82,927
edits
(If any): Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|plainenglish|[[File:Knee-slide.jpg|450px|thumb|center|Your [[legal eagle]] in the midst of a [[swept-back wing knee-slide]], yesterday.]]}}A two-word motif that, as much as any other, belies an [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]]’s deep existential fear of | {{a|plainenglish|[[File:Knee-slide.jpg|450px|thumb|center|Your [[legal eagle]] in the midst of a [[swept-back wing knee-slide]], yesterday.]]}}A two-word motif that, as much as any other, belies an [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]]’s deep existential fear of her own language. It speaks of a nervousness that, should a dependent clause bite on something that isn’t there, somehow the whole linguistic edifice will come crashing down; en edifice that can yet miraculously be affixed to the firmament with this single wipe of the [[legal eagle]]’s {{tag|flannel}}. | ||
:“''[blah blah blah] ... together with the amount, [[if any]], referred to below... [blah blah blah ad infinitum]''” | :“''[blah blah blah] ... together with the amount, [[if any]], referred to below... [blah blah blah ad infinitum]''” | ||
See how it stymies | See how it stymies the natural flow of your sentence? wouldn't it be neater to say “''together with '''any''' amount''”? Why add that inessential adjectival clause? It may graunch your gears, but to a [[Mediocre lawyer|happy counsel]] it is ''pointilliste'': a percussive refrain; a syncopated rim-shot in the great jungle beat of the law. | ||
===[[In your face]]=== | ===[[In your face]]=== | ||