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 <markmll.fpc-pas...@telemetry.co.uk>
> 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-**Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.**gmane.org<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<fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org>
> http://lists.freepascal.org/**mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal<http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal>
>
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
