Why is “cannot” spelled as one word whereas other similar constructions such as “do not,” “will not,” “shall not,” “may not” and “must not” are spelled as two words (unless they are contracted as “don’t” and so on)?
(I know that languages are not always logical, so I would not be too surprised if there is no known reason for this. But I am asking this in the hope that there is some explanation.)
Best Answer
Etymonline says:
This doesn't really help, but it is a good starting point. The OED supplies the 1400 cite as follows:
It also defines cannot as:
Both Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary agree, by defining cannot as can not.
The Daily Writing Tips expand on this, their bottom line being:
Funnily enough, they come to that conclusion after quoting two resources that say something slightly different:
The Washington State University language site:
AskOxford:
That last point is especially interesting. A very similar concern is being raised on the Wiktionary Talk page for cannot:
That post goes on to link to this blog:
Languagehat chimes in:
Take from all that what you will. Some of it is probably justification in hindsight, and certainly none of it actually explains how that 1400 cite came about and why this particular spelling prevailed over can not, canot, cant, and can non. As you say yourself, languages are not always logical.