Apr 2017
i usually need but one word to be given a prompt to write something with a frame of mind: ******! to the excess, bury that, take out a chivel and a hammer and start working in stone; one word, that's all it takes.
there's this youtube channel,
i don't really care if it's pop or not -
not fake news,
videos include things like:
a "feminist" woman went nuts on a couple after the man
kissed his girlfriend on the forehead...
comments?
can anyone find someone a ******
and a ******?
but this is beside the point,
it's about the same channel, and the video
boom: spoiled muslim brats talk back to teachers,
state immediately makes them regret it...
well, what i'm about to write is not
about the content relating to the focus subject matter...
so this guy is reading an article
and i'm starting to ***** up my ears...
what is this guy reading?
i'm not saying he can't read, but what
he's reading has been so terribly written...
and i thought poets had a hard time keeping
up punctuation standards - just a passing thought.
apparently punctuation aesthetics is even harder
for journalist - can anyone agree with me that
they write like joyce at the ende of ulysses
or copycat sartre doing the same in the third
volume of his famous trilogy - nota bene:
i made a mistake here: he just abandons the paragraph,
thankfully keeping up with punctuation marks.
similar for sure, but all too different to
make the above made statements.
anyway... it's when there is a complete lack
of punctuation that really bothers me,
it's a bit like telling someone:
to keep their breath underwater for 20 minutes,
or the translation from the analogy:
write 20 words and guess, if people won't loose
their breath.
not everyone can speak as quickly
as people doing adverts, when the small-print details
are read out: like shooting an ***.
which brings me to my major concern:
mmm, orthography: the upper-tier mode of punctuation:
no, not words: syllables, and how they indicate
how to best eat up and then spew out a word.
from the title...
what i just wrote is an orthographic heresy,
esp. when you compare it to national conventions...
yep, it's the french twist, the acute e...
national standards wouldn't require it -
it would be written *zajęte... but like any object
language is gagging for a personal twist,
the acute e creates the concept
of three distinct syllables (incision points of the tongue
that's now a scalpel) - za-ję-té;
the counter argument? why not make the a acute
too? ah, the joy of particulars.
back on the pronoun debate:
pronouns are not gender exclusive,
well that's obvious, but certain words outside this
grammatical category are, "oddly" enough,
gender inclusive (perhaps not in english,
hence the apocalypse) -
e.g.? the word above: zajęté -
it means: it's occupied - which is a usual
reference to the toilet... someone's in the toilet
and a person knocks on the door, and he'll hear that
word 99 out 100 times... the 1 time he might hear
an alternative? spierdalaj! mam stoleć jak kamień!
(*******! i'm constripated) loosely.
anyway: the rules of orthography are higher
learning punctuation...
but there's an alternative meaning
to the above word... and it actually involves
the feminine collective pronoun o'né -
in english there's this poverty of
gender neutrality in the collective sense:
the folklore of us vs. them...
other language really do
have gender exclusiveness in the collective use of them...
o'né meaning: a group of females
and o'ni meaning: a group of males.
now the word zajęté? they're occupied -
they denoting females.
but it's not exactly
correct to, well, it is, if you're grunting like a gorilla...
the expansion is: zajęté są -
the +są
indicates
the meaning they're -occupied
and perhaps a +pre-:
after all, i left the word open for a prefix of some sort;
is that usually hair and make-up?
as already state, the rules of orthography can be broken
fo aesthetic reasons - or just the upper tier tool
for reasons of: perfecting punctuation intra-words,
rather than the already existing inter-words, punctuation.
it's a shame that english doesn't have that:
standing ****-naked in the dark.
there's this youtube channel,
i don't really care if it's pop or not -
not fake news,
videos include things like:
a "feminist" woman went nuts on a couple after the man
kissed his girlfriend on the forehead...
comments?
can anyone find someone a ******
and a ******?
but this is beside the point,
it's about the same channel, and the video
boom: spoiled muslim brats talk back to teachers,
state immediately makes them regret it...
well, what i'm about to write is not
about the content relating to the focus subject matter...
so this guy is reading an article
and i'm starting to ***** up my ears...
what is this guy reading?
i'm not saying he can't read, but what
he's reading has been so terribly written...
and i thought poets had a hard time keeping
up punctuation standards - just a passing thought.
apparently punctuation aesthetics is even harder
for journalist - can anyone agree with me that
they write like joyce at the ende of ulysses
or copycat sartre doing the same in the third
volume of his famous trilogy - nota bene:
i made a mistake here: he just abandons the paragraph,
thankfully keeping up with punctuation marks.
similar for sure, but all too different to
make the above made statements.
anyway... it's when there is a complete lack
of punctuation that really bothers me,
it's a bit like telling someone:
to keep their breath underwater for 20 minutes,
or the translation from the analogy:
write 20 words and guess, if people won't loose
their breath.
not everyone can speak as quickly
as people doing adverts, when the small-print details
are read out: like shooting an ***.
which brings me to my major concern:
mmm, orthography: the upper-tier mode of punctuation:
no, not words: syllables, and how they indicate
how to best eat up and then spew out a word.
from the title...
what i just wrote is an orthographic heresy,
esp. when you compare it to national conventions...
yep, it's the french twist, the acute e...
national standards wouldn't require it -
it would be written *zajęte... but like any object
language is gagging for a personal twist,
the acute e creates the concept
of three distinct syllables (incision points of the tongue
that's now a scalpel) - za-ję-té;
the counter argument? why not make the a acute
too? ah, the joy of particulars.
back on the pronoun debate:
pronouns are not gender exclusive,
well that's obvious, but certain words outside this
grammatical category are, "oddly" enough,
gender inclusive (perhaps not in english,
hence the apocalypse) -
e.g.? the word above: zajęté -
it means: it's occupied - which is a usual
reference to the toilet... someone's in the toilet
and a person knocks on the door, and he'll hear that
word 99 out 100 times... the 1 time he might hear
an alternative? spierdalaj! mam stoleć jak kamień!
(*******! i'm constripated) loosely.
anyway: the rules of orthography are higher
learning punctuation...
but there's an alternative meaning
to the above word... and it actually involves
the feminine collective pronoun o'né -
in english there's this poverty of
gender neutrality in the collective sense:
the folklore of us vs. them...
other language really do
have gender exclusiveness in the collective use of them...
o'né meaning: a group of females
and o'ni meaning: a group of males.
now the word zajęté? they're occupied -
they denoting females.
but it's not exactly
correct to, well, it is, if you're grunting like a gorilla...
the expansion is: zajęté są -
the +są
indicates
the meaning they're -occupied
and perhaps a +pre-:
after all, i left the word open for a prefix of some sort;
is that usually hair and make-up?
as already state, the rules of orthography can be broken
fo aesthetic reasons - or just the upper tier tool
for reasons of: perfecting punctuation intra-words,
rather than the already existing inter-words, punctuation.
it's a shame that english doesn't have that:
standing ****-naked in the dark.
