'cannot' /= 'can not'

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

'cannot' /= 'can not'

empro2
This is only the most recent occurrence that finally
makes me write this:

<quote>
[erlang-questions] Patch package OTP 20.3.8.3 released
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:13:22 +0200
[...]
Note! The kernel-5.4.3.2 application can *not* be applied
      independently of other applications on an arbitrary
      OTP 20 installation.
[...]
</quote>

If it can not be applied independently then it can also be
applied independently - which, in this case, is
probably not what is meant. But this is guesswork, relying
on the reader already knowing the meaning of what is
being said, rendering the saying it much less useful.

Modals are a mess (spoken languages are, after ceturies of
abuse like the one discussed in "[erlang-questions] Orelse
and andalso as short-hand for case"), but they convey
critical meaning.

Nine(?) of ten "can not"s in the Erlang docs must be
"cannot" to convey the correct meaning. Reading the docs has
already made me convert every "can not" I read into
"cannot" - I mean *every*, not only those in the Erlang
docs - and then back again (only about 1 of 10 in the
Erlang docs). This is a real, and substantial, waste of
post-orbital CPU cycles; not the conversion itself, but the
distraction from understanding whatever meaning the author
actually tries to get across.

If someone with authority (and authorisation) could and
would please write and run a script and convert all "can
not" -> "cannot" in all OTP strings, binaries and comments?
This will introduce errors, as there actually are a few,
rare correct "can not"s, but it will correct about 9 times
more of wrong ones that really need to be "cannot".

At least in the doc strings?

Please?

Michael

--

Time is not money, but money is time: life-time people have
spent transforming their environment.


_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

Hugo Mills-2
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:02:43AM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:

> This is only the most recent occurrence that finally
> makes me write this:
>
> <quote>
> [erlang-questions] Patch package OTP 20.3.8.3 released
> Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:13:22 +0200
> [...]
> Note! The kernel-5.4.3.2 application can *not* be applied
>       independently of other applications on an arbitrary
>       OTP 20 installation.
> [...]
> </quote>
>
> If it can not be applied independently then it can also be
> applied independently
   Eh? In no way is that the implication here.

   "can *not*", to me as a native speaker of the language, is the same
as "cannot", with additional emphasis. I've been trying to identify
other meanings using alternative readings or logical inference, but
none of them come naturally, or would make any sense.

   You're asking for a change which makes no difference whatsoever.

   Hugo.

> - which, in this case, is
> probably not what is meant. But this is guesswork, relying
> on the reader already knowing the meaning of what is
> being said, rendering the saying it much less useful.
>
> Modals are a mess (spoken languages are, after ceturies of
> abuse like the one discussed in "[erlang-questions] Orelse
> and andalso as short-hand for case"), but they convey
> critical meaning.
>
> Nine(?) of ten "can not"s in the Erlang docs must be
> "cannot" to convey the correct meaning. Reading the docs has
> already made me convert every "can not" I read into
> "cannot" - I mean *every*, not only those in the Erlang
> docs - and then back again (only about 1 of 10 in the
> Erlang docs). This is a real, and substantial, waste of
> post-orbital CPU cycles; not the conversion itself, but the
> distraction from understanding whatever meaning the author
> actually tries to get across.
>
> If someone with authority (and authorisation) could and
> would please write and run a script and convert all "can
> not" -> "cannot" in all OTP strings, binaries and comments?
> This will introduce errors, as there actually are a few,
> rare correct "can not"s, but it will correct about 9 times
> more of wrong ones that really need to be "cannot".
>
> At least in the doc strings?
>
> Please?
>
> Michael
>
--
Hugo Mills             | I used to be a mathematician, but I'm better now.
hugo@... carfax.org.uk |
http://carfax.org.uk/  |
PGP: E2AB1DE4          |

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

Marc Worrell
In reply to this post by empro2
Hi Michael,

“Cannot” and “can not” are both acceptable spellings.
And there is no difference in meaning.

See also:
https://www.dailywritingtips.com/cannot-or-can-not/

> If it can not be applied independently then it can also be
> applied independently - which, in this case, is [..]

Could it be that you see “can not only” where it says “can not” ?

