5 ms·
Not how I read it. Obviously the technical ability to do so exists so "cannot" can only mean "aren't supposed to" in this context. Honestly I think people would
by jsz0 13y ago
Not how I read it. Obviously the technical ability to do so exists so "cannot" can only mean "aren't supposed to" in this context. Honestly I think people would have to be grasping at straws to read it any other way. What else could it possibly mean? Of course it's technically possible that's not even open for debate is it?
- rhizome 13y agoA plain reading of the word "cannot" says that the person does not have the ability.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- CWuestefeld 13y agoIf you're a stickler for language, then yes. The word "can(not)" refers to the ability, while the words "may (not)" or "must (not)" refer to a policy constraint rather than ability. But in common vernacular, the word "can" is used in both cases, so it's ambiguous. "Mom, can I play on the Xbox now?" "No, you haven't finished your homework." Obviously Junior has the ability to play, but his mom won't allow him to do so.
- rhizome 13y agoWe're talking about adults, though.
- amirmc 13y agoThe debate might be how Joe Public interprets that phrase. I'd bet that more people would think that 'cannot' means 'not possible', rather than 'not supposed to'. I think that choice of words was quite deliberate for exactly this reason.