# can't be verb-ing (can't verb)



## Phoebe1200

The Thundermans, TV series
Context: Max is in a band and his band is supposed to perform at the school talent show tonight. Max's guitar strap broke but he can't buy a new one because he doesn't have the money. Later, his bandmates chip in and buy him a new strap. Also, I should say that Max gets annoyed when they give him the gift because Max wants to be a super villain but he's realized that hanging out with his friends (bandmates) is turning him soft.


*Friends*: We got something for you. (gives him the gift)
*Max*: No, guys, you *can't be buying *me stuff.
*Friends*: Why not? You're our friend. And you started the gift giving when you made us these scrapbooks. (holds up the scrapbooks)


I'm interested in this construction. Does it refer to the present time, like, right now?


----------



## Barque

It's an informal construction. "You can't be [action]" usually means "You shouldn't do [whatever it is that's referred to]".


Phoebe1200 said:


> Does it refer to the present time, like, right now?


It refers to what the person being addressed is or is not supposed to do, generally. It can be used with reference to any time.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you very much, Barque.

I forgot to ask. How is it different from saying "No, guys, you *can't buy *me stuff"?


----------



## Barque

They both mean the same thing here, just different ways of saying it.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

_Just the Way You Are_

Don't *go changing*, to try and please me
You never let me down before
Don't imagine you're too familiar
And I don't see you anymore ...

The present progressive has become more popular in recent years, in my observation. But it also has a specific meaning. It tends to mean something you do regularly in the present time.


----------



## se16teddy

Phoebe1200 said:


> No, guys, you *can't be buying *me stuff.


I think this suggests that there is some continuity or repetition to the buying. But there is also (or alternatively) a stylistic effect - the continuous aspects sounds informal, conversational, maybe even quaint.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

se16teddy said:


> I think this suggests that there is some continuity or repetition to the buying. But there is also (or alternatively) a stylistic effect - the continuous aspects sounds informal, conversational, maybe even quaint.


Agreed. I edited my post but you stated it better.


----------



## Phoebe1200

And "No, guys, you *can't buy *me stuff" suggests "generally"?


----------



## Myridon

It is not good for me that you buy me everything that I need.  I need to stand on my own and buy the things I need myself.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Myridon said:


> It is not good for me that you buy me everything that I need.  I need to stand on my own and buy the things I need myself.


Sorry, were you referring to "you *can't buy *me stuff" or "you *can't be buying *me stuff"?


----------



## RedwoodGrove

I would add that the present continuous has replaced the normal present tense in the past several decades. I don't know why. I suspect it is an Americanism.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you.

Henry Danger, TV series 
Context: A report on the news announces that two new flavors of Frittle chips are coming out called Raging *Red* Rhubarb and Bodacious* Blue *Bacon and the Frittle company is having a contest where people vote for which flavor they want to become a new flavor. Jasper decides to vote for the red chips and Henry decides to vote for the blue chips.
At the Junk-N-Stuff counter (the store where he works), Jasper is giving away free cans of red Frittle chips, telling customers to vote red. Henry sees this and he tells Jasper he can't do this. 

*Jasper*: Here's your unitard for your dog. And, please accept this free tube of Frittles and don't forget to go online and vote red on Tuesday.
*Henry*: Uh, dude. No, no, no. You *can't be telling *customers to vote red.

Is it the same usage as the OP?


----------



## wandle

Phoebe1200 said:


> You *can't be telling *customers to vote red.
> Is it the same usage as the OP?


Yes it is. It means 'You must not make a practice of' telling people how to vote.

'You can't be buying me stuff' means 'I will not accept your buying things for me' (meant in a positive way: 'that would be too generous of you').


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you, Wandle.


Phoebe1200 said:


> You *can't be telling *customers to vote red.


So it's just the same as saying "You *can't tell *customers to vote red"?


----------



## wandle

No, it means 'You cannot make a practice, a habit, of it'.
This is a general rule, more than a particular prohibition. It means 'You must not be the sort of person who does that'.


----------



## Phoebe1200

wandle said:


> No, it means 'You cannot make a practice, a habit, of it'.
> This is a general rule, more than a particular prohibition. It means 'You must not be the sort of person who does that'.


Was your explanation about "You *can't tell *customers to vote red"?


----------



## wandle

My post 15 was answering your post 14.


----------



## Phoebe1200

wandle said:


> No, it means 'You cannot make a practice, a habit, of it'.


But you said the same thing about "You *can't be telling *customers to vote red."


