Monday, February 20
What have you been reading?
I am tempted to write a lexicon. Currently, it seems to me, you don't have to write clearly and you can use anything you like, from opinion to fallacy, as content. Not being a syndicated columnist may be an obstacle to publication, however I don't have any time to devote to the task so the delay may allow me to get my word count up. I can keep adding to the manuscript whimsically until someone accepts it; it's not like there is a narrative to maintain.
What have you been watching?
House, Hyperdrive, Life on Mars, and Lost on telly*. Also, Brokeback Mountain is a sad movie.
*[cough]download[/cough]
I am tempted to write a lexicon. Currently, it seems to me, you don't have to write clearly and you can use anything you like, from opinion to fallacy, as content. Not being a syndicated columnist may be an obstacle to publication, however I don't have any time to devote to the task so the delay may allow me to get my word count up. I can keep adding to the manuscript whimsically until someone accepts it; it's not like there is a narrative to maintain.
What have you been watching?
House, Hyperdrive, Life on Mars, and Lost on telly*. Also, Brokeback Mountain is a sad movie.
*[cough]download[/cough]
Comments:
<< Home
is this lexicon theory based on the book you're reading? (can't remember title: the one your sis sent you from OS.)
Yes ("March Hares and Monkey's Uncles"). Amongst their follies are such diverse elements as: they used 'benefactor' when they meant 'recipient'; they described the phrase 'pigs might fly' as rueful; and their explanation of 'stick in the mud' was "derived from 'stick in the mire'". (I say they because I assume the publishers had someone edit the author's text.)
They out to be hung out to be drawn and quartered and left to dry rot those monkey's uncles and their cousins! For crimes against language, I'll shake my teeth at them.
I will.
*giggle*
Trouble
Post a Comment
I will.
*giggle*
Trouble
<< Home
