| 1 |
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:28:16PM +0930, Iain Buchanan wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 08:56 +0100, Zeerak Mustafa Waseem wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:17:58AM +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Tuesday 16 March 2010 17:33:13 Zeerak Mustafa Waseem wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > > usually always look to see if ... |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > Sorry, but I'm having terrible trouble parsing this expression. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Haha, no wonder. In the initial reply I had written that I left my |
| 11 |
> > brain somewhere. I think that illustrates it quite well :P |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I don't see any need for excuses, it sounds like fine common English to |
| 14 |
> me, with the possible exception of a run-on "if". |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> The full sentence was "I usually always look to see if Dale has been |
| 17 |
> involved in a thread if HAL is mentioned" |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> -- |
| 20 |
> Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> In war, truth is the first casualty. |
| 23 |
> -- U Thant |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Ah it's just using two different words that describe seeing something :-) |
| 28 |
I like to think that my english is a little better. I mean it should have been "see if" or "look to see whether" (as far as I remember anyway :-)) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Zeerak Waseem |
Archives