Please point out mistakes.
“It is to certify that that Mr. XXX bearing NIC No. 123 is a permanent teacher of this school whose salary is Rs. 123.00. Moreover, he has been serving in this department for thirty-four years. He’s entitled for full salary for sixteen days. I have no objection to his visit to the UK.”
This is to certify that Mr XXX, bearing NIC No.123, is a permanent teacher of this school and his salary is Rs.123.00 per day/month. Moreover, he has been serving in this department for thirty-four years. Mr XXX is entitled to full salary for sixteen days. I have no objection to his visit to the UK.
(‘I have no objection to his visiting the UK’ is also possible.)
Deleted. (Edited so as to let it come out of the horse’s mouth)
Maybe, though in that instance I suspect it would mean ‘carrying’ rather than ‘wearing’, but as I have explained to you more than once, I do not like to second-guess what people mean. I would rather ask the person in question and let them explain. That way, there is less of a chance of there being a misunderstanding.
I don’t read minds, nor do I pretend to do so.
You are right. I read the minds of others as your reply implies. I think to understand the implicit meaning is akin to reading the minds of others.
No, that is akin to presuming to read the minds of others. They are not the same thing… and you sometimes get it wrong as a result.
Then no literature would ever have existed in the world!
Right now, I can read your mind. So I refrain from further discussion.
Truly, let’s have a year of understanding in 2017 as I’ve already once said!
What a ridiculous argument! Literature has nothing to do with being able to read minds and presume statements.
You cannot read my mind. You would have to understand someone’s persona before even attempting to be able to do that, and you patently do not.
I thought you weren’t going to have another discreet little dig based around the New Year. Ah, well.