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
<reinierolislagers-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org> 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
