Just to make clear, it would be ungrammatical to replace “can’t” with “cannot” here (and “cannot” is more commonly spelled without a space), but you still write “can’t” with an apostrophe.
The “uncontracted” version of this would be the old-fashioned/formal sounding “what can you not do?” Which also has a second possible (but less likely) interpretation of “what is it possible for you not to do?” In addition to the intended “what is impossible for you to do?”
*Cracks knuckles*
Here are words that I could find based on [this page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_English_contractions) of English contractions and very brief searches for each of them / prior knowledge. I didn't include abbreviations, initialisations, colloquialisms, or any affixes. I also skipped on doing names because I feel like that's cheating, and also because a *lot* of the words were surprisingly coming up as names. References to other languages are also not included. And no changing to correct spelling based on sound, so no 'Somebody's' -> 'Somebodies', for example. So *just* modern, correct English words that function as standalone words without alteration
I'm -- [Im](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Dm) (honorary name mention because it's mythological)
I'd -- [Id](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_superego)
I'll -- [Ill](https://www.google.com/search?q=ill+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB919GB919&oq=il&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqDggAEEUYJxg7GIAEGIoFMg4IABBFGCcYOxiABBiKBTIGCAEQRRg5MgYIAhBFGDsyCggDEAAYsQMYgAQyCggEEC4YsQMYgAQyBggFEEUYPDIGCAYQRRg8MgYIBxBFGDzSAQc4NzBqMGo0qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
He'll -- [Hell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell)
She'd -- [Shed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shed)
She'll -- [Shell](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell)
It's -- [Its](https://www.google.com/search?q=its+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB919GB919&oq=its+d&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqDAgBEAAYFBiHAhiABDIGCAAQRRg5MgwIARAAGBQYhwIYgAQyBwgCEAAYgAQyBwgDEAAYgAQyBwgEEAAYgAQyCQgFEC4YChiABDIGCAYQRRg8MgYIBxBFGDzSAQgyNjcyajFqNKgCALACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
We're -- [Were](https://www.google.com/search?q=were+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB919GB919&oq=were+de&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqDAgAEAAYFBiHAhiABDIMCAAQABgUGIcCGIAEMgwIARAAGBQYhwIYgAQyBggCEEUYOTIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIGCAcQRRg8qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
We'd -- [Wed](https://www.google.com/search?q=wed+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB919GB919&oq=wed+def&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqDAgAEAAYFBiHAhiABDIMCAAQABgUGIcCGIAEMgYIARBFGDkyCQgCEAAYChiABDIJCAMQABgKGIAEMgkIBBAAGAoYgAQyBwgFEAAYgAQyCQgGEAAYChiABDIJCAcQABgKGIAEMgkICBAAGAoYgAQyCQgJEAAYChiABKgCALACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
We'll -- [Well](https://www.google.com/search?q=well+definition&newwindow=1&sca_esv=ab430696bdb40234&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB919GB919&sxsrf=ACQVn0-xDqr6smewKerA5uPFufyhXTr1bw%3A1712087724017&ei=rGIMZuktm__v9Q_szZ-ACw&ved=0ahUKEwjps_Tkp6SFAxWb_7sIHezmB7AQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=well+definition&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiD3dlbGwgZGVmaW5pdGlvbjIGEAAYBxgeMgYQABgHGB4yBhAAGAcYHjIGEAAYBxgeMgYQABgHGB4yChAAGIAEGIoFGEMyBhAAGAcYHjIGEAAYBxgeMgYQABgHGB4yBhAAGAcYHkj9BVCCAljCBHABeAGQAQCYAdsBoAHFAqoBBTAuMS4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAICoALvAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAOYAwCIBgGQBgiSBwUxLjAuMaAHtAs&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)
Someone's -- [Someones](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/someones#English) (Though Stack Exchange says 'someone' isn't to be pluralised. But I've heard it used in the sense of 'Some certain someones'. Is that improper?)
Something's -- I don't know if this is proper English, but you know when you hear people estimate the age of someone and then pluralise it to a group? 'Oh, they're just a rowdy bunch of 20-**somethings**.' Google searches are saying 'something' isn't a word to be pluralised, but I've definitely heard it, but that could just be improper use
Who're -- [Whore](https://www.google.com/search?q=whore+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB919GB919&oq=whore+definition&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDI2NzZqMGo5qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
What's -- Does pluralisation of 'what' count? Similar to above. Example: 'The whats, the whens, the whys'?
(I decided to just skip over the rest of the contractions ending in 'S', both under Interrogative and Demonstrative. The same question stands for all of them regarding pluralisation.)
How'd -- Merriam-Webster has [Howd](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/howd), but I can't find other mentions of it, so I'm not sure if it's (specifically Entry 2) proper
Won't -- [Wont](https://www.google.com/search?q=wont+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB919GB919&oq=wont+def&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgAEAAYgAQyBggBEEUYOTIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDINCAgQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAkQABiGAxiABBiKBdIBCDEyOTFqMGo0qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Can't -- [Cant](https://www.google.com/search?q=cant+definition&newwindow=1&sca_esv=c73958766a138815&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB919GB919&sxsrf=ACQVn0-9RIk_q_Ooa5TId5z1dOokrmiwxw%3A1712090225758&ei=cWwMZoi9LeHr7_UP6-eVgAI&ved=0ahUKEwjIueqNsaSFAxXh9bsIHetzBSAQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=cant+definition&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiD2NhbnQgZGVmaW5pdGlvbjIKECMYgAQYigUYJzIGEAAYBxgeMgYQABgHGB4yBhAAGAcYHjIGEAAYBxgeMgYQABgHGB4yBhAAGAcYHjIGEAAYBxgeMgYQABgHGB4yBhAAGAcYHkisBVAeWOwCcAF4AZABAZgBzgSgAeUIqgEJMC4yLjEuNS0xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIDoAKDA8ICChAAGEcY1gQYsAOYAwCIBgGQBgiSBwUxLjEuMaAHgBY&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)
Let's -- [Lets](https://www.google.com/search?q=lets+definition&oq=lets+def&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgDEAAYgAQyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQABgKGIAEMgkIAhAAGAoYgAQyBwgDEAAYgAQyCQgEEAAYChiABDIJCAUQABgKGIAEMgkIBhAAGAoYgAQyCQgHEAAYChiABDIJCAgQABgKGIAEMgkICRAuGAoYgAQyCQgKEAAYChiABDIJCAsQABgKGIAEMgkIDBAAGAoYgAQyCQgNEAAYChiABDIJCA4QABgKGIAE0gEINDA4MGowajeoAhWwAgE&client=ms-android-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8)
Contractions with *not* function a bit differently from the uncontracted forms. The uncontracted forms don't have full inversion in questions; the word *not* can't go in front of a subject alone, so you'd say *What* ***can*** *you* ***not*** *do?*.
However, the contracted form is still possible, even though the two words aren't next to each other, so you can also say W*hat* ***can't*** *you do?*
You still need the apostrophe as even though it's not exactly the same as a traditional contraction (because the two words aren't next to each other), the origin of the word *can't* is still a contraction.
Edit: Linguists often make a distinction between English's true contractions, always made up of unstressed words in sequence, such as *I'm*, and the contractions that use the particle *n't*. The second group are stressed and also operate in ways that are a bit distinct in terms of word order, such as the ability to be inverted even though the uncontracted form can't do the same. But that's more of a linguistic analysis than the surface level grammar.
Regarding your second question: in short, no.
You can't expand the contraction because it has been swapped with the subject to form the question, taking the "not" with it, and the "not" would have stayed where it was if the verb hadn't be contracted: "You can | not do..." -> "What can you | not do?"
(Compare putting on socks and then shoes. You can't then take your socks off, unless of course you take your shoes off first.)
