In each English grammar textbook. And also in google, e.g. "to form the negative we add "not" after can to form one word: cannot."
I hate to say it but you should not believe in everything that you google. A lot of incorrect expressions can be googled, and even more spelling errors are quite common on the Internet as you probably know. Not all the sources are equally reliable. When looking for proofs about standard language, I would recommend you to consult official textbooks or dictionaries or people qualified in linguistics in person. But do not worry, your mistake is not a serious one and it is definitely not relevant to the topic of this post.
Lists several reputable sources, ie dictionaries and universities.
Personally, I think 'cannot' is more correct as well, but to quibble over it just makes you look petty. You're right, it's not the topic of your post, but you're the one who brought it up in the first place. What he said initially was quite innocuous.
dailywritingtips....Hm, I am afraid it is not the most reliable source. But if you are not interested in proper education, it might be enough for you. This is the most troublesome thing when it comes to people who get their education from prof. Google - they tend to think that whatever they find there is automatically correct.
No, it could not.
You have not shown any proof either.
I just wanted to help you use English in a more appropriate way.
I do not have any ambition to educate you if you are not interested in improving your language skills. You are free to make as many mistakes as you wish. You sound like a stubborn kid, so hopefully your teachers will treat you in a kind way as well as teach you something.
e.g. "The two-word form is used only in a construction in which not is part of a set phrase, such as ‘not only ... but (also)’: Paul can not only sing well, he also paints brilliantly"
Oxford English Dictionary
"The Washington State University language site says:
These two spellings [cannot/can not] are largely interchangeable, but by far the most common is “cannot” and you should probably use it except when you want to be emphatic: “No, you can not wash the dog in the Maytag.”"
I believe that fits with how he used it.
Does how someone uses a word (or two words) on an informal website really concern you so much? Or is it just that you wanted to make it personal?
And before you flip that back on me (which you'd be well justified in doing), no it doesn't matter to me, but the rate that people have a go at others for petty reasons on here DOES irritate me. Not so much that I'm going to bother with this further, though.
Striptease or Watching someone masturbate?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Just google it there is the proof. Where is yours?
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
In each English grammar textbook. And also in google, e.g. "to form the negative we add "not" after can to form one word: cannot."
I hate to say it but you should not believe in everything that you google. A lot of incorrect expressions can be googled, and even more spelling errors are quite common on the Internet as you probably know. Not all the sources are equally reliable. When looking for proofs about standard language, I would recommend you to consult official textbooks or dictionaries or people qualified in linguistics in person. But do not worry, your mistake is not a serious one and it is definitely not relevant to the topic of this post.
--
charli.m
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/cannot-or-can-not/
Lists several reputable sources, ie dictionaries and universities.
Personally, I think 'cannot' is more correct as well, but to quibble over it just makes you look petty. You're right, it's not the topic of your post, but you're the one who brought it up in the first place. What he said initially was quite innocuous.
--
anti-hero
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
This ^
Thanks for saving me the trouble Charli :)
--
charli.m
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Methinks this be personal. Haha.
No worries :)
--
anti-hero
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Haters gonna hate.
dailywritingtips....Hm, I am afraid it is not the most reliable source. But if you are not interested in proper education, it might be enough for you. This is the most troublesome thing when it comes to people who get their education from prof. Google - they tend to think that whatever they find there is automatically correct.
--
anti-hero
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You still haven't shown proof that I am incorrect. Could it be that you don't have any?
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
See More Comments =>
No, it could not.
You have not shown any proof either.
I just wanted to help you use English in a more appropriate way.
I do not have any ambition to educate you if you are not interested in improving your language skills. You are free to make as many mistakes as you wish. You sound like a stubborn kid, so hopefully your teachers will treat you in a kind way as well as teach you something.
e.g. "The two-word form is used only in a construction in which not is part of a set phrase, such as ‘not only ... but (also)’: Paul can not only sing well, he also paints brilliantly"
Oxford English Dictionary
--
charli.m
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
"The Washington State University language site says:
These two spellings [cannot/can not] are largely interchangeable, but by far the most common is “cannot” and you should probably use it except when you want to be emphatic: “No, you can not wash the dog in the Maytag.”"
I believe that fits with how he used it.
Does how someone uses a word (or two words) on an informal website really concern you so much? Or is it just that you wanted to make it personal?
And before you flip that back on me (which you'd be well justified in doing), no it doesn't matter to me, but the rate that people have a go at others for petty reasons on here DOES irritate me. Not so much that I'm going to bother with this further, though.