- Marc


> On 24 Jul 2018, at 11:02, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> This is only the most recent occurrence that finally
> makes me write this:
>
> <quote>
> [erlang-questions] Patch package OTP 20.3.8.3 released
> Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:13:22 +0200
> [...]
> Note! The kernel-5.4.3.2 application can *not* be applied
>       independently of other applications on an arbitrary
>      OTP 20 installation.
> [...]
> </quote>
>
> If it can not be applied independently then it can also be
> applied independently - which, in this case, is
> probably not what is meant. But this is guesswork, relying
> on the reader already knowing the meaning of what is
> being said, rendering the saying it much less useful.
>
> Modals are a mess (spoken languages are, after ceturies of
> abuse like the one discussed in "[erlang-questions] Orelse
> and andalso as short-hand for case"), but they convey
> critical meaning.
>
> Nine(?) of ten "can not"s in the Erlang docs must be
> "cannot" to convey the correct meaning. Reading the docs has
> already made me convert every "can not" I read into
> "cannot" - I mean *every*, not only those in the Erlang
> docs - and then back again (only about 1 of 10 in the
> Erlang docs). This is a real, and substantial, waste of
> post-orbital CPU cycles; not the conversion itself, but the
> distraction from understanding whatever meaning the author
> actually tries to get across.
>
> If someone with authority (and authorisation) could and
> would please write and run a script and convert all "can
> not" -> "cannot" in all OTP strings, binaries and comments?
> This will introduce errors, as there actually are a few,
> rare correct "can not"s, but it will correct about 9 times
> more of wrong ones that really need to be "cannot".
>
> At least in the doc strings?
>
> Please?
>
> Michael
>
> --
>
> Time is not money, but money is time: life-time people have
> spent transforming their environment.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

Judson Lester-2
To be fair to Michael, there is a legitimate (albeit somewhat tortured) reading of "A can not be done" as "It is possible not to do A" that "A cannot be done" doesn't admit. While I read the patch notes as meaning "It is impossible to apply the kernel application separately", I can see where confusion might arise.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 6:17 AM Marc Worrell <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Michael,

“Cannot” and “can not” are both acceptable spellings.
And there is no difference in meaning.

See also:
https://www.dailywritingtips.com/cannot-or-can-not/

> If it can not be applied independently then it can also be
> applied independently - which, in this case, is [..]

Could it be that you see “can not only” where it says “can not” ?

- Marc


> On 24 Jul 2018, at 11:02, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> This is only the most recent occurrence that finally
> makes me write this:
>
> <quote>
> [erlang-questions] Patch package OTP 20.3.8.3 released
> Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:13:22 +0200
> [...]
> Note! The kernel-5.4.3.2 application can *not* be applied
>       independently of other applications on an arbitrary
>      OTP 20 installation.
> [...]
> </quote>
>
> If it can not be applied independently then it can also be
> applied independently - which, in this case, is
> probably not what is meant. But this is guesswork, relying
> on the reader already knowing the meaning of what is
> being said, rendering the saying it much less useful.
>
> Modals are a mess (spoken languages are, after ceturies of
> abuse like the one discussed in "[erlang-questions] Orelse
> and andalso as short-hand for case"), but they convey
> critical meaning.
>
> Nine(?) of ten "can not"s in the Erlang docs must be
> "cannot" to convey the correct meaning. Reading the docs has
> already made me convert every "can not" I read into
> "cannot" - I mean *every*, not only those in the Erlang
> docs - and then back again (only about 1 of 10 in the
> Erlang docs). This is a real, and substantial, waste of
> post-orbital CPU cycles; not the conversion itself, but the
> distraction from understanding whatever meaning the author
> actually tries to get across.
>
> If someone with authority (and authorisation) could and
> would please write and run a script and convert all "can
> not" -> "cannot" in all OTP strings, binaries and comments?
> This will introduce errors, as there actually are a few,
> rare correct "can not"s, but it will correct about 9 times
> more of wrong ones that really need to be "cannot".
>
> At least in the doc strings?
>
> Please?
>
> Michael
>
> --
>
> Time is not money, but money is time: life-time people have
> spent transforming their environment.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

Raimo Niskanen-2
In reply to this post by empro2
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:02:43AM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:

> This is only the most recent occurrence that finally
> makes me write this:
>
> <quote>
> [erlang-questions] Patch package OTP 20.3.8.3 released
> Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:13:22 +0200
> [...]
> Note! The kernel-5.4.3.2 application can *not* be applied
>       independently of other applications on an arbitrary
>       OTP 20 installation.
> [...]
> </quote>
>
> If it can not be applied independently then it can also be
> applied independently - which, in this case, is
> probably not what is meant. But this is guesswork, relying
> on the reader already knowing the meaning of what is
> being said, rendering the saying it much less useful.
>
> Modals are a mess (spoken languages are, after ceturies of
> abuse like the one discussed in "[erlang-questions] Orelse
> and andalso as short-hand for case"), but they convey
> critical meaning.
>
> Nine(?) of ten "can not"s in the Erlang docs must be
> "cannot" to convey the correct meaning. Reading the docs has
> already made me convert every "can not" I read into
> "cannot" - I mean *every*, not only those in the Erlang
> docs - and then back again (only about 1 of 10 in the
> Erlang docs). This is a real, and substantial, waste of
> post-orbital CPU cycles; not the conversion itself, but the
> distraction from understanding whatever meaning the author
> actually tries to get across.



