I know "No, it can't be" can mean "It's impossible that it is", but I don't think "No, it may not be" can also mean "It's impossible that it is". I know that "No, it may not be" can mean "It's possible that it is not", but can't the sentence mean "It's impossible that it is" like the case of 'can'?
3
-
2Hello, Kim. What does your research show? Merriam-Webster, for instance, have a usage note titled can vs may. // 'May' in the 'allow' sense is usually deontic: 'You may[/must] not run in the corridor'. With 'it' as subject, the 'possibility/probability' sense of 'may'[/'might'] is the heavy default. But 'No, it may not be allowed off the lead in the park' is again speaking of permission. 'The bearings are oiled so that the pendulum may swing freely' shows the 'can in the enabled' sense, so yes, this sense is available. But often confusing.– Edwin AshworthCommented Jul 19, 2023 at 12:05
-
The meaning of "may" is normally given by context and tone of voice - an uncertain tone for possibility, a commanding tone for giving a decree.– Stuart FCommented Jul 19, 2023 at 12:13
-
Based on context, it's not hard to make yes mean no. So based on what you say earlier, it may not be might announce impossibility. But that is not standard.– Yosef BaskinCommented Jul 19, 2023 at 12:44
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
First, you ought to give examples in full sentences if you're asking for grammatical advice. E.g,
No, it can't be Monica. (Epistemic; speaker asserts negative identification)
No, it can't be this close to the water. (Deontic; it must be farther from the water)
No, it can't be noon already. (Epistemic)
No, it may not be Monica. (Epistemic; speaker asserts doubt)
No, it may not be this close to the water. (Deontic; formal notice to move it)
No, it may not be noon already. (Epistemic, but already should be yet here)
Second, the senses you're asking about are Epistemic senses of may and can, which are different in many ways, like all pairs of modals. Epistemic senses are the ones that deal with the speaker's beliefs and judgements about what is possible and probable. All modals have epistemic senses, though the epistemic sense of can only occurs in negative contexts; that's why your examples are negative.
Third, all modals also have a Deontic sense, which deals not with logic and probabilities, but with obligations and prohibitions. The possible modals (can, may, could, might) have deontic senses about permission, and the necessary modals (must, shall, should, will, would) have deontic senses about obligations and rules.
- Cinderella can't be fitted for a ball gown. (it's forbidden)
- Cinderella may not be fitted for a ball gown. (it's not allowed)
- Cinderella may/can be fitted for a ball gown. (it's allowed)
To sum up, it's never the case that any construction or string can be substituted for another in every case. There are always plenty of differences, and with modals and negatives involved, they will be complex differences.
Oh, and neither it can't be nor it may not be are constituents; language is not just stringing beads together.
answered Jul 19, 2023 at 15:57
Yes, it is theoretically possible that "It may not be" means "it is not possible. "May" can sometimes indicate permission rather than potentiality.
It's certainly not the usual meaning. It's archaic, and if you intend that meaning then you should make it very clear from context that is what you mean. When spoken you would stress the sentence differently: "It may not be" rather than "It may not be".
answered Jul 19, 2023 at 13:02
-
@Lambie Wrong way round. That usage is not archaic. It's normal. It's the other one that is archaic. Commented Jul 19, 2023 at 21:39
-
Confusing, as DJClayworth notes.
Suppose "It may be that X" means "It is possible that X". Then there are two possible meanings for "It may not be that X".
• It may be that (not X) ... meaning "It is possible that not X"
• Not (it may be that X) ... meaning "it is not possible that X"
Grammatically, "not" may be placed in the middle, but it could be interpreted either way, with differing meanings.