Phoebe1200 said:


> You *can't be telling *customers to vote red.
> 
> Is it the same usage as the OP?





wandle said:


> . It means 'You must not make a practice of' telling people how to vote.


----------



## wandle

wandle said:


> It [You *can't be telling *customers to vote red] means 'You must not make a practice of' telling people how to vote.
> 
> 'You can't be buying me stuff' means 'I will not accept your buying things for me' (meant in a positive way: 'that would be too generous of you').


----------



## Phoebe1200

I'm really sorry but I meant what is the difference between saying "You *can't be telling *customers to vote red" and "You *can't tell *customers to vote red"?


----------



## wandle

Phoebe1200 said:


> what is the difference between saying "You *can't be telling *customers to vote red" and "You *can't tell *customers to vote red"?





wandle said:


> This ["You *can't be telling *customers to vote red"] is a general rule, more than a particular prohibition. It means 'You must not be the sort of person who does that'.


----------



## Phoebe1200

And "You *can't tell *customers to vote red" means?


----------



## wandle

Phoebe1200 said:


> And "You *can't tell *customers to vote red" means?


That is a direct prohibition of an action. It is less general in scope, but at the same time more pointed and peremptory (more of an abrupt command).
The other is more like confidential life advice between friends.

(Bear in mind that the more we explore the difference in meaning, the more we run the risk of exaggerating the  difference. It is not a very great difference.)


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you for your answers, Wandle.
And does "You *can't be telling *customers to vote red" suggest what se16teddy said?



se16teddy said:


> suggests that there is some continuity or repetition


----------



## JulianStuart

Phoebe1200 said:


> Thank you for your answers, Wandle.
> And does "You *can't be telling *customers to vote red" suggest what se16teddy said?


Yes.  Telling is emphasizing/specifying a repetitive action that is being prohibitied.  Tell is a (broader/vaguer) single action that is being prohibited.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thanks, Julian.

At first, I actually thought that Henry used the continuous form "You *can't be telling *customers to vote red" because he was referring it to the present moment of Jasper telling customers to vote red.
Was I wrong?


----------



## JulianStuart

Yes. In the current context, You can't be Xing does not refer to an instant of Xing.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thanks.



Phoebe1200 said:


> You *can't be telling *customers to vote red.





wandle said:


> This is a general rule,





Phoebe1200 said:


> And "You *can't tell *customers to vote red" means?





wandle said:


> It is less general in scope,


I thought it was the other way around. 

"You *can't tell *customers to vote red" is used to express it generally.
"You *can't be telling *customers to vote red" covers only the recent time.


----------



## wandle

Phoebe1200 said:


> "You *can't tell *customers to vote red" is used to express it generally.


It forbids a particular action (of course, the action does involve some generality).





Phoebe1200 said:


> "You *can't be telling *customers to vote red" covers only the recent time.


This is a case where the continuous form expresses repeated or habitual action, and thus, compared with the other, it adds an extra level of generality.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thanks a lot, Wandle. Now I understand.


----------



## Phoebe1200

The Thundermans, TV series 
Context: Max and Phoebe got jobs at a pizza place. Now at the workplace when they're making pizza, Phoebe notices how Max is adding pepperoni randomly.

_You *can't *just *be throwing *pepperoni all willy-nilly. 
_
Here with the use of the present continuous Phoebe is referring to the present moment of Max throwing pepperoni, right?

_
_


----------



## VicNicSor

It rather refers to a *process*, than to a *fact*.
I've always thought "you can't *do* (something)" sounds stricter, more prohibitive, while "you can't *be doing *(something)" — a little softer, more like strong advice.


----------



## RedwoodGrove




----------



## se16teddy

Phoebe1200 said:


> _You *can't *just *be throwing *pepperoni all willy-nilly._


I don’t think the use of _be throwing _rather than _throw _has much to do with progressive, continuous or imperfective aspect here. It suggests a quaint or folksy style, and perhaps therefore a mothering or condescending attitude.


----------



## RedwoodGrove

I agree it's a folksy style but am not sure that the meaning is completely equivalent to the simple present tense.

_You can't just be throwing pepperoni all willy-nilly. 
You can't just throw pepperoni all willy-nilly. _

I suppose it's arguable either way. Part of the problem here is that the whole sentence is folksy, etc. If you strip it down and make it more ordinary the difference becomes a little clearer.