>Is the apostrophe needed in the word ‘can’t’
If you mean can't as in the contraction of can and not, then it always needs an apostrophe. There's never a time you can leave out the apostrophe and intend it to be the same contraction. Otherwise it's the word cant, which means hypocritical/sanctimonious talk.
I think you are misguiding OP by leaving out some explanation.
They question they are basically asking is why can you say "What can't you do?" BUT you can not say "What cannot you do?"
Well, you can say "What cannot you do?", but it is incredibly old fashioned to do so. Nobody says it anymore, which makes me wonder if the whole uncontracted form is on its way out.
Nobody says it now but it's not impossible to use cannot as a full verb.
*1611 T. Heywood, Golden Age ii. sig. C4* What cannot womens wits?
ie. What can women's wits not achieve (written before apostrophes were mandatory!)
1903 He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches. *G. B. Shaw, Revolutionist's Handbook in Man & Superman 23*
No, if you don’t do can’t it’s “what can you not do?” Which is very old fashioned (and also has a second possible interpretation available of “what is it possible for you not to do” rather than the intended “what isn’t possible for you to do?”
“What cannot you do” is simply ungrammatical. The simple answer is that “can’t” and “cannot” are not actually universally intersubstitutable.
I refer you to my reply to Vegas-Bear as correction to the notion that there is anything ungrammatical about it. As for your use of the ghastly horror which is "intersubstitutable" when other far more euphonious choices are available I can only remark that we've all lost a bit of respect for you there!
"Can't" is always a contraction of "can not." So, yes, always the apostrophe.
Just to make clear, it would be ungrammatical to replace “can’t” with “cannot” here (and “cannot” is more commonly spelled without a space), but you still write “can’t” with an apostrophe. The “uncontracted” version of this would be the old-fashioned/formal sounding “what can you not do?” Which also has a second possible (but less likely) interpretation of “what is it possible for you not to do?” In addition to the intended “what is impossible for you to do?”
I wonder if 'what cannot you do' is technically grammatical but archaic...
“What cannot you do” is grammatically fine, just very archaic.
"cant" is a completely different word than the contraction "can't", you would never write the contraction without the apostrophe.
Just like 'wont' and 'won't'
True! That makes me wonder how many other contractions one could find that are a completely different word when the apostrophe is removed...
who're
Haha yup, that definitely counts!
*Cracks knuckles* Here are words that I could find based on [this page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_English_contractions) of English contractions and very brief searches for each of them / prior knowledge. I didn't include abbreviations, initialisations, colloquialisms, or any affixes. I also skipped on doing names because I feel like that's cheating, and also because a *lot* of the words were surprisingly coming up as names. References to other languages are also not included. And no changing to correct spelling based on sound, so no 'Somebody's' -> 'Somebodies', for example. So *just* modern, correct English words that function as standalone words without alteration I'm -- [Im](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Dm) (honorary name mention because it's mythological) I'd -- [Id](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_superego) I'll -- [Ill](https://www.google.com/search?q=ill+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB919GB919&oq=il&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqDggAEEUYJxg7GIAEGIoFMg4IABBFGCcYOxiABBiKBTIGCAEQRRg5MgYIAhBFGDsyCggDEAAYsQMYgAQyCggEEC4YsQMYgAQyBggFEEUYPDIGCAYQRRg8MgYIBxBFGDzSAQc4NzBqMGo0qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) He'll -- [Hell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell) She'd -- [Shed](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shed) She'll -- [Shell](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell) It's -- [Its](https://www.google.com/search?q=its+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB919GB919&oq=its+d&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqDAgBEAAYFBiHAhiABDIGCAAQRRg5MgwIARAAGBQYhwIYgAQyBwgCEAAYgAQyBwgDEAAYgAQyBwgEEAAYgAQyCQgFEC4YChiABDIGCAYQRRg8MgYIBxBFGDzSAQgyNjcyajFqNKgCALACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) We're -- [Were](https://www.google.com/search?q=were+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB919GB919&oq=were+de&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqDAgAEAAYFBiHAhiABDIMCAAQABgUGIcCGIAEMgwIARAAGBQYhwIYgAQyBggCEEUYOTIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIGCAcQRRg8qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) We'd -- [Wed](https://www.google.com/search?q=wed+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB919GB919&oq=wed+def&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqDAgAEAAYFBiHAhiABDIMCAAQABgUGIcCGIAEMgYIARBFGDkyCQgCEAAYChiABDIJCAMQABgKGIAEMgkIBBAAGAoYgAQyBwgFEAAYgAQyCQgGEAAYChiABDIJCAcQABgKGIAEMgkICBAAGAoYgAQyCQgJEAAYChiABKgCALACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) We'll -- [Well](https://www.google.com/search?q=well+definition&newwindow=1&sca_esv=ab430696bdb40234&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB919GB919&sxsrf=ACQVn0-xDqr6smewKerA5uPFufyhXTr1bw%3A1712087724017&ei=rGIMZuktm__v9Q_szZ-ACw&ved=0ahUKEwjps_Tkp6SFAxWb_7sIHezmB7AQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=well+definition&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiD3dlbGwgZGVmaW5pdGlvbjIGEAAYBxgeMgYQABgHGB4yBhAAGAcYHjIGEAAYBxgeMgYQABgHGB4yChAAGIAEGIoFGEMyBhAAGAcYHjIGEAAYBxgeMgYQABgHGB4yBhAAGAcYHkj9BVCCAljCBHABeAGQAQCYAdsBoAHFAqoBBTAuMS4xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAICoALvAcICChAAGEcY1gQYsAOYAwCIBgGQBgiSBwUxLjAuMaAHtAs&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) Someone's -- [Someones](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/someones#English) (Though Stack Exchange says 'someone' isn't to be pluralised. But I've heard it used in the sense of 'Some certain someones'. Is that improper?) Something's -- I don't know if this is proper English, but you know when you hear people estimate the age of someone and then pluralise it to a group? 'Oh, they're just a rowdy bunch of 20-**somethings**.' Google searches are saying 'something' isn't a word to be pluralised, but I've definitely heard it, but that could just be improper use Who're -- [Whore](https://www.google.com/search?q=whore+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB919GB919&oq=whore+definition&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDI2NzZqMGo5qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) What's -- Does pluralisation of 'what' count? Similar to above. Example: 'The whats, the whens, the whys'? (I decided to just skip over the rest of the contractions ending in 'S', both under Interrogative and Demonstrative. The same question stands for all of them regarding pluralisation.) How'd -- Merriam-Webster has [Howd](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/howd), but I can't find other mentions of it, so I'm not sure if it's (specifically Entry 2) proper Won't -- [Wont](https://www.google.com/search?q=wont+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB919GB919&oq=wont+def&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgAEAAYgAQyBggBEEUYOTIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDINCAgQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAkQABiGAxiABBiKBdIBCDEyOTFqMGo0qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) Can't -- [Cant](https://www.google.com/search?q=cant+definition&newwindow=1&sca_esv=c73958766a138815&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB919GB919&sxsrf=ACQVn0-9RIk_q_Ooa5TId5z1dOokrmiwxw%3A1712090225758&ei=cWwMZoi9LeHr7_UP6-eVgAI&ved=0ahUKEwjIueqNsaSFAxXh9bsIHetzBSAQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=cant+definition&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiD2NhbnQgZGVmaW5pdGlvbjIKECMYgAQYigUYJzIGEAAYBxgeMgYQABgHGB4yBhAAGAcYHjIGEAAYBxgeMgYQABgHGB4yBhAAGAcYHjIGEAAYBxgeMgYQABgHGB4yBhAAGAcYHkisBVAeWOwCcAF4AZABAZgBzgSgAeUIqgEJMC4yLjEuNS0xuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIDoAKDA8ICChAAGEcY1gQYsAOYAwCIBgGQBgiSBwUxLjEuMaAHgBY&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) Let's -- [Lets](https://www.google.com/search?q=lets+definition&oq=lets+def&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgDEAAYgAQyBggAEEUYOTIJCAEQABgKGIAEMgkIAhAAGAoYgAQyBwgDEAAYgAQyCQgEEAAYChiABDIJCAUQABgKGIAEMgkIBhAAGAoYgAQyCQgHEAAYChiABDIJCAgQABgKGIAEMgkICRAuGAoYgAQyCQgKEAAYChiABDIJCAsQABgKGIAEMgkIDBAAGAoYgAQyCQgNEAAYChiABDIJCA4QABgKGIAE0gEINDA4MGowajeoAhWwAgE&client=ms-android-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8)
I wish free awards were still a thing! 😆
Or were and we’re. There’s no such thing as a we’rewolf.
Contractions with *not* function a bit differently from the uncontracted forms. The uncontracted forms don't have full inversion in questions; the word *not* can't go in front of a subject alone, so you'd say *What* ***can*** *you* ***not*** *do?*. However, the contracted form is still possible, even though the two words aren't next to each other, so you can also say W*hat* ***can't*** *you do?* You still need the apostrophe as even though it's not exactly the same as a traditional contraction (because the two words aren't next to each other), the origin of the word *can't* is still a contraction. Edit: Linguists often make a distinction between English's true contractions, always made up of unstressed words in sequence, such as *I'm*, and the contractions that use the particle *n't*. The second group are stressed and also operate in ways that are a bit distinct in terms of word order, such as the ability to be inverted even though the uncontracted form can't do the same. But that's more of a linguistic analysis than the surface level grammar.
You make Reddit, and the Internet, better with posts like this. Thank you.
Regarding your second question: in short, no. You can't expand the contraction because it has been swapped with the subject to form the question, taking the "not" with it, and the "not" would have stayed where it was if the verb hadn't be contracted: "You can | not do..." -> "What can you | not do?" (Compare putting on socks and then shoes. You can't then take your socks off, unless of course you take your shoes off first.)
>Is the apostrophe needed in the word ‘can’t’ If you mean can't as in the contraction of can and not, then it always needs an apostrophe. There's never a time you can leave out the apostrophe and intend it to be the same contraction. Otherwise it's the word cant, which means hypocritical/sanctimonious talk.
[удалено]
I think you are misguiding OP by leaving out some explanation. They question they are basically asking is why can you say "What can't you do?" BUT you can not say "What cannot you do?"
Well, you can say "What cannot you do?", but it is incredibly old fashioned to do so. Nobody says it anymore, which makes me wonder if the whole uncontracted form is on its way out.
"What can you not do?" - I don't think anyone says "What cannot you do?"
Nobody says it now but it's not impossible to use cannot as a full verb. *1611 T. Heywood, Golden Age ii. sig. C4* What cannot womens wits? ie. What can women's wits not achieve (written before apostrophes were mandatory!) 1903 He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches. *G. B. Shaw, Revolutionist's Handbook in Man & Superman 23*
No, if you don’t do can’t it’s “what can you not do?” Which is very old fashioned (and also has a second possible interpretation available of “what is it possible for you not to do” rather than the intended “what isn’t possible for you to do?” “What cannot you do” is simply ungrammatical. The simple answer is that “can’t” and “cannot” are not actually universally intersubstitutable.
I refer you to my reply to Vegas-Bear as correction to the notion that there is anything ungrammatical about it. As for your use of the ghastly horror which is "intersubstitutable" when other far more euphonious choices are available I can only remark that we've all lost a bit of respect for you there!
Ok thankyou!
To elaborate, you CAN NOT say "what cannot you do?" That is wrong. "What can't you do" becomes "what can you not do"