All we need to do is find out which plays that played in LA yesterday had around 40 people in the audience, then read the scripts until we find a sentiment that ogged plausibly might have held but holds no longer. Easy-peasy.
Oh definitely, you're the next Bill Bryson, ogged.
Does anyone know when it became acceptable to elide can not into cannot. After I was told that cannot was the preferred usage, I wrote it that way in a paper and got marked off.
I have a delicious cookie right here, and I'm just dying to give it to the first person with a non-joke example where "can not", where the "not" binds to "can", means other than "cannot".
Sorry. See my reply to Mitch, since in your example "not" modifies "eat", not "can". I'll grant that "can not" allows for ambiguous parses, but these are easily resolved with the help of context and emphasis.
Perhaps languagehat is acquainted with that noted badass lexicon, the Oxford E. Motherfucking Dictionary. "CANNOT. the ordinary modern way of writing can not: see CAN v."
He is acquainted with it, and, since he's very much for the modern in linguistic matters, he would take the fact that it describes "cannot" as "the ordinary modern way" as support, don't you think?
Incidentally, I went ahead and saw "can" in the OEMFD, and it says "negative cannot". "Can not" occurs only in citations, and the latest is from the 1550s.
The OED itself using "cannot" when it means to convey lack of capability. Of course we aren't talking about how "cannot" means "can't", but rather about how "can not" conveys an ability not to do something. Which is clear.
I still say that "can not (whatever)" means "is capable of not (whatever)ing". Your requirement to produce an example in which the "not" modifies "can", and yet does not mean "cannot", is equivalent to question-begging.
I only got into usage because you brought it up first with the OED cite. If I said '"bachelor" means "umarried male"', I presume you wouldn't point out that in 1300 it meant "a young knight", would you?
Does anyone know when it became acceptable to elide can not into cannot.
The answer being, apparently, way the heck a long time ago. You now want to say that in every modern instance of "can not", the "not" unambiguously binds to the following verb phrase. Right?
What's more, if you produce an example in which it seems that that is not the case, I will claim that the author is simply in error, and should have written "cannot".
Damn, I had no idea that my comment would elicit such a discussion. I feel--almost--accepted and stuff. I think I still prefer "can not," but I'm hopelessly reactionary.
Glad that's cleared up. But question: when would "can not" be preferable to some other construction? E.g., "I'm allowed not to" or "I can resist" etc. Seems "can not" is liable to being confusing or vague.
I've never seen a game be so close for so long. Never is a long time, but I certainly can't remember it. Watching those teams play tonight was just beautiful. From the start of the fourth quarter all through overtime, it was a two-point game (except for that one moment in OT when Detroit was up by 4).
Look at poor Joe, naively thinking that the Standpipe has any love for sport in his heart. It's ok Joe, let him suffer. It was a great final 20 minutes.
A dubious rhetorical move, the ogged. Joe's good cop nearly had me at the brink of benign apathy, before you started hoisting me up by the collar and honking my nose.
SB, your use of periods rather than exclamation points in 59 indicates that you meant to fake it. Also, the Tigers are Detroit's baseball team. Can't you even call out the right name?
I'm really not able to talk about this just yet. I'm still in Stage 2 - anger. Joe, I wouldn't have thought you would be capable of such irredeemable evil as to be a Spurs fan.
They're my hometown team. But I knew you wouldn't be able to keep quiet about this.
It's very weird watching the Spurs go up against Larry Brown's team in the finals. He embodied the Spurs when I was growing up.
Tim, I know that you hate the Spurs, but I tell myself that's just because you don't know the Spurs. When they win, the good guys have won. Not the flashy guys, or the tough guys, or the guys with the shoe endorsements, but the team. The team of the good.
Now, the Lakers -- there's a team to hate for a lifetime.
On topic (more or less), LA is definitely huge, and I find myself driving over 150 miles a day (but not, strictly speaking, all within LA) but Pasadena actually seems more densely urban than the San Jose/Silicon Valley area.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I grew up thinking of LA as sprawl just about everywhere outside of downtown.
the city, which, it must also be said--after driving around it all day--is frickin' huge.
Los Angeles goes on and on, long after it's made its point.
Posted by DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 4:34 AM
What was the quote?