_You can't be throwing the pepperoni randomly. 
You can't throw the pepperoni randomly. _

The obvious answer to the second is "Yes I can, I just did." But admittedly the basic tone of the usage is as you say, folksy or rather colloquial.
_
_


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thanks so much for your answers everyone.


VicNicSor said:


> It rather refers to a *process*, than to a *fact*.


I'm sorry but I don't understand this. What "process" and what "fact"? Could you please tell me?


Phoebe1200 said:


> Here with the use of the present continuous Phoebe is referring to the present moment of Max throwing pepperoni, right?


I asked this because for the previous examples in this thread "You *can't be buying *me stuff." and "You *can't be telling *customers to vote red." I was told that the use of the continuous does not refer to the instant of doing those things 



se16teddy said:


> there is some continuity or repetition to the buying





RedwoodGrove said:


> It tends to mean something you do regularly in the present time.





wandle said:


> It means 'You must not make a practice of' telling people how to vote.





JulianStuart said:


> In the current context, You can't be Xing does not refer to an instant of Xing.



but I thought that with _"You *can't *just *be throwing *pepperoni all willy-nilly." _Phoebe definitely was simply referring to the instant of Max throwing pepperoni, no?


----------



## VicNicSor

Phoebe1200 said:


> I'm sorry but I don't understand this. What "process" and what "fact"? Could you please tell me?


I meant that "you can't be doing" focuses on the process/course of happening something: "you can't be (in the process of) throwing pepperoni all willy-nilly". It sounds more informal than "you can't do (....)", which sounds like just a prohibition.


----------



## Phoebe1200

VicNicSor said:


> I meant that "you can't be doing" focuses on the process/course of happening something: "you can't be (in the process of) throwing pepperoni all willy-nilly". It sounds more informal than "you can't do (....)", which sounds like just a prohibition.


Thanks so much, Vic. I get it now.


----------



## Forero

In such context, "can't" in effect means "don't":

_Don't try to change me._
If you try to change me, that will be disobedience.

_Don't be trying to change me._
If I see you trying to change me, that will be disobedience, even if you don't continue trying afterwards.
If you start trying to change me, that will be disobedience, even if you don't keep trying.
If you incline yourself toward trying to change me, that will be disobedience, even if you don't act on that inclination.

I don't think either command is stronger than the other. They just look at either (1) an attempt to change the speaker or (2) a process (or series of actions, or attitude) of attempting to change the speaker. "Try" refers to (1); "be trying" refers to (2).

The difference between simple aspect and progressive/continuous aspect is really the same here as always. The meaning extended to inclination/attitude is really the same idea as with present progressive for something happening in the future.


----------



## Phoebe1200

I'm sorry for my late reply. Thank you, Forero, very much. 

One thing though. I'm still not that clear on my last example's usage. Like I asked in post 36, with _"You *can't *just *be throwing *pepperoni all willy-nilly." _Phoebe definitely was simply referring to the instant of Max throwing pepperoni at that moment, right?  I mean, she didn't mean any continuity, repetition or series of actions with it, right?


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> I'm sorry for my late reply. Thank you, Forero, very much.
> 
> One thing though. I'm still not that clear on my last example's usage. Like I asked in post 36, with _"You *can't *just *be throwing *pepperoni all willy-nilly." _Phoebe definitely was simply referring to the instant of Max throwing pepperoni at that moment, right?  I mean, she didn't mean any continuity, repetition or series of actions with it, right?


"You can't" here is like "don't", the imperative. It does not refer to the present moment but to a possible future.

Phoebe does not want Max to "be throwing" pepperoni [on pizzas they are selling] "all willy-nilly". She wants him to use more discretion with it, to put it on pizzas just when it is requested (and paid for).


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you for your answer. 



Forero said:


> "You can't" here is like "don't", the imperative. It does not refer to the present moment but to a possible future.


You mean that she meant that Max can't_* ever* _throw pepperoni all willy-nilly on a pizza and not just right now?


Also, could she have said _"You *can't *just* throw *pepperoni all willy-nilly."_ in the OP?


----------



## Forero

Phoebe1200 said:


> You mean that she meant that Max can't_* ever* _throw pepperoni all willy-nilly on a pizza and not just right now?


Not really. "Not just right now" is correct, but "ever" with simple present is too restrictive.

Max might be justified in doing it sometime, but he is not to "be" doing it.





> Also, could she have said _"You *can't *just* throw *pepperoni all willy-nilly."_ in the OP?


She could have, but that would not be quite the same thing. (See #13, #15, #25, #39.)


----------



## Phoebe1200

I appreciate your help.


----------