I have tried to get a grip on this (not having English as my native
language), and found these sites seems to say that there is no difference
in meaning between "cannot" and "can not":

    https://www.dailywritingtips.com/cannot-or-can-not/
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/204006/cannot-vs-can-not
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/4510/why-is-cannot-spelled-as-one-word
    https://www.grammarly.com/blog/cannot-or-can-not/
    http://grammarist.com/usage/cannot-or-can-not/

And some of them point out that large dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster
and Oxford Dictionaries define "cannot" and "can not" to have the same
meaning:

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cannot
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cannot

But I also found this site says that it is *wrong* to use "can not" as
a replacement for "cannot" (although comments besides the article disagrees):

    https://painintheenglish.com/case/4513/

And this site says to always use "cannot" unless you have to use "can not",
but not that it is wrong to do otherwise:

    https://writingexplained.org/cannot-or-can-not-difference



It seems to me that "cannot" and "can not" *has* got the same meaning, but
that "can not" must be used in some special cases.  And now "cannot" is
so much more common to use over "can not" that if you use "can not" where
it is not necessary some readers get confused that the use is due to some
of the special cases and assumes it has a different meaning.

My point of view (until I have to alter it) is:

* "The word "can't" is an abbreviation of "cannot" that should only be used
  in informal text.
* The word "cannot" and the phrase "can not" has the same meaning.
* The phrase "can not" has to be used when the "not" is part of another
  phrase; for example "I can not only program in Erlang" where "not" is part
  of "not only".  Another example is "I can or can not program in Erlang"
  where the "not" belongs to one of the two choices "program" or "not program".
  I think it is the latter example that has spawned the point of view that
  "can not 'do something'" could indicate that there is an option to
  'do something' anyway, while "cannot 'do something'" would not allow it.
* The phrase "can not" _may_ also be used when you want to emphasize the
  "not" as making a pause when you speak it.  But some _may_ find that use
  confusing.



Therefore I do not think that the particular phrase in question:
"can *not* be applied" is in error since it emphasizes that the patch
really really cannot be applied.

But I am not against rewriting all strings, binaries and comments in the
Erlang/OTP repository to use "cannot" in favour of "can not" where possible
since it the more common usage today, and does not confuse any readers.


>
> If someone with authority (and authorisation) could and
> would please write and run a script and convert all "can
> not" -> "cannot" in all OTP strings, binaries and comments?
> This will introduce errors, as there actually are a few,
> rare correct "can not"s, but it will correct about 9 times
> more of wrong ones that really need to be "cannot".
>
> At least in the doc strings?
>
> Please?

Anyone can clone the OTP repository, make the changes (with a script
if desired), and make a pull request on GitHub.

>
> Michael
>
> --
>
> Time is not money, but money is time: life-time people have
> spent transforming their environment.
>
>

--

/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

Sean Hinde-4

I have tried to get a grip on this (not having English as my native
language), and found these sites seems to say that there is no difference
in meaning between "cannot" and "can not":

   https://www.dailywritingtips.com/cannot-or-can-not/
   https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/204006/cannot-vs-can-not
   https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/4510/why-is-cannot-spelled-as-one-word
   https://www.grammarly.com/blog/cannot-or-can-not/
   http://grammarist.com/usage/cannot-or-can-not/

This is a fun one. As a native english speaker here’s my take:

Using my son’s homework as an example:

He has a choice. He can do it, or he can not do it

If he cannot do it he has no choice :)

If forced to think I would use cannot in the context used in the release notes, 
although I have never over the years read that phrase in the release notes as 
meaning there is a choice in whether it can be applied.

Sean


_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

Ivan Uemlianin
Very nice example! I would have thought this “can not” only acceptable in informal (& perhaps only spoken) English. Formal documents should always use “cannot”.

Ivan
(Native British English speaker)


--
festina lente


On 25 Jul 2018, at 10:20, Sean Hinde <[hidden email]> wrote:


I have tried to get a grip on this (not having English as my native
language), and found these sites seems to say that there is no difference
in meaning between "cannot" and "can not":

   https://www.dailywritingtips.com/cannot-or-can-not/
   https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/204006/cannot-vs-can-not
   https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/4510/why-is-cannot-spelled-as-one-word
   https://www.grammarly.com/blog/cannot-or-can-not/
   http://grammarist.com/usage/cannot-or-can-not/

This is a fun one. As a native english speaker here’s my take:

Using my son’s homework as an example:

He has a choice. He can do it, or he can not do it

If he cannot do it he has no choice :)

If forced to think I would use cannot in the context used in the release notes, 
although I have never over the years read that phrase in the release notes as 
meaning there is a choice in whether it can be applied.

Sean

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

empro2
In reply to this post by Judson Lester-2
Am Tue, 24 Jul 2018 10:37:43 -0700
schrieb Judson Lester <[hidden email]>:

> To be fair to Michael, there is a legitimate (albeit

Need of clarification, opposing arguments, even simple
different opinion are all fair for me; but thanks anyway :-)

I simply had not expected this, I expected: do it
yourself; people from all over the world write this, so
there are typoes; we cannot predict what that change would
result in, so never change a running documentation;
anything but 'it does not change the meaning' or 'what are
you talking about?'.