Posted by D | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 9:50 AM
I'll never tell.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 9:52 AM
All we need to do is find out which plays that played in LA yesterday had around 40 people in the audience, then read the scripts until we find a sentiment that ogged plausibly might have held but holds no longer. Easy-peasy.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:59 AM
"we"? Wolfson, you know who Ogged is.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 11:39 AM
Unless, during your rendezvouses, you actually addressed him as Ogged.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 11:40 AM
Yes, but I don't know what the quotation was.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 12:12 PM
i cannot read.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 12:33 PM
Oh definitely, you're the next Bill Bryson, ogged.
Does anyone know when it became acceptable to elide can not into cannot. After I was told that cannot was the preferred usage, I wrote it that way in a paper and got marked off.
Posted by Abby | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 6:04 PM
"cannot" and "can not" mean different things.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 6:10 PM
No they don't.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 6:27 PM
A: Not reading is forbidden!
B: You're not the boss of me! I can not read whenever I want to!!
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 6:37 PM
I have a delicious cookie right here, and I'm just dying to give it to the first person with a non-joke example where "can not", where the "not" binds to "can", means other than "cannot".
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 6:52 PM
I cannot eat that cookie.
I can not eat that cookie, but I will.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:00 PM
where the "not" binds to "can"
The whole point is that in "can not", the "not", not being attached to "can", is available to bind to other words.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:02 PM
Sorry. See my reply to Mitch, since in your example "not" modifies "eat", not "can". I'll grant that "can not" allows for ambiguous parses, but these are easily resolved with the help of context and emphasis.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:05 PM
If the "not" binds to another word, it makes no sense to say that this affects the meaning of "can not", where "not" binds to "can".
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:07 PM
What makes you think we were talking about '"can not" where "not" binds to "can"'?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:13 PM
Languagehat.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:16 PM
Perhaps languagehat is acquainted with that noted badass lexicon, the Oxford E. Motherfucking Dictionary. "CANNOT. the ordinary modern way of writing can not: see CAN v."
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:18 PM
He is acquainted with it, and, since he's very much for the modern in linguistic matters, he would take the fact that it describes "cannot" as "the ordinary modern way" as support, don't you think?
Incidentally, I went ahead and saw "can" in the OEMFD, and it says "negative cannot". "Can not" occurs only in citations, and the latest is from the 1550s.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:23 PM
The OED itself using "cannot" when it means to convey lack of capability. Of course we aren't talking about how "cannot" means "can't", but rather about how "can not" conveys an ability not to do something. Which is clear.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:25 PM
Well, fine. I wouldn't use "can not" either, since modern usage me gusta. But your claim was about meaning, not preferred usage.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:28 PM
I still say that "can not (whatever)" means "is capable of not (whatever)ing". Your requirement to produce an example in which the "not" modifies "can", and yet does not mean "cannot", is equivalent to question-begging.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:30 PM
I only got into usage because you brought it up first with the OED cite. If I said '"bachelor" means "umarried male"', I presume you wouldn't point out that in 1300 it meant "a young knight", would you?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:32 PM
We began with a question of usage:
Does anyone know when it became acceptable to elide can not into cannot.
The answer being, apparently, way the heck a long time ago. You now want to say that in every modern instance of "can not", the "not" unambiguously binds to the following verb phrase. Right?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:42 PM
fuckin' right!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:45 PM
What's more, if you produce an example in which it seems that that is not the case, I will claim that the author is simply in error, and should have written "cannot".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:46 PM
Okay. But since we're physically separated by some unknown distance, I'll have to eat the cookie for you.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:52 PM
Since it's no secret where I live, the distance isn't, or needn't be, unknown to you. Anyway, have fun eating my cookie.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:57 PM
I can not tell you how much it pleases me to see serious word usage discussions on this blog.
So I won't, will not, shall not, and shan't.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 7:58 PM
I meant "unknown to the general audience". And the cookie was oatmeal raisin, your favorite. Yum, yum. You should win more arguments with me.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 8:04 PM
Heck, I'll start picking fights I'm sure to lose, if it means I can give y'all these tasty cookies. By, uh, proxy.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 8:08 PM
While you were eating that delicious cookie I was eating half of a delicious strawberry-rhubarb pie.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 8:18 PM
YUO=LUSER
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 8:18 PM
Damn, strawberry rhubarb! Me want.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 8:32 PM
"I" want.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 9:43 PM
Damn, I had no idea that my comment would elicit such a discussion. I feel--almost--accepted and stuff. I think I still prefer "can not," but I'm hopelessly reactionary.
