# What's so special about 'cannot'? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 13, 2008, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-special-about-cannot/472616 "2008-11-13T23:14:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-special-about-cannot/472616/1 "2008-11-13T23:14:39Z")
It’s _can, can’t or cannot_. _Can not_ does not exist. -Or so says the corporate writing style guide I’ve been looking at. What’s more, I agree. But _why_ is it like this? What happened, etymologically and historically, to make this happen? Is _cannot_ actually something other than what it seems (the inelastic collision of the words ‘can’ and ‘not’)? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-special-about-cannot/472616/2 "2008-11-13T23:27:28Z")
According to the OED, you can use can not. > **[Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data](https://languages.oup.com/)** > > Explore Oxford Languages, the home of world-renowned language data. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-special-about-cannot/472616/3 "2008-11-13T23:29:55Z")
You can follow the guide or you can not follow the guide; the choice is yours. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-special-about-cannot/472616/4 "2008-11-13T23:36:19Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > According to the OED, you can use can not. > > [Oxford Languages - The home of language data](http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutspelling/cannot) Under quite specific conditions, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-special-about-cannot/472616/5 "2008-11-13T23:44:45Z")
You can use “can not” these days, but it usually means something a bit different to “cannot” Eg. “Can you not smoke in here please?” “Sure I can not smoke if it bothers you” (quite different implications to “I cannot smoke if it bothers you”) One of our Dr Seuss books (_One Fish Two Fish_ I think) doesn’t follow this style guide, which makes me wonder if the rule was different in the 50’s _Oh dear, Oh dear, I can not hear/Will you please come over here?/Will you please look in my ear?/There must be something there I fear_ My husband reckons this is Just Plain Wrong but I imagine an extraordinarily popular kids book would make at least some effort to get their grammar right. So maybe it’s a fairly recent change? It is nice in terms of linguistic precision to have the two different shades of meaning available. ---
**Author:** ![Southern\_Yankee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/southern_yankee/32/2800_2.png) [@Southern\_Yankee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Southern_Yankee)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-special-about-cannot/472616/6 "2008-11-13T23:46:13Z")
Valid point. We have _do_ and _don’t_, but not _donot_. _Did_, _didn’t_, but not _didnot_. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-special-about-cannot/472616/7 "2008-11-13T23:53:33Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > One of our Dr Seuss books (_One Fish Two Fish_ I think) doesn’t follow this style guide, which makes me wonder if the rule was different in the 50’s Dunno - seems more likely that Seuss was doing his own thing - he’s kind of well known for it. ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-special-about-cannot/472616/8 "2008-11-13T23:56:03Z")
I think that cannot versus can not does express a distinction that other [verb]+not combinations don’t have. Eg “I can not go into the room” (I am able to refrain from going into the room - but I might not choose to) “I cannot go into the room” (I am completely unable to go into the room - I have no choice) Supposing we had a word “didnot” - what useful distinction could we make between that and “did not”? “I didnot go into the room” (I failed to perform the action of entering) “I did not go into the room” (I performed the action of refraining from entering) They mean the same. There’s no useful distinction to be made, so we don’t need the two different terms. ---
**Author:** ![Southern\_Yankee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/southern_yankee/32/2800_2.png) [@Southern\_Yankee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Southern_Yankee)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-special-about-cannot/472616/9 "2008-11-14T00:00:36Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > I think that cannot versus can not does express a distinction that other [verb]+not combinations don’t have. > > Eg > “I can not go into the room” (I am able to refrain from going into the room - but I might not choose to) > “I cannot go into the room” (I am completely unable to go into the room - I have no choice) > > Supposing we had a word “didnot” - what useful distinction could we make between that and “did not”? > > “I didnot go into the room” (I failed to perform the action of entering) > “I did not go into the room” (I performed the action of refraining from entering) > > They mean the same. There’s no useful distinction to be made, so we don’t need the two different terms. Ok, I buy that. So to the OP, the answer is that the word _can_ is what is special. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-special-about-cannot/472616/10 "2008-11-14T00:01:03Z")
That’s an interesting point - and I can’t think of an example to break it, but is that the true reason for it? ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-special-about-cannot/472616/11 "2008-11-14T00:06:52Z")
There’s also the fact that “cannot” rolls off the tongue euphoniously much better than “didnot” or “willnot” (clunky IMO) or “donot” (spelt badly for its intended pronunciation). That may be why we have both “cannot” and “can’t” which, after all, do seem to have exactly identical meanings. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-special-about-cannot/472616/12 "2008-11-14T00:10:48Z")
> [@Southern\_Yankee](#): > > We have _do_ and _don’t_, but not _donot_. _Did_, _didn’t_, but not _didnot_. There’s also the fact that “can” ends with the letter “n,” which practically begs to be joined with the “n” in “not.” ETA: I did not preview, so I missed **Aspidistra’s** highly intelligent and insightful post. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-special-about-cannot/472616/13 "2008-11-14T00:45:49Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > “I can not go into the room” (I am able to refrain from going into the room - but I might not choose to) \ English is so frustrating to computer programmers. Too bad we can’t say it in C: I !can go into the room; I can !go into the room; 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-special-about-cannot/472616/14 "2008-11-14T01:00:53Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > -Or so says the corporate writing style guide I’ve been looking at. There’s your problem. Corporate writing guides have nothing to do with English. ---
**Author:** ![sundog66](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@sundog66](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sundog66)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2008, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-so-special-about-cannot/472616/15 "2008-11-14T03:50:58Z")
My speculation is that “cannot” is spelled as a single word because, as has been pointed out, “can” ends with the same consonant that “not” starts with, and this makes them more likely to blend together and be perceived as a single unit. Keep in mind that this is purely a spelling convention, though. It reflects nothing in the grammar of English as acquired by native speakers. As has also been pointed out, an advantage of this quirky convention is that it makes it easier to signal in prose when “can” is intended to take semantic scope over negation by spelling it out as two words: “can not”. Other modals are similarly ambiguous, e.g. “may”, and for them, spelling is no help: 1a. You may not do it = It is not the case that you have permission to do it. 1b. You **may** not do it = You have permission not to do it.