> somewhat tortured) reading of "A can not be done" as "It

Tortured? without the context? I do not want to say that the
meaning cannot be inferred from the context, it may
even be more or less obvious. After two notes stating that
it is possible to update the applications referred to
separately I expected that note to warn of it not being
possible with this one. Only experience with the Erlang
documentation made me double-check. This is not the best
example, it only made me mention the matter at last.


> is possible not to do A" that "A cannot be done" doesn't
> admit. While I read the patch notes as meaning "It is
> impossible to apply the kernel application separately", I
> can see where confusion might arise.

Can you see it here too? How much torture requires this one
from the manual on gen_statem:

        In this case OldState will be the same as State,
        which can not happen for a subsequent state
        change, but will happen when repeating the state
        enter call.

Much, I suppose, but this one with even less context:

        Note that Reason can not be an {ok,_,_} tuple

These do not really help, I should have noted down an
example of "can not" that cannot be "cannot" ... But as
things appear to be, the solution would be to paraphrase
such occurrences instead of "correcting" the other "can
not"s that can be "cannot".

Michael

--

“Even after a thousand explanations a fool is no wiser,
whereas someone intelligent requires only one fourth of
these.”

        – from the Mahābhārata (महाभारत)

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

empro2
In reply to this post by Hugo Mills-2
Am Tue, 24 Jul 2018 13:16:22 +0000
schrieb Hugo Mills <[hidden email]>:

> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:02:43AM +0200, [hidden email]
> wrote:

> > If it can not be applied independently then it can also
> > be applied independently
>
>    Eh? In no way is that the implication here.

I know, this is why I continued thus:

> > - which, in this case, is
> > probably not what is meant. But this is guesswork,

Of course this was not pure "guesswork", but I had to
backtrack and rule out the wrong meaning, even if only to
double-check that the already automatic conversion "can
not" -> "cannot" was correct in this case.


> "can *not*", to me as a native speaker of the
> language, is the same as "cannot", with additional
> emphasis. I've been trying to identify other meanings
> using alternative readings or logical inference, but none
> of them come naturally, or would make any sense.

So:
        "can not do" /= 'able to not do'
        "can not do"  = 'not able to do'
        "cannot do"   = 'not able to do'?

Two ways to encode the latter and a need to paraphrase
the first one?

Is there not a reason for people to have invented "cannot"
and (obsolete) "canot" and (slang) "no can": Expression of
different semantics with different syntax?


> You're asking for a change which makes no difference
> whatsoever.

No difference between left and right associative "not"?

        I can (not go to their wedding). (There is no law
        that makes me have to see that person.)

        I (cannot) go to their wedding. (I will be on
        a different* continent on that day.)

        * I try to avoid "another", as it is ambiguous,
          though it may "feel" more "natural". "Bring me
          another beer!" - "Do you want a different kind or
          only one more?" ;->

I wish I could right now find a "can not" in the docs
that cannot be "cannot", to put it in here, but they are so
rare ...

And I am aware that people on this list do not belong to
those myriad of native speakers to whom these sets appear to
be semantical equivalents already: ["you're" |"your"],
["then" | "than"], ["there" | "their" | "they're"].

I do not want to add ["cannot" | "can not"] :-)

Michael

--

Reasonable is that which cannot be criticised reasonably.


_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

empro2
In reply to this post by Marc Worrell
Am Tue, 24 Jul 2018 15:17:10 +0200
schrieb Marc Worrell <[hidden email]>:

> “Cannot” and “can not” are both acceptable spellings.

With "spellings" = 'symbols', OK, with 'encodings for the
same meaning': I am used to something else :-)


> And there is no difference in meaning.

There used to be - at least.

 
> See also:
> https://www.dailywritingtips.com/cannot-or-can-not/

So I see: hmm ... BA, PhD ... might be worthwhile ...

        Although my personal Error Alarm buzzes
        whenever I see cannot written as two words, both
        forms are acceptable usage.

Is "Error Alarm" a trademark? why the capitals? who
cares ...

But it does buzz, so "can not" must at least be unusual in
your idiolect.

        Both forms are acceptable

A strange conclusion drawn from a buzzing alarm, but this is
a contrast that started with "Although", so: who cares ...

Yes, of course, the "forms" (words? symbols?) are, but for
what meanings?

And this is a mere claim - but the following text will
surely support this claim, so:

        Merriam-Webster lists "cannot" as one word.

And looking up "can not" has you see "cannot"?

Que? These oppose your claim. This must be one more
contrast, so:

        OED, cannot is the ordinary modern way of writing
        can not

For which meaning?

        historical illustrations given for the negative in
        the OED shows cannot, can not, and even canot

        Whethir it be thus or non I can not say.

So apart from the ordinary modern way of writing
'whether' you want to say that it is also acceptable to
encode it as "whethir"? or what? This is from century 15 or
16 and etymological proof of obsolete "forms" hardly
supports your claim - not as much as it opposes it.

        The experts at AskOxford seem to prefer cannot

What an analysis of:

        Both cannot and can not are acceptable spellings
        but the first is much more usual.

Yes, more usual, more frequent, but for which meanings?

