Actually, I slammed the back of my hand against sheet metal and got sliced twice, by both the upper and lower edges (think: top face meets side; bottom face meets side. Both edges are sharp). It seems I walk with ~10% precision, and this has its consequences. I don't much like getting scars on my hands. Yet, much of my work is manual, and I seem to be collecting them. This parallel pair of shiny fine lines is particularly conspicuous. I suppose that's fitting; subtlety (physical, verbal, emotional; grammatical?) seems beyond my reach.
Thing I like: ambiguous syntax. It's infuriating in the context of academic writing, but delightful when it rears its head in more frivolous settings. (Note to self: the adj form of "levity" is not levitical*. "Lighter" would have sufficed, but "frivolous" is less ... ambiguous.)
Consider this example for the night: top 40 pop song by Sean Kingston titled "Fire Burnin'." Lyrical snippet, sans punctuation:
Somebody call 911 shorty fire burning on the dance floorIs that: call 911, shorty -- there's a fire burning on the dance floor? Or, call 911 -- there's a shorty-fire burning on the dance floor? I prefer the latter, for the sake of imagery. Ah, but it appears neither is correct:
She's fire burning fire burning on the dance floorIt appears that "fire burning" functions as an augmented gerund: fire, as an entity, packaged in, enveloped. It is oddly more illustrative than just plain "burning." One could burn with fever, lust, jealousy; smolder with rage, all without actual flames. If one is fire burning, there can be little doubt. Still I prefer the shorty-fire.
That little shorty's fire burning on the dance floor
*For some practical advice, and what is arguably one of my favorite parts of the Old Testament, see Leviticus 13 (on leprosy).
3 comments:
The diagnosis of leprosy! It begins:
And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: "When a man has on the skin of his body a swelling, a scab, or a bright spot, and it becomes on the skin of his body like a leprous sore, then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests. The priest shall examine the sore on the skin of the body; and if the hair on the sore has turned white, and the sore appears to be deeper than the skin of his body, it is a leprous sore. Then the priest shall examine him, and pronounce him unclean. But if the bright spot is white on the skin of his body, and does not appear to be deeper than the skin, and its hair has not turned white, then the priest shall isolate the one who has the sore seven days. And the priest shall examine him on the seventh day; and indeed if the sore appears to be as it was, and the sore has not spread on the skin, then the priest shall isolate him another seven days. Then the priest shall examine him again on the seventh day; and indeed if the sore has faded, and the sore has not spread on the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only a scab, and he shall wash his clothes and be clean. But if the scab should at all spread over the skin, after he has been seen by the priest for his cleansing, he shall be seen by the priest again. And if the priest sees that the scab has indeed spread on the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is leprosy."
does that mean you want to light a baby on fire?
there's also something in Leviticus that says: if two men are fighting, and the wife of one runs over and grabs the balls of the other to subdue him, strike off her hand; show no mercy.
Post a Comment