Posted by Abby | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 9:48 PM
We are minutia-minding rhubarbarians.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 9:59 PM
I think Hell must be Wolfson on a continual usage rampage.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:03 PM
Glad that's cleared up. But question: when would "can not" be preferable to some other construction? E.g., "I'm allowed not to" or "I can resist" etc. Seems "can not" is liable to being confusing or vague.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:14 PM
Spurs, bitches.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:22 PM
Robert Horry is a freak of some sort.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:24 PM
I was thinking that if there were some category of genius based on athletic ability and grace under pressure, he would certainly be one.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:27 PM
I'll be so glad when basketball is over.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:27 PM
Don't make me draft-blog, Bridgeplate.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:29 PM
The all-volunteer blog wouldn't stand for it.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:31 PM
I've never seen a game be so close for so long. Never is a long time, but I certainly can't remember it. Watching those teams play tonight was just beautiful. From the start of the fourth quarter all through overtime, it was a two-point game (except for that one moment in OT when Detroit was up by 4).
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:31 PM
Seriously, SB, if you were ever thinking about becoming a fan, tonight would have been the night to really see how exciting the game can be.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:32 PM
Look at poor Joe, naively thinking that the Standpipe has any love for sport in his heart. It's ok Joe, let him suffer. It was a great final 20 minutes.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:34 PM
Spurs, and the (mostly) fantastic Batman earlier this evening. It's been a good one. Night, all.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:38 PM
the Standpipe
A dubious rhetorical move, the ogged. Joe's good cop nearly had me at the brink of benign apathy, before you started hoisting me up by the collar and honking my nose.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:43 PM
I probably shouldn't blog in anger, but you'll admit it was a bit churlish to complain about two basketball comments after the "cannot" hijacking.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:47 PM
You're right. Sorry.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:54 PM
Go Spurs?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:55 PM
Faking is always ok.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 10:56 PM
But you should at least fake it like you mean it.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 11:02 PM
eb must be young.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 11:02 PM
Holy shit. Did you see that dude. He was insane with the ball control. I want to have his babies. Woo.
Was that good for you, tiger?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 11:05 PM
You're the best commenter I've ever had.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 11:07 PM
It's gotten to the point where I can't take that statement seriously anymore.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 11:12 PM
Yeah, I can't fucking tell. You're pretty good, anyway.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 11:14 PM
SB, your use of periods rather than exclamation points in 59 indicates that you meant to fake it. Also, the Tigers are Detroit's baseball team. Can't you even call out the right name?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 11:16 PM
Darn it, eb, you interruped us at the moment of sarcasm!
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 11:18 PM
Robert Horry is a freak of some sort.
He's even a big enough (sort of) star to get this kind of treatment.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-19-05 11:20 PM
I can not imagine a circumstance under which "can not" would be preferable to "can resist." Sorry for the hijacking.
Posted by Abby | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 12:25 AM
Hijacking is fine, this the stuff of the blog; but complaining about basketball, grrr.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 12:27 AM
I like reading about sports ok, not so much watching sports. I am hopeless nerd.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 1:35 AM
Abby,
Your imagination is woefully underpowered.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 7:18 AM
Robert Horry is a freak of some sort.
I can't believe they left him open.
I'm really not able to talk about this just yet. I'm still in Stage 2 - anger. Joe, I wouldn't have thought you would be capable of such irredeemable evil as to be a Spurs fan.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 7:39 AM
They're my hometown team. But I knew you wouldn't be able to keep quiet about this.
It's very weird watching the Spurs go up against Larry Brown's team in the finals. He embodied the Spurs when I was growing up.
Tim, I know that you hate the Spurs, but I tell myself that's just because you don't know the Spurs. When they win, the good guys have won. Not the flashy guys, or the tough guys, or the guys with the shoe endorsements, but the team. The team of the good.
Now, the Lakers -- there's a team to hate for a lifetime.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 7:52 AM
Oops. I meant L/arr/y B/ro/w/n.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 7:58 AM
On topic (more or less), LA is definitely huge, and I find myself driving over 150 miles a day (but not, strictly speaking, all within LA) but Pasadena actually seems more densely urban than the San Jose/Silicon Valley area.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I grew up thinking of LA as sprawl just about everywhere outside of downtown.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 06-20-05 2:17 PM