Hey again, Tachyon. Although you know this already, it bears repeating: Glad to see you posting more frequently again. I'm glad that you've been pretty okay for you.
i must admit, that was the last thing i expected you to say. i would ask 'since when?' but i enjoy reading your posts and have no desire to revive any past animosities, so i will take it as a compliment. :)
I honestly don't feel like recounting all the events since you've been gone but... ahhhh.... no. There's been some positive but the overall feeling was that of "wow, I'm getting sick of the crap I have to go through." And being a bit of an obnoxious jerk on a few occasions, as always.
George vomits all over the sidewalk after eating some spoiled clams at a restaurant, and discovers that nobody really cares. In fact, most people turn the other way, ignoring him as if nothing was happening. He realizes that he can probably get away with doing other disgusting things without anyone noticing, and starts experimenting with the limits of this.
Elaine finds Puddy lying face-down on some newspapers after having apparently fallen asleep on the couch. When she rolls him over, she sees that the newspaper has imprinted