It would still be grammatically correct, but modern tongues would automatically contract it: "Can't you go there?" or "Can't you form a guess?" Thus "I was going to X, but if you don't want me to I can not" means I would be happy to change my plans if you want me to" on the other hand, "I was going to X, but if you do't want me to I cannot" means that you have the power to veto my Actually, the second was in common currency in centuries past-from Jane Austen's Emma: "'Cannot you, my dear Emma-cannot you form a guess as to what you are to hear?'" Cf.
Cannot means the action is impossible can not means there is the option to not take the action. Incidentally my grammar books warn against simply seeing "could" and "would" as the past of "can" and "will", as they also have several other functions, like for example, distancing - "Could you pass me the jam, please?" Modals don't really have tense, but on certain occasions, such as reported speech, four modals can act as the past of others, so: will>would, can>could, shall>should, may>might. In negatives though, "couldn't" works for both general and specific ability in the past - "I couldn't find my keys last night". I don't think the fact that we can't/cannot/can not use it in question form has any bearing on which is better in positive statements.Īs for your other point, it is fine to use "could" as the past of "can" when talking about general ability in the past - "At the age of four he could already read and write", but not to talk about ability on a a specific occasion - "I locked myself out last night, but was able to get in through a back window" - NOT - "I could get in through a back window". "Can't you go there?", but "Can you not go there?"īut "cannot" is in a class all of of its own. "Won't you do as I ask?", but "Will you not do as I ask?"
"Haven't I seen you before?", but "Have I not seen you before?" "Didn't she say she was coming?", but "Did she not say she was coming?" but (also)’ " Oxford Dictionaries - You bring up an interesting point about the question form, and as you say "cannot" doesn't work there, but for the very good reason that in question form when the auxiliary is not contracted, "not" comes after the inverted subject: The two-word form is better only in a construction in which not is part of a set phrase, such as ‘not only. "Both the one-word form cannot and the two-word form can not are acceptable, but cannot is more common (in the Oxford English Corpus, three times as common). whose presence paralyses the poor victim and he or she can not move the darn leg. Only then it means that you are possibly so huge as to make shaking a leg physically impossible by your presence in the tiny room. However you are correct to state that your example is also correct grammatically. "Can you not shake your leg when I’m in the room? You can just not shake, ok? -> You can not shake it."įirst, you probably debate a permission to shake my leg when you are in the room, which should be expressed with the word "may" rather than the physical possibility expressed by "can". In these sentences the "not" negated the exclusion expressed by the word "only" rather than the possibility expressed by “can". I can not only teach mathematics but also economics and English. The two example sentences where you wrote "can" and "not" side by side have nothing in common with "cannot":
0 kommentar(er)
