83,056
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 two-word motif that, as much as any other, belies an [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]]’s deep existential fear of his own language. It speaks of a nervousness that, should a dependent clause bite on something that isn’t there, somehow the whole linguistic edifice — even the mantle of the sky itself — will come crashing down; a mantle that can, yet miraculously be affixed to the firmament with the single wipe of an attorney’s {{tag|flannel}}. | A two-word motif that, as much as any other, belies an [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]]’s deep existential fear of his own language. It speaks of a nervousness that, should a dependent clause bite on something that isn’t there, somehow the whole linguistic edifice — even the mantle of the sky itself — will come crashing down; a mantle that can, yet miraculously be affixed to the firmament with the single wipe of an attorney’s {{tag|flannel}}. | ||
{{plain| | {{plain|each {{csaprov|Other CSA}}, [[if any]],|''any'' {{csaprov|Other CSA}}}} | ||
Consider how it stymies the natural flow of a sentence, but remember: while you or I might think it resembles grinding gears, to our friend the [[Mediocre lawyer|happy counsel]] it is a percussive feature; a syncopated rim-shot in the great jungle beat of the law. | Consider how it stymies the natural flow of a sentence, but remember: while you or I might think it resembles grinding gears, to our friend the [[Mediocre lawyer|happy counsel]] it is a percussive feature; a syncopated rim-shot in the great jungle beat of the law. | ||