Re: [fpc-pascal] OT: Re: http://www.freepascal.org/future.var

[Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho]

On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Noah Silva
 wrote:
>  I (can) and (will not) ...

This interpretation is wrong. For the sentence to mean this, it would
need to be worded like this: "I can, but will not ..."

-- 
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] OT: Re: http://www.freepascal.org/future.var

[Noah Silva]

I think it depends where you draw the implied parentheses. :)

 I (can and will) not ...
 I (can) and (will not) ...

I also did a double take when I read that, but I don't think Japanese
has any similar constructions.

Thank you,
Noah Silva



2013/6/6 Mark Morgan Lloyd 

> Howard Page-Clark wrote:
>
>> On 06/06/2013 08:32, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
>>
>>> Reinier Olislagers wrote:
>>>
 On 6-6-2013 7:52, Florian Klämpfl wrote:

> Reinier Olislagers
> >
> schrieb:
>
>  On 5-6-2013 22:02, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>>
>>> I'am opposed to an LLVM backend but if Jonas implements one I can and
>>> will not influence this :)
>>>
>> That's clear enough, thanks!
>>
> Of course I meant  I can not and will not ...
>

 Sure, I understood you: German and Dutch are much alike in this
 particular construction where you leave out one not/nicht/niet, I
 think ;)

>>>
>>> English is the same. Don't worry about it.
>>>
>>>  I'm not a good enough linguist to know if English is "the same", but
>> Florian's original statement in English is ambiguous. It could be taken to
>> mean "I can influence an LLVM implementation, but I will not," or it could
>> be taken to have an implied earlier "not" to mean "I cannot and will not
>> influence..."
>> However it is a very curious construction in English, which immediately
>> makes the reader think "What does he mean exactly?"
>>
>
> It's not curious at all. He explicitly said "can and will not", he did not
> say "can but will not".
>
> Anyway, this is veering OT even for an OT thread, all I was trying to say
> was that his English was entirely adequate- at least to somebody who dates
> back to the time that grammar was taught as distinct from being allowed to
> "develop naturally" :-)
>
>
> --
> Mark Morgan Lloyd
> markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
>
> [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
> __**_
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  
> fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.**org
> http://lists.freepascal.org/**mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
>
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] OT: Re: http://www.freepascal.org/future.var

[Mark Morgan Lloyd]

Howard Page-Clark wrote:

On 06/06/2013 08:32, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:

Reinier Olislagers wrote:

On 6-6-2013 7:52, Florian Klämpfl wrote:

Reinier Olislagers
 schrieb:


On 5-6-2013 22:02, Florian Klämpfl wrote:

I'am opposed to an LLVM backend but if Jonas implements one I can and
will not influence this :)

That's clear enough, thanks!

Of course I meant  I can not and will not ...


Sure, I understood you: German and Dutch are much alike in this
particular construction where you leave out one not/nicht/niet, I
think ;)


English is the same. Don't worry about it.

I'm not a good enough linguist to know if English is "the same", but 
Florian's original statement in English is ambiguous. It could be taken 
to mean "I can influence an LLVM implementation, but I will not," or it 
could be taken to have an implied earlier "not" to mean "I cannot and 
will not influence..."
However it is a very curious construction in English, which immediately 
makes the reader think "What does he mean exactly?"


It's not curious at all. He explicitly said "can and will not", he did 
not say "can but will not".


Anyway, this is veering OT even for an OT thread, all I was trying to 
say was that his English was entirely adequate- at least to somebody who 
dates back to the time that grammar was taught as distinct from being 
allowed to "develop naturally" :-)


--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] OT: Re: http://www.freepascal.org/future.var

[Howard Page-Clark]

On 06/06/2013 08:32, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:

Reinier Olislagers wrote:

On 6-6-2013 7:52, Florian Klämpfl wrote:

Reinier Olislagers
 schrieb:


On 5-6-2013 22:02, Florian Klämpfl wrote:

I'am opposed to an LLVM backend but if Jonas implements one I can and
will not influence this :)

That's clear enough, thanks!

Of course I meant  I can not and will not ...


Sure, I understood you: German and Dutch are much alike in this
particular construction where you leave out one not/nicht/niet, I
think ;)


English is the same. Don't worry about it.

I'm not a good enough linguist to know if English is "the same", but 
Florian's original statement in English is ambiguous. It could be taken 
to mean "I can influence an LLVM implementation, but I will not," or it 
could be taken to have an implied earlier "not" to mean "I cannot and 
will not influence..."
However it is a very curious construction in English, which immediately 
makes the reader think "What does he mean exactly?"

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] OT: Re: http://www.freepascal.org/future.var

[Mark Morgan Lloyd]

Reinier Olislagers wrote:

On 6-6-2013 7:52, Florian Klämpfl wrote:

Reinier Olislagers  
schrieb:


On 5-6-2013 22:02, Florian Klämpfl wrote:

I'am opposed to an LLVM backend but if Jonas implements one I can and
will not influence this :)

That's clear enough, thanks!
Of course I meant  I can not and will not ... 


Sure, I understood you: German and Dutch are much alike in this
particular construction where you leave out one not/nicht/niet, I think ;)


English is the same. Don't worry about it.

--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] OT: Re: http://www.freepascal.org/future.var

[Reinier Olislagers]

On 6-6-2013 7:52, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
> Reinier Olislagers 
>  schrieb:
> 
>> On 5-6-2013 22:02, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>>> I'am opposed to an LLVM backend but if Jonas implements one I can and
>>> will not influence this :)
>>
>> That's clear enough, thanks!
> 
> Of course I meant  I can not and will not ... 

Sure, I understood you: German and Dutch are much alike in this
particular construction where you leave out one not/nicht/niet, I think ;)


___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal