But isn't the claim being weighed by the court that the doctors cannot, due to religious reasons? Even accepting this distinction, I think the doctors are arguing that treatment is an impossibility, and the court is deciding whether it is, in fact, an impossibility.
As for your other link, I don't see any reference to the rule in question. However, I did a Google search before I posted and found others citing this rule, albeit not any so-called authorities on language. It might be regional; it's certainly not unheard of.
The descriptivist in me chafes at rules, but I've got a bit of a prescriptivist streak, so I know where you're coming from, especially if you've been taught this distinction between can not and cannot. I'm still reeling over the recent changes to rules about possessives and words ending in ess.
And, oh, PEE ESS: hi! Long time no see. Hope it's going well!
Re: Curious.
But isn't the claim being weighed by the court that the doctors cannot, due to religious reasons? Even accepting this distinction, I think the doctors are arguing that treatment is an impossibility, and the court is deciding whether it is, in fact, an impossibility.
As for your other link, I don't see any reference to the rule in question. However, I did a Google search before I posted and found others citing this rule, albeit not any so-called authorities on language. It might be regional; it's certainly not unheard of.
The descriptivist in me chafes at rules, but I've got a bit of a prescriptivist streak, so I know where you're coming from, especially if you've been taught this distinction between can not and cannot. I'm still reeling over the recent changes to rules about possessives and words ending in ess.
And, oh, PEE ESS: hi! Long time no see. Hope it's going well!