6 ms·
A bunch of ways. The point is you didn't present it as an interpretation; you presented it as something he physically, actually said. Which, as you knew, it w
by dreamweapon 12y ago
A bunch of ways. The point is you didn't present it as an interpretation; you presented it as something he physically, actually said.
Which, as you knew, it wasn't.
- opendais 12y agoEh? I literally said -> "The guy basically said " http://www.italki.com/question/143633 http://www.italki.com/question/143633 "When we summarize something that somebody said, we use this expression. " Eh. You have an interesting way of understanding English I've never encountered before. You also fail to provide said intepretation/explanation/whatever you like to call it. So...ya.
- opendais 12y agoI'm replying to myself since I don't feel like waiting and I'm not going to be on for awhile... You basically started an argument on the internet over my use of "" to differentiate between his posts. K. Glad we cleared that up and I don't really care anymore.
- dreamweapon 12y agoThe distinction lies in your use of quotation marks (rather than subordinate clauses). If you had just said: The guy basically said he was laid off because I pissed off management with his feedback. then it would have been perfectly clear that this was an interpretation of what happened, rather than a literal description of what happened.