12

Why can't I ...?

is perfectly correct grammar as far as I can tell. But what happens if the contraction is removed,

Why cannot I ...?

This sounds bizarre, but would this be technically correct grammar?

apaderno
  • 59,185
CPlus
  • 231
  • 4
    It's perfectly correct; It just sounds old-fashioned to use the uncontracted form in this context. – Kate Bunting Sep 03 '22 at 07:17
  • 7
    No, it's not "technically correct". There is no such category. But it's not grammatical, either; that's why it sounds bizarre. That's what ungrammatical sentences sound like. The reason is that contractions can't be just unpacked ad lib. Once they're contracted (by a very technical rule), there's no rule to uncontract them -- they're simple words now, and they can get moved, as contractions, but not as compounds. Subject-auxiliary inversion (another technical rule) only works on single words, not on cannot, which is two. See https://english.stackexchange.com/a/181164/15299 – John Lawler Sep 03 '22 at 13:58
  • 2
    I believe a comment from Professor Emeritus John Lawler (I'll have to amend it now) is relevant here: "[Even if a certain example] [may be] totally grammatical, that [may be] the only good thing you can say about it." Idiomaticity (how practised native speakers actually use the language) is probably even more important than grammaticality, and certainly drives grammaticality over time. – Edwin Ashworth Sep 03 '22 at 13:58
  • When you say it sounds bizarre, how exactly do you pronounce it? At least to me, "Why cannot I ..." sounds more natural (if not entirely natural) when the stress is on the first syllable rather than the second. – chepner Sep 03 '22 at 16:23
  • 5
    @JohnLawler - Why cannot I was perfectly acceptable in the 19th century. See this Ngram, for example Why cannot I keep my mind on a book for one moment? Why can I not write two sentences together? (Trollope: Framley Parsonage) – Kate Bunting Sep 03 '22 at 17:15
  • 2
    @KateBunting - Indeed it was. But it's the 21st century now. Language changes and people don't talk that way any more. People trying to write like Trollope still write like that, of course, but they don't talk that way. – John Lawler Sep 03 '22 at 19:05
  • No, of course not - but that doesn't make it ungrammatical, just unidiomatic (as I originally commented!). – Kate Bunting Sep 03 '22 at 19:10
  • @KateBunting There is an interesting discussion on the history of "Why cannot..." in the answers to the old question Is it incorrect to say, "Why cannot....?". – skomisa Sep 04 '22 at 00:39
  • @KateBunting your nGram gets more interesting if you add the alternative – Henry Sep 04 '22 at 12:42
  • 2
    English grammar is just complicated that way. It is what it's. – 200_success Sep 04 '22 at 23:52
  • 5
    The problem here is that there's not really such a thing as "technically correct grammar". English doesn't have an official arbiter of correct grammar, such as exists for some other languages. There's "what people actually say" and "what people actually write", and "what people used to write at some point in history", and "what my favourite grammar textbook sanctions". But none of those are the same as "technically correct". – Dawood ibn Kareem Sep 05 '22 at 01:34

2 Answers2

23

When you remove the contraction, you need to say:

Why can I not...?

just like with the auxiliaries do or have

Why do you not continue...?, Why have you not completed the task?

YourDictionary explains:

In question form, the noun or pronoun comes between can and not. For example:

  • Can we not discuss this today?

Note that can+pronoun+not+verb sounds formal, even somewhat dated in certain contexts. The KJV Bible uses it:

... can ye not discern the signs of the times? (Matt. 16:3 KJV)

Also, this formula helps when you want to emphasise the NOT.

Cannot used before the subject in rhetorical questions is possible, but not that common. You will find it in books dating from before 1850's or in poetry (see Googlebooks).

fev
  • 33,009
  • 4
    "just with the auxiliaries do or have"...it's also worth noting that the non-contracted version of *Won't you listen?* is *Will you not listen?, not Will not you listen?* – FumbleFingers Sep 03 '22 at 10:30
  • @FumbleFingers Just noticed from your quote that I omitted a word by mistake. I meant "just like with the auxiliaries"... – fev Sep 03 '22 at 10:45
  • 1
    I didn't notice the missing word before, but now you're made me look at it again, I'll just point out that most native speakers would use *as* rather than *like* there. I might be a bit of an old fuddy-duddy, but *like* there sounds a bit "common" (uneducated) to me. Dunno if that specific usage has ever been raised on ELU/ELL though. – FumbleFingers Sep 03 '22 at 11:01
  • 1
    I think the message gets across with "like" as well, so I will leave it. Together with your comment it might satisfy some people's curiosity :) – fev Sep 03 '22 at 11:03
  • 1
    At your level of English, you don't really need people like (such as?!) me telling you how you should phrase things! As implied by the chart I linked to above, *like* has significantly gained traction in recent decades. Perhaps the reality is that your version is up-and-coming, and mine is on the way to becoming "dated / quaint"! :) It's not an easy usage to search for in existing questions, but if I was reasonably confident it hasn't been asked before (and wouldn't get closed as POB) I'd quite like to know just how "acceptable" *like* is to younger speakers here. – FumbleFingers Sep 03 '22 at 11:15
  • Yes, I would actually encourage you to ask this question if there is no duplicate. It piqued my curiosity already... – fev Sep 03 '22 at 11:32
  • I was trying to encourage you to find an earlier duplicate! :) – FumbleFingers Sep 03 '22 at 11:35
  • Guess what I am doing right now! Here is something. – fev Sep 03 '22 at 11:39
  • 2
    Well found! I guess syntactically speaking the key point is "Like" is a preposition; "as" is a conjunction. But in practice, as Jon answers there, *only grammarians will notice if you [use like as a "conjunction"].* Dang! I didn't even realise I was a "grammarian"! :) – FumbleFingers Sep 03 '22 at 11:58
  • 1
    There you go! I am glad my syntactical transgression deepened your self-knowledge :)) – fev Sep 03 '22 at 12:01
  • It seems to me the "can we not" form of the question is asking not to discuss something today. That is how I would ask at least, whereas "can't we" is unambiguously asking to discuss today. – Cass Lopez Sep 05 '22 at 14:28
  • @CassLopez Indeed, there is difference of meaning between "Can't we" and "Can we not" (which I touched upon in passing when I mentioned the stress of NOT), but this is an interesting topic that should be discussed in a different question, IMO. – fev Sep 05 '22 at 14:30
6

When forming question, the auxiliary verb is moved to the front of the clause from its normal position:

  • She can sing.
  • Can she sing?

Not can only move from its normal position if it's stuck to this auxiliary. It's the auxiliary that's carrying not round to the front of the sentence. It can only do this if they're joined together.

If not isn't contracted, it must stay in the same position it has in a normal declarative sentence. Below the parts that invert are in light font, the rest of the sentence is in bold. In sentence (3) we see not moved away from it's normal position because it's attached to the auxiliary verb. It's sandwiched between the auxiliary and the subject:

  1. Tom does not like Sally (normal negative sentence)
  2. Does Tom not like Sally (no contraction, not in normal declarative sentence position)
  3. Doesn't Tom like Sally (contracted with auxiliary, n't appears in pre-subject position)

The examples above are yes/no questions for simplicity, but exactly the same things holds in open questions like the OP's too.

Araucaria - Him
  • 47,146