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|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 | {{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 dark existential fear of {{sex|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 the natural flow of your sentence? | 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. | 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. | ||