        You would use "can not" when the ‘not’ forms part of
        another construction such as ‘not only.’

At last! meaning! - but opposing your claim - again. If the
"not" forms part of a different construction, it is not
part of the "can", it is right-associative. If such a
construction happens to be preceded by a "can", it does not
change the meaning of "can" but is itself modified by it,
becomes an ability, a choice, an option. Any resulting "can
not" is a mere collocation of two words, not an acceptable
alternative spelling of "cannot".

Why do you keep contradicting your own premise ...?

        The Washington State University language site says:
        These two spellings [cannot/can not] are largely
        interchangeable

OK, support, at last (though it looks like ['(cannot/can)
not'] due to the missing space around the solidus, but that
does not make sense and who cares about typography anyway,
so: backtrack), but lo!

        but by far the most common is “cannot”

So: puff! *support vanishes in a cloud of smoke*
(not completely, I admit)

        you should probably use it

"should probably"? Like: 'roll dice'? or 'do not ask me'?

        except when you want to be emphatic: “No, you can
        not wash the dog in the Maytag.”

Sounds like "Yes, I can!" - "No, you can'not!" (with the '
imitating an IPA emphasis mark). So the sole exception is
merely a badly encoded shift of emphasis in the
pronunciation of the word "cannot". Do they also suggest we
now write "No, im port, not ex port"?

        Bottom line
        There’s no difference in meaning between cannot and
        can not.

Well, yes, there is and more than "largely" and more
certainly than "probably" - and according to your own
argumentation. One of the only two more or less supporting
arguments is clearly restricted to a wish of expressing
emphasis. And it is not complete:

"Yes, you can 'not wash the dog and go fishing instead, but
then I will have it washed professionally and you will have
to pay the bill." (Which is not so bad in Washington
state, as there one can pay bills with bills ;-)


> Could it be that you see “can not only” where it says
> “can not” ?

I see someone telling me of an option to omit, a
possibility of not doing, an ability to avoid.

Why did I get along for 30 years and only now (2 or 3
years?), reading the Erlang docs, my mapping crumbles? I
think the "largely" in that article above is even larger and
the "probably" almost 'always' - but not for much longer
as colloquial usage seems to have changed already. Languages
do change (and there are words that mean one thing and the
opposite) but rendering of such prosodic emphasis like that
in the example above is not part of the Erlang
documentation, nor should it be. The modal verbs and "not"
convey much too much meaning to become poetic and mess
around with them.

But it appears I am too late - and old, and my idiolect may
be outdated or outdating (which is not to be confused with
"out dating" ;-).

People think there was a "must not" but there is not: there
is only a "must" = 'have to' used in both 'must (do)' and
'must (not do)'; the obligation itself is never negated:
"must not go" = 'have to stay', /= 'do not have to go'.

Though the syntax suggests left associativeness of the
"not", even "mustn't do" solely means 'have to (not do)'.

Or am I already outdated here too? Does anyone here happen
to read
        "can  not do" = '(not able to) do'
        "must not do" = '(not have to) do'?

This one

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

defines neither CAN nor CANNOT nor CAN NOT. To avoid all
this confusion?

But if people with a BA in English and a PhD in literature
write "dailywritingtips" like the one I commented
on above: who cares? :-)

Michael

--

If a bank in need of money is systematically important,
then that system is not important.

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

Valentin Micic-5
In reply to this post by empro2

On 24 Jul 2018, at 11:02 AM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is only the most recent occurrence that finally
> makes me write this:
>
> <quote>
> [erlang-questions] Patch package OTP 20.3.8.3 released
> Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:13:22 +0200
> [...]
> Note! The kernel-5.4.3.2 application can *not* be applied
>      independently of other applications on an arbitrary
>     OTP 20 installation.
> [...]
> </quote>
>
> If it can not be applied independently then it can also be
> applied independently - which, in this case, is
> probably not what is meant. But this is guesswork, relying
> on the reader already knowing the meaning of what is
> being said, rendering the saying it much less useful.

True. It takes a bit of effort to see it that way, though.
However, I think it is a bit of an exaggeration to say that it is relying on the reader already knowing of what is being said.
For most of us, non-native English speakers, English does not always make much sense... but we cannot not speak it, can we now?

V/


_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

Raimo Niskanen-2
In reply to this post by empro2
Please have a look at and evaluate GitHub PR#1891:

  https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/1891


On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:02:43AM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:

