On Friday 21 January 2005 7:18 am, jalal wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Jalal,
On Thursday 20 January 2005 01:08, jalal wrote:
Mark Panen wrote:
Hi
On installating Suse 9.2, i forget now is there an option to install no boot loader or is one installed anyway.
Mark
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Whew!
I take it what you meant to say was "Yes, you have the option of not installing a boot loader." What you wrote implies it is forbidden to install a boot loader.
Contemplate on the difference between:
Yes, you can not install a boot loader.
Yes, you cannot install a boot loader.
jalal
In either case, as an L1 speaker of English, the 'not' seems to bind with 'can'. You could say "Yes, you can install no boot loader", in which case 'no' binds with boot loader. It sounds forced, but is clear. If you try to bind a negation with 'install', you get "Yes, you can uninstall a bootloader", which is a different meaning. You could also say "Yes, it is not mandatory to install a boot loader". This also is clear, but uses a passive, which is clumsy style. The trouble is that there are 4 shades of meaning here: {mandatory, permitted, not mandatory , not permitted} and we require the one which means 'not mandatory'. The problem with 'can' is: {can, cannot} -> {permitted, not permitted}. Similarly 'must' does not deliver: {must, must not} -> {mandatory, not permitted}. I would go with 'need to' or 'require to' {need to, need not} -> {[almost] mandatory, not mandatory} {require to, don't require to} -> {mandatory, not mandatory} So "Yes, you need not install a boot loader" or "Yes, you don't require to install a boot loader". Hope that helps. It helped me! Vince