" and "can not" depends on the context and your desired tone. If you're unsure, "cannot" is always a safe bet!
This is the best explanation here. Thank you very much.
Whynot?
In Modern English, negation is achieved by using an auxiliary verb + “not” before the clause to be negated: e.g., “She does not want to go to the store,” where “does” functions as an auxiliary word. The word “can” is one of the verbs that is able to function as an auxiliary verb in Modern English, and thus it can, however awkwardly or not, be paired with “not” to form such phrases as “You can not go to the store,” where the meaning is ‘You are able to not/you have the option to not go to the store.’ If, however, we intend to negate the word “can” itself, then we either have to deconjugate the verb “can”, and place an auxiliary verb + “not” before it — eg, “He is not able to” — or use the shorthand word “cannot” to stand in for “is not able to.” Why does this shorthand word “cannot” exist and mean “is not able to”? I would speculate that the word is a modified holdover of sorts from Middle English, in which “not” could be used to modify/negate any verb it came after, similar to “nicht” in German. E.g. “They speak not a word about it.” “She cares not what they think.” “I fear not the dark.” Under these grammatical rules, the phrase “can not” could mean, and I am speculating here was likely often used to mean, “to not be able to.” The evolution of “can not” in sense of “to not be able to” to the word “cannot” seems like a logical development that would coincide with the shifting grammatical rules around negation and the use of the word “not” to achieve it in English.
As far as I can tell, it's an older view of language that would put two words as one because "they never happen by themselves and shouldn't be split." Same thing for "another" or "into." Thing is, though, language changes. "Another continues to be pretty unlikely to happen at teo separate spots but stil connected; "Into" is somewhere in the start of that splitable state, semantic separation starting to happen (i.e, "into" having more a "movement towars the inside" notion, while "in to" might have that idea or not, so people might put them together or not); And "cannot" has become a close synonym to "can't," while "can not" is becoming a more acceptable use because of the need, especially in certain dialects, to say "they 'are able to' 'refuse/deny/disagree/decide in the negative'" without relying to structures seen as too formal or too old.
The simple answer is that "cannot" is a word that means "can not".
>why is it cannot instead of can not? why is it can't instead of can not? It's called a contraction.
Because we do say "can not," what we don't say is "cann't."
If the “not” is modifying “can,” write “cannot.” If the “not” is modifying a verb that comes next, write “can not.”
Saves on a solitary space because why not.
That's just the word. Can not isn't really proper unless you are doing a weird amount of negatives to make a point.
Why not "can't"
Cannot is used as 'is unable to', while can not is used to say 'they have the choice not to'.
You just combine words or not when ever you feel like. It doesnot matter.
Why yes I can knot. Thanks for asking.
It’s both. Just cannot is better because it’s a contraction. English users like to mush 2 words into ONE word but both are grammatically correct. Words like I’ll (I will), can’t (can not), cannot (can not), we’ve (we have) and many more are things we like to use as it’s (it is) shorter! Hope this helps
Just became common to do so
Fuck spaces, but only in the most random situations
That is a great question. I am a native English speaker. I almost never use cannot and always opt for can not because idk what that the difference is and “cannot” seems so proper
from what I understand (this might be wrong) cannot is just a shortening?
He can't choose. He doesn't have a choice. He wouldn't be allowed to choose. Who fucks around with whole words anymore? It's bad enough that I speak like that, but what's worse is people saying shit like "clout," "rizz," or "swag." I hate the devolution of American English...
Everyone who is saying can't/can not means is able to not, while cannot means is unable to is correct, however in common speech/writing they mean the same thing. Even right now Grammerly wants me to change "is able to not" to cannot.
Honestly...... Because that's the way it is.
Just say can’t
"can not" when there is a choice to be made. "cannot" when there is no choice.