||[Jul. 7th, 2003|10:03 pm]
Man, I keep failing to get work done through dangerous levels of nontechnical book addiction. Frank announced a meeting on Wed so I will definitely stick my nose into the whirling grindstone of nose abrasion, or some such metaphor.|
Had an interesting conversation with adam on the topic of sneakiness over lunch. There seems to a be an undercurrent of disputability of intention running through the semantics of words like "sneaky", "rude", "offensive", etc. Can you feel sneaked by the actions of someone not intending sneakiness? Can someone be rude without meaning to? Is someone really being offensive (as opposed to offending you) if they do something with benign intent? It seems like, for maximum precision, there ought to be two words for each of these concepts, one for the actor's thoughts, and one for the effect on the patient. Or maybe E-prime is really the answer that I'm feeling tugged towards, that it's just extremely dangerous to say that someone is offensive, or is being sneaky. Hmm.
Read "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are dead". This was the first time I had actually read it, despite seeing the movie a couple times and seeing Scotch & Soda perform it a year or two ago. Good stuff. I seem to remember there being a more direct depiction of their death (specifically some nooses around their necks) in the movie, which I totally did not find in the script. Odd. "Words, words. They're all we have to go on..."
Also in the middle of Wheelock chapter 9. The road is much rougher now. Damn you, deictic pronouns! Be thrice cursed, third conjugation!