In the first one (“can never compare itself”), the vulture must be “self-aware” and making the comparison himself. That is unlikley in real life.
In the second one (“can never be compared”) it’s more of an admonition to not compare the two.
In the third (“does not compare”) it’s a value judgement - the hawk is far superior and the vulture just does not compare (favorably).
I agree with Barb’s take. The only thing I might add is that a vulture might possibly compare (or not compare) itself to a vulture in the context of a story, for example, in which the vulture is given human qualities.
.
I agree that the vulture might be a bird in a fable or a proverb, where non-human creatures are permitted human thoughts.
(I can imagine it in a novel by the African writer Chinua Achebe, for instance.)
On your rewordings, I couldn’t put it better than Barb.
Best wishes,
MrP
It seems to me that #1 implies simply that your maximum effort will be insufficient; whereas #2 also implies that it doesn’t matter how much effort you put into it: it will still be insufficient.
Thus #1 seems a softer statement, to me. I would find it less discouraging.
MrP
Do you think that “distinction” is general, or is it a personal/private distinction?
We’ll soon find out, my friend.
MrP
Before all that, do you see it as a personal view, or do you already know that it is general?
So, are you saying this?
However much = the maximum
No matter how much = on a scale from 0 to max
Who wrote “can not”?
It’s “cannot”!
FIE!
Enough people have misused it (can not) that some are now referring to it as acceptable… but “cannot” is the traditional form. There is no need for “can not”. All a writer has to do is choose the correct expression of it. there is no difference in meaning between “can not” and “cannot”, so why do we continue seeing “can not”?
It’s not that important really… just a grammatical pet peeve of mine.
“can not” and “irregardless”… grrrrrr.
You might find that the traditional form no longer has the hold you may wish it had.
But let’s go back to 1828:
CANNOT, [can and not.] These words are usually united, but perhaps without good reason; canst and not are never united.
1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/cannot
1913:
Cannot
Can"not (?). [Can to be able _ -not.] Am, is, or are, not able; – written either as one word or two.
machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEB … ORD=cannot
So how traditional do you want to get?
I think the reason “can” and “not” were joined is because it is awkward to say “can not” – given the ending “n” of “can” coming immediately before the “n” of “not”. Since “can not” – unless you really try to pronounce them as two separate words – sounds like one word, “they” figured it made sense to spell the expression as one word.
Logic of “cannot” aside, throughout my life I’ve read authors who choose “cannot” over “can not”, and I’ve been on their side in the struggle. If “cannot” is the choice of professional writers and most teachers, it’s good enough for me. hehe
*And yes, I know it was a quote of someone else’s work, not yours – the post wasn’t against you.
I think it’s more like this:
can not - strong form
cannot - weaker form
can’t - weakest form
All three can be found being used by certain native speakers in different contexts.
But is it?
The BNC, for the Academic register (where one would hope to find professional writers) gives CAN NOT- 6422 per 1 million words, but 0 for CANNOT.
perhaps, but for every one “can not” I could prolly find a hundred "cannot"s – looking at all books, newspapers, magazines, professional-level essays, etc.
hehe
The American Corpus, for the Academic register, gives:
CANNOT - 0
CAN NOT - 21261
For all “books, newspapers, magazines, professional-level essays, etc.” the American corpus gives.
CAN NOT - 56588
CANNOT - 105
Back to the drawing board, Prez? 
Are you purposely trying to spread misinformation, “Molly”? Are you purposely trying to misrepresent corpora numbers and information?
Or is it just that you do not understand how to use the corpora as well as you would like others to think you do? 
You’d look a lot less foolish if you analyzed and checked your beloved corpora numbers and contexts in further detail before posting such misleading information.
.
Thank you, Barb D, Amy and Mr. P for your replies !
Truly yours,
Alex
Wow, what a lot of wasted words. We might have benifited more if you’d given us the “correct” figures. I’m learning all the time. You? I mean only two weeks ago you didn’t even know how to use the two corpora I cite. I taught you how to search for contarctions, now you could teach me how to search “cannot”. OK?
So what are the “real” scores? Simplified, these, right? If not, show me what I’m doing wrong. Thanks for any help in advance.
Regularised frequency: CAN NOT - 291.06 (in PM 1)
Regularised frequency: CANNOT - 0.15 (in PM 1)
Regularised frequency: CAN NOT - 418.87 (in PM 1)
Regularised frequency: CANNOT - 0 (in PM 1)
And what’s your take on this:
An interesting take on things:
This is yet another example of Molly’s typical condescending double talk. A few weeks ago it was you who criticized the fact that I questioned the “need” to split the word shan’t in two in order to do a search for it in the corpora you so blindly love. Although I don’t use the word shan’t myself, even I know that when that word is written anywhere other than in a corpus search box, it is written as one word – i.e. without a space in the middle.
Now, a few weeks later, you post wild scores supposedly proving the “correct” and/or “usual” spelling of the word cannot to be “can not” – scores which apparently reflect little or nothing more than the very same “corpus search requirement” that you already knew about. To be perfectly honest, Molly, based on that, it would appear that your intent is only to mislead and deceive.
I’m not really interested in corpus “scores”. But my native-speaker intuition tells me that your interpretation of the “scores” you posted is pure hogwash.
If you do a search for “can not” (2 words) in the BNC version that you apparently do not “approve” of, this is what you will find:
sara.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/saraWeb?qy=can+not
Note that the search above was for “can not” (2 words), but that ALL of the results are “cannot” (1 word).
So, if you want a “score”, it would seem to make more sense to estimate “cannot” (rather than “can not”) as being used basically 100% of the time. Golly, Molly! That’s quite a discrepancy, isn’t it?!
Nope, I’d say that your latest attempt to mislead is also hogwash.
I told you in my first post that you need to look at and analyze your “scores” in more detail. Basically, what you’re doing wrong is misusing and abusing the corpora – seemingly for your own unsavory purposes. At your level of English competency, the “scores” you found should have set off all kinds of alarms in your head that something was hugely amiss. That alone should have prompted you to research the usage more carefully. Instead, you simply chose to post inappropriate scores. Why? Apparently so that you could condescendingly tell Prezbucky to go back to the drawing board, and attempt to mislead anyone else reading this thread.
Obviously, can not can be used as an emphatic form of cannot. You will also sometimes find it as a simple typo/misspelling of cannot – just as Prezbucky mentioned. Can’t is the standard contracted form of cannot.
.
Try this for condescending posting:
Not sure what that has to do with the way one has to search if using the BYU corpora.
Nice try, Amy, but it was not me who mentioned “correct usage”. I merely tried to see if Prez’ was correct in thinking that one would find “cannot” much more than “can not” in professional texts.
What on earth are you talking about, Amy?
Yawn! Have you been at the hard stuff today, Amy. Wrong side of the bed, etc? PMT? :twisted:
My post to Prez was light-hearted and in no way condescending. You’re so like Jamie, you’re always trying to score Brownie points from other posters and forever attempting to creat a Molly hate club. In short, Amy, it’s pathetic behaviour. Does it give you pleasure?
Those corpus numbers baffle me. Authors seem to use to the traditional “cannot” con mas frecuencia than “can not”.
but this is a dead horse, so I’ll quit bitching. It’s certainly not as important as world hunger or the proliferation of HIV.