> This is only the most recent occurrence that finally
> makes me write this:
>
> <quote>
> [erlang-questions] Patch package OTP 20.3.8.3 released
> Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:13:22 +0200
> [...]
> Note! The kernel-5.4.3.2 application can *not* be applied
>       independently of other applications on an arbitrary
>       OTP 20 installation.
> [...]
> </quote>
>
> If it can not be applied independently then it can also be
> applied independently - which, in this case, is
> probably not what is meant. But this is guesswork, relying
> on the reader already knowing the meaning of what is
> being said, rendering the saying it much less useful.
>
> Modals are a mess (spoken languages are, after ceturies of
> abuse like the one discussed in "[erlang-questions] Orelse
> and andalso as short-hand for case"), but they convey
> critical meaning.
>
> Nine(?) of ten "can not"s in the Erlang docs must be
> "cannot" to convey the correct meaning. Reading the docs has
> already made me convert every "can not" I read into
> "cannot" - I mean *every*, not only those in the Erlang
> docs - and then back again (only about 1 of 10 in the
> Erlang docs). This is a real, and substantial, waste of
> post-orbital CPU cycles; not the conversion itself, but the
> distraction from understanding whatever meaning the author
> actually tries to get across.
>
> If someone with authority (and authorisation) could and
> would please write and run a script and convert all "can
> not" -> "cannot" in all OTP strings, binaries and comments?
> This will introduce errors, as there actually are a few,
> rare correct "can not"s, but it will correct about 9 times
> more of wrong ones that really need to be "cannot".
>
> At least in the doc strings?
>
> Please?
>
> Michael
>
> --
>
> Time is not money, but money is time: life-time people have
> spent transforming their environment.
>
>

--

/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

Raimo Niskanen-2
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 03:11:47PM +0200, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
> Please have a look at and evaluate GitHub PR#1891:
>
>   https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/1891

Fun story:  A coworker just vaguely remembered that the technical writer(s)
we had working on the documentation in late 2016 maybe made this kind of
changes, and surely enough they did change "can not" into "cannot".

This did not stick in all developers' memory, though, since at least 6 of
us has re-introduced "can not"s after that.

It is actually a hard one, I think especially for Swedes, since we have an
ongoing language war/debate about people splitting Swedish words that
should be concatenated due to influence from English so the safe bet for a
Swede is that in proper English it is probably not one word.

I asked around me and the most common reaction is: "cannot" - is that even
a proper word? I would have written "can not"!

And this is from people born in the 60:s through the 90:s, at least.

So it will take a while for this detail to become common truth, at
least in Sweden...

We will work on it, but it will take time.

Best Regards
/ Raimo


>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:02:43AM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
> > This is only the most recent occurrence that finally
> > makes me write this:
> >
> > <quote>
> > [erlang-questions] Patch package OTP 20.3.8.3 released
> > Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:13:22 +0200
> > [...]
> > Note! The kernel-5.4.3.2 application can *not* be applied
> >       independently of other applications on an arbitrary
> >       OTP 20 installation.
> > [...]
> > </quote>
> >
> > If it can not be applied independently then it can also be
> > applied independently - which, in this case, is
> > probably not what is meant. But this is guesswork, relying
> > on the reader already knowing the meaning of what is
> > being said, rendering the saying it much less useful.
> >
> > Modals are a mess (spoken languages are, after ceturies of
> > abuse like the one discussed in "[erlang-questions] Orelse
> > and andalso as short-hand for case"), but they convey
> > critical meaning.
> >
> > Nine(?) of ten "can not"s in the Erlang docs must be
> > "cannot" to convey the correct meaning. Reading the docs has
> > already made me convert every "can not" I read into
> > "cannot" - I mean *every*, not only those in the Erlang
> > docs - and then back again (only about 1 of 10 in the
> > Erlang docs). This is a real, and substantial, waste of
> > post-orbital CPU cycles; not the conversion itself, but the
> > distraction from understanding whatever meaning the author
> > actually tries to get across.
> >
> > If someone with authority (and authorisation) could and
> > would please write and run a script and convert all "can
> > not" -> "cannot" in all OTP strings, binaries and comments?
> > This will introduce errors, as there actually are a few,
> > rare correct "can not"s, but it will correct about 9 times
> > more of wrong ones that really need to be "cannot".
> >
> > At least in the doc strings?
> >
> > Please?
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > --
> >
> > Time is not money, but money is time: life-time people have
> > spent transforming their environment.
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

--

/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

empro2
In reply to this post by Raimo Niskanen-2
Am Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:11:47 +0200
schrieb Raimo Niskanen
<[hidden email]>:

> Please have a look at and evaluate GitHub PR#1891:
>
>   https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/1891

Thank you for the effort.

I have checked the changes and also have (to my
surprise) not found any useful "can not".

IMHO the result is much clearer, but I would never insist on
this "unconvenient broadside to the repository" be forced on
someone.

Michael

--

Parens should have fewer children and more t.


_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

empro2
In reply to this post by Raimo Niskanen-2
I would like to apologise:

* if my original post was not perceived to be humourously
  rhetorical; my English is much worse than it might look.

* for too many too detailed replies. I was switched into
  argumentation (not argument!) mode by the unfortunate
  coincidence of an overdose of surprise, the confusing
  nature of language matters (negation especially), two
  years of "what? ah, mere typo" and too hot weather.
  It might also have to do with the then waxing blood moon.
  (I wonder why there is dog hair all over my place
  now ... ;-)

Glad that two people have used the word "fun" in this thread

Michael

--

"Oh no! It should be poetry not prose"

        – Pet Shop Boys. _It must be obvious_


_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

Raimo Niskanen-2
In reply to this post by empro2
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:33:04AM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:

> Am Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:11:47 +0200
> schrieb Raimo Niskanen
> <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Please have a look at and evaluate GitHub PR#1891:
> >
> >   https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/1891
>
> Thank you for the effort.
>
> I have checked the changes and also have (to my
> surprise) not found any useful "can not".

