RW wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:49:52 -0400
Bob Hall <> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 02:34:40AM +0000, Mark wrote:
Actually, this has got very little to do with being a native English
speaker or not. It's ere a matter of intonation (which, in writing,
can only be conveyed to a certain degree, of course). 'Should' can
certainly mean "Don't try that." As in:

Will the ice hold me?
Well, technically it should.

(Meaning: it probably will, but I'm not overly confident.)
Actually, what's happening here is dropping part of a sentence. It's
common in English to shorten
        Yea, it should work, but it doesn't.

Not really, but the only sensible meaning is that it should, in an
ideal world, work.

It seems that people are grasping for ambiguity here. If a phrase has
one sensible meaning and other absurd meanings then there really is
no ambiguity all unless one is trying to be deliberately obtuse.

i could have sworn this thread was about glabel and tunefs, whats with the grammar and linguistics?
*note* not directed at RW

_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to ""

_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to ""

Reply via email to