Larry,
Probably I should have said "correct" or "common". Nevertheless, you are
wrong; technical writing is itself an idiom ("the language peculiar to a
people or to a district, community, or class").
Eddie
On 3/4/11 7:41 AM,
L.Wood@... wrote:
> idiomatic text should be avoided in technical writing.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
dccp-bounces@... [mailto:
dccp-bounces@...] On
>> Behalf Of Eddie Kohler
>> Sent: 04 March 2011 15:27
>> To: Gerrit Renker
>> Cc:
dccp@... group
>> Subject: Re: [dccp] AD review: draft-ietf-dccp-tfrc-rtt-option-03
>>
>> Hi Gerrit,
>>
>> Lars is right, "cannot" is far more idiomatic, in written or
>> spoken text.
>>
>>
http://www.drgrammar.org/frequently-asked-questions#30>>
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/cannot.html>>
>> Eddie
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/4/11 3:54 AM, Gerrit Renker wrote:
>>> Lars, -
>>> |> than 4 can not be determined: such samples have to
>> be discarded.
>>> |
>>> | Nit: s/can not/cannot/
>>> |
>>> I would like to ask if we could keep it as it is, the
>> suggestion confuses me:
>>> can is a verb, not the negation, cannot is spoken language, the
>>> document is written text. I actually replace everywhere I
>> see this the
>>> other way around, since I read somewhere that cannot in
>> written text
>>> is not considered good style. If you can give a rule for
>> the above, I
>>> am willing to be educated on the matter.