Thank you for the review!


>
> IMHO the result is much clearer, but I would never insist on
> this "unconvenient broadside to the repository" be forced on
> someone.

I think now is a better time than most, thanks to being vacation time...


>
> Michael
>
> --
>
> Parens should have fewer children and more t.
>

--

/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

Raimo Niskanen-2
In reply to this post by empro2
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:49:14AM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:

> I would like to apologise:
>
> * if my original post was not perceived to be humourously
>   rhetorical; my English is much worse than it might look.
>
> * for too many too detailed replies. I was switched into
>   argumentation (not argument!) mode by the unfortunate
>   coincidence of an overdose of surprise, the confusing
>   nature of language matters (negation especially), two
>   years of "what? ah, mere typo" and too hot weather.
>   It might also have to do with the then waxing blood moon.
>   (I wonder why there is dog hair all over my place
>   now ... ;-)
>
> Glad that two people have used the word "fun" in this thread

:-)

I would also like to apologise that it took so many mails before I got a
grip on the actual problem!..

As I recently tried to motivate - splitting vs. concatenating words is one
aspect of English I think we Swedes has got special problems with, because
of related problems in Swedish...

>
> Michael
>
> --
>
> "Oh no! It should be poetry not prose"
>
> – Pet Shop Boys. _It must be obvious_

--

/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

Richard O'Keefe
In reply to this post by Raimo Niskanen-2
The normal English word is "can't".
In primary school I was taught not to use such informal stuff in writing
but to always use "cannot" expect in reported speech.
It is certainly a word.  Collins say it is one of the top 1000 words.
"can not" is occasionally ambiguous (less so in speech,
where "CAN not" = "cannot" = "can't", "can NOT" is the other reading).
To be honest, "can not" grates on this native speaker of English.
It's on a par with "precise" used as a verb.
Stick with "cannot".
If you have a copy of the 'style' and 'diction' programs, you
probably want to add "can not" to the diction list of things not to write.


On 27 July 2018 at 19:52, Raimo Niskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 03:11:47PM +0200, Raimo Niskanen wrote:
> Please have a look at and evaluate GitHub PR#1891:
>
>   https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/1891

Fun story:  A coworker just vaguely remembered that the technical writer(s)
we had working on the documentation in late 2016 maybe made this kind of
changes, and surely enough they did change "can not" into "cannot".

This did not stick in all developers' memory, though, since at least 6 of
us has re-introduced "can not"s after that.

It is actually a hard one, I think especially for Swedes, since we have an
ongoing language war/debate about people splitting Swedish words that
should be concatenated due to influence from English so the safe bet for a
Swede is that in proper English it is probably not one word.

I asked around me and the most common reaction is: "cannot" - is that even
a proper word? I would have written "can not"!

And this is from people born in the 60:s through the 90:s, at least.

So it will take a while for this detail to become common truth, at
least in Sweden...

We will work on it, but it will take time.

Best Regards
/ Raimo


>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:02:43AM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
> > This is only the most recent occurrence that finally
> > makes me write this:
> >
> > <quote>
> > [erlang-questions] Patch package OTP 20.3.8.3 released
> > Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:13:22 +0200
> > [...]
> > Note! The kernel-5.4.3.2 application can *not* be applied
> >       independently of other applications on an arbitrary
> >       OTP 20 installation.
> > [...]
> > </quote>
> >
> > If it can not be applied independently then it can also be
> > applied independently - which, in this case, is
> > probably not what is meant. But this is guesswork, relying
> > on the reader already knowing the meaning of what is
> > being said, rendering the saying it much less useful.
> >
> > Modals are a mess (spoken languages are, after ceturies of
> > abuse like the one discussed in "[erlang-questions] Orelse
> > and andalso as short-hand for case"), but they convey
> > critical meaning.
> >
> > Nine(?) of ten "can not"s in the Erlang docs must be
> > "cannot" to convey the correct meaning. Reading the docs has
> > already made me convert every "can not" I read into
> > "cannot" - I mean *every*, not only those in the Erlang
> > docs - and then back again (only about 1 of 10 in the
> > Erlang docs). This is a real, and substantial, waste of
> > post-orbital CPU cycles; not the conversion itself, but the
> > distraction from understanding whatever meaning the author
> > actually tries to get across.
> >
> > If someone with authority (and authorisation) could and
> > would please write and run a script and convert all "can
> > not" -> "cannot" in all OTP strings, binaries and comments?
> > This will introduce errors, as there actually are a few,
> > rare correct "can not"s, but it will correct about 9 times
> > more of wrong ones that really need to be "cannot".
> >
> > At least in the doc strings?
> >
> > Please?
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > --
> >
> > Time is not money, but money is time: life-time people have
> > spent transforming their environment.
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

--

/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions


_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

Richard O'Keefe
In reply to this post by Raimo Niskanen-2
One common source of confusion is phrasal verbs.
(I am quite upset that my now-legally-adult daughters
were never introduced to the term "phrasal verb" at
school; it's as if someone in the Ministry of Education
interpreted the title in an Orwellian way.)
"Look up the name in a table." (Verb and particle are two words.)
"Look the name up in a table." (Two words, same meaning.)
"Seek the name in a lookup table." (One word.)
"How many lookups did that need?" (One word.)
The rule is: verb => 2 words, noun or adjective => 1 word.

