Thread: cannot

What is the difference in "can't" and "cannot" usage?
Might the expression "can not" be used in a literate speech? I used this to put a mind to "You can NOT ..."

can't is the contraction of cannot. They are the same thing. Much like I'm vs I am.

And yes, you can use can not. It's quite common for people to spread the two words out, especially in the example you given where people often stress the word not.

If you were writing a diary you would use can't rather than cannot
If you were writing a formal essay - on say a history topic you should never use can't and always use cannot or can not

Can't is more informal. If a student used it in anything other than direct speech in an essay it would be criticised. However times have changed in English schools and more informal grammar is accepted now than used to be the case.

The basic primis is any contraction; can't, I'm, you're, I'd (etc) is informal speach and writing. In any formal writing you would not use any form of contractions. I don't know about formal speach as I tend to try and keep away from any kind of "formal" occations that would require a different speach edicat. (what can I say, I'm a computer geek and formalities aren't my forte)

There's nothing wrong with using contractions in essays as long as the alternative sounds odd:

I can't see why this should be the case
I cannot see why this should be the case

I think the first is better.

Formal essays aren't normally written in first person. Moreover, even if it sounds better the contraction way, you still get points taken off for using it.

What do you mean by points being taken off? It is perfectly legitimate to use the first person. For example:

"Hitler's faliure to capture Stalingrad was mainly due to the failure of the bombing campaign" How far do you agree?
This is a question I was recently set in History. If you do not use the first person then you have not directly answered the question and will be penalised accordingly. Which teacher/lecturer penalised you for a perfectly acceptable piece of English, IE a contraction?

I suppose they would penalise you for "a historic" and splitting infinitives? People like that are living in a dream world. It reminds me of the French claiming that "sandwich" and "week-end" are not real words. I wonder if they have allowed them into their dictionaries yet...

Originally Posted by Oddo

I wonder if they have allowed them into their dictionaries yet...

I have a computer version of "Le Petit Robert" and it has both words.

"Hitler's faliure to capture Stalingrad was mainly due to the failure of the bombing campaign" How far do you agree?
This is a question I was recently set in History. If you do not use the first person then you have not directly answered the question and will be penalised accordingly.

That seems more like a persuasive essay to me, in which it is expected that you use first person, with penalties for not doing so. By formal essay, I mean writing an analysis of a story or something.

Which teacher/lecturer penalised you for a perfectly acceptable piece of English, IE a contraction?

My AP English teacher.

Originally Posted by EffMah

"Hitler's faliure to capture Stalingrad was mainly due to the failure of the bombing campaign" How far do you agree?
This is a question I was recently set in History. If you do not use the first person then you have not directly answered the question and will be penalised accordingly.

That seems more like a persuasive essay to me, in which it is expected that you use first person, with penalties for not doing so. By formal essay, I mean writing an analysis of a story or something.

[quote:yp52s9wx]Which teacher/lecturer penalised you for a perfectly acceptable piece of English, IE a contraction?

My AP English teacher.[/quote:yp52s9wx]

It's perfectly fine to use "I" in a non-persuasive essay, just don't overuse it(or anything else). I use "I" sometimes in those essays and I'm not penalized for it. As for contractions, I think I was penalized a little bit for it too, but I think that's BS.

I've always been penalized for using contractions in formal writing. It makes since. It's like going down to the level of slang. English, formally, needs to keep with a strict standard or we'll all be speaking Ebonics in the next 50 years (if Spanish hadn't overran us by then).

10 years ago, maybe even 5, you wouldn't even had dared to say using contractions was okay in Essays. Who knows what we'll say in the next 10 or 5 years if we don't retain the level of strict requirements in our language.

I've always been penalized for using contractions in formal writing. It makes since. It's like going down to the level of slang. English, formally, needs to keep with a strict standard or we'll all be speaking Ebonics in the next 50 years (if Spanish hadn't overran us by then).

10 years ago, maybe even 5, you wouldn't even had dared to say using contractions was okay in Essays. Who knows what we'll say in the next 10 or 5 years if we don't retain the level of strict requirements in our language.

Hate - hate - to be rude, but this is nonsense. As has been pointed out, contractions are part of the language for crying out loud. Do we value Orwell for his public-school prose or for the trenchancy of his content? This stuff is on a par with bygone tripe about how telephones sounded the death-knell for the written words.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, any native speaker who capitalises 'essays' and uses constructions like 'hadn't overran' is in no position to sermonise quite so self-righteously about the state of the language.

Evidently doesn't stop them, though.

Originally Posted by guice666

I've always been penalized for using contractions in formal writing. It makes since. It's like going down to the level of slang. English, formally, needs to keep with a strict standard or we'll all be speaking Ebonics in the next 50 years (if Spanish hadn't overran us by then).

10 years ago, maybe even 5, you wouldn't even had dared to say using contractions was okay in Essays. Who knows what we'll say in the next 10 or 5 years if we don't retain the level of strict requirements in our language.

I'm not even going to go into the nasty overones of the Ebonics reference, but will content myself with saying this: Have you read any classical English literature? Many works, especially works of fiction, are positively overflowing with the common language of the period in which they were written. After you take a few linguistics courses, or at least READ SOME BOOKS, you can come back and lament the downfall of the English language. Of course, after you've done those things, you will no longer be inclined to lament the downfall of the English language, so it will be a moot point.

Edited to add: Word to joysof's mother.

Originally Posted by Линдзи

Edited to add: Word to joysof's mother.

Sometimes you're beyond even my comprehension, Л.

I'm going to use my super-charged skills of guesswork, honed by years of living in countries where I haven't got an effing clue what people are yapping about, to say that I think Lindzi was using Ebonics or some such to say that she agreed with you, joysof.
Ahem.

Hee. Waxwing is correct. Although it was really half-assed Ebonics.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, any native speaker who capitalises 'essays'

Dickens often capitalized words that needed no capitalization in his stories, and rarely used colloquial speech, except in the direct speech of his characters.

He's the only example I can think of, anyway.

Yeah, but something tells me he didn't say things "make since."

That's why I left that part of the quote out.

Originally Posted by EffMah

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, any native speaker who capitalises 'essays'

Dickens often capitalized words that needed no capitalization in his stories, and rarely used colloquial speech, except in the direct speech of his characters.

Emily Dickinson was Crazy for her Capitals, Too. Was a while ago, though, No?

@Линдзи: Oh.