Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 20:28:36 -0600 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: yuri@rawbw.com Cc: adamw@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r476184 - in head: . Mk cad/qcad comms/linrad databases/p5-DBIx-Class-IntrospectableM2M devel/libcfg devel/p5-Class-Method-Modifiers-Fast devel/p5-DateTime-Format-DateParse devel/py-exp... Message-ID: <CAP7rwcjt-k1Ts4HNn51musjfHwmOJywy0eHMSpU7aZXz%2BWYdYA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <96703e81-5e5b-b58d-9e58-4ff612c0dfb7@rawbw.com> References: <201808011633.w71GXBEr055314@repo.freebsd.org> <96703e81-5e5b-b58d-9e58-4ff612c0dfb7@rawbw.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:57 PM Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/1/18 9:33 AM, Adam Weinberger wrote:
> > Log:
> > Fix a common grammar error: "can not" means the opposite of "cannot."
> >
> > "Can not" means "it is possible not to," and "cannot" means "it is impossible to."
>
>
> This explanation is wrong. "can not" and "cannot" generally mean the
> same in English. Merriam-Webster, Wiktionary and Dictionary.com
> dictionaries all say this. [1][2][3] Examples from literature also
> agree. [4][5]
>
> "can not {action}" can in very rare cases mean that the opposite of the
> action can be performed, especially in spoken language, but it is
> generally understood the same way as "cannot".
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Yuri
>
>
>
> ---References---
>
> [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cannot
>
> [2] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cannot
>
> [3] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cannot
>
> [4]
> https://books.google.com/books?id=xE00_EjYZDgC&pg=PA107&dq=%22can+not%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiewKiNks3cAhWGFHwKHcgdAN84ChDoAQhRMAg#v=onepage&q=%22can%20not%22&f=false
>
> [5]
> https://books.google.com/books?id=aeH3BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&dq=%22can+not+escape%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuvPrxks3cAhXJylQKHbRnCIgQ6AEINDAC#v=onepage&q=%22can%20not%20escape%22&f=false
They're not the same thing. The fact that people use it isn't
sufficient to make it good grammar. People mix up "fewer" and "less"
all the time, and while everyone knows what they mean, it doesn't make
it good grammar.
When FreeBSD is telling its users what they can and can't do with a
port, the difference between "unable to" and "is possible not to" is
more than just semantic.
What is it exactly that you're arguing in favour of here?
# Adam
--
Adam Weinberger
adamw@adamw.org
https://www.adamw.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAP7rwcjt-k1Ts4HNn51musjfHwmOJywy0eHMSpU7aZXz%2BWYdYA>