I've always wondered about the connection between English
phrasal verbs and German verbs with separable prefixes; so
many of the latter have English translations that are
phrasal verbs with the corresponding preposition as particle.


On 30 July 2018 at 21:02, Raimo Niskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:49:14AM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
> I would like to apologise:
>
> * if my original post was not perceived to be humourously
>   rhetorical; my English is much worse than it might look.
>
> * for too many too detailed replies. I was switched into
>   argumentation (not argument!) mode by the unfortunate
>   coincidence of an overdose of surprise, the confusing
>   nature of language matters (negation especially), two
>   years of "what? ah, mere typo" and too hot weather.
>   It might also have to do with the then waxing blood moon.
>   (I wonder why there is dog hair all over my place
>   now ... ;-)
>
> Glad that two people have used the word "fun" in this thread

:-)

I would also like to apologise that it took so many mails before I got a
grip on the actual problem!..

As I recently tried to motivate - splitting vs. concatenating words is one
aspect of English I think we Swedes has got special problems with, because
of related problems in Swedish...

>
> Michael
>
> --
>
> "Oh no! It should be poetry not prose"
>
>       – Pet Shop Boys. _It must be obvious_

--

/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions


_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 'cannot' /= 'can not'

empro2
In reply to this post by Raimo Niskanen-2
Am Mon, 30 Jul 2018 10:56:15 +0200
schrieb Raimo Niskanen
<[hidden email]>:

> Thank you for the review!

Not at all! least I could do having brought this up.


> I think now is a better time than most, thanks to being
> vacation time...

I wonder what to do with the notes I took while at it.

 - EEP: overkill, completely wrong place.

 - erlang-patches? The things there do look different.

 - bugs.erlang.org: as an improvement? and then each one
   separately? there is nothing like it (yet)(?)

I noted down 4 and a half cases in which the change itself
seems to be of little use. As I could not make much sense of
the text in these cases (using only the extended diff
contexts) my "suggestions" are no more than possibly helpful
phrasings.

The notes are down below my name, introduced by
===, [comments in square brackets].

I have no experience with projects of that size and no idea
about the hassle : gain ratio.

Michael


=== erts/emulator/beam/erl_db_tree.c 3129
https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/1891/files#diff-30fdd1356f85b600e88e98de46e5a338

        + erts_fprintf(stderr," cannot match lesser
          than ");

less than [This is the half one: not misleading, but seems
so basic a message that it might be desirable to have
"correct".]


=== erts/doc/src/notes.xml 9902
https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/1891/files#diff-eb82a09c6aefc9ef174ead9c8181a141

and there

=== lib/stdlib/doc/src/notes.xml 3657
https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/1891/files#diff-4e42fb7d23d206e8b0fcbfd4858b1672

        <p> To roughly the old behaviour, to not wait for
        ports and async threads operations when you exit the
        emulator, you use erlang:halt/2 with an integer
        first argument and an option list containing
        {flush,false} as the second argument. Note that now
        is flushing not dependant of the
        -   exit code, and you can not only flush
          async threads
        +   exit code, and you cannot only flush
          async threads
        operations which we deemed as a strange behaviour
        anyway. </p>

To roughly approximate the old behaviour,[?]
which was to not wait ... when you exit the emulator,[?]
use erlang:halt/2 [without the "you"?]
Note that flushing does not depend on the exit code anymore
[??]
and you are no longer restricted to flushing async threads
operations only[?]
, a restriction we deemed strange anyway.[?, useful?
replace with:]
; now you can flush sync ones too.[?]


=== lib/observer/src/observer_wx.erl 809
https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/1891/files#diff-ebe399fc76aff158ba9cb898ccfba2d2

            %% If already started, somebody else may use it.
        +   %% We cannot use it too, as far log file would
          be overriden. Not fair.

somebody else may be using it.[But is this about using it
at all? or about preventing the start of a second one?]

We must not start a second one[?],
as that would overwrite the remote log file.[?]


=== lib/odbc/doc/src/notes_history.xml 196
https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/1891/files#diff-c673d56ed2511271ba68533de94c9b13

        +   connection cannot be established. No
          connection no process it is expected.

No connection, no process; just as one would expect.[??]


--

Reasonable is that which cannot be criticised reasonably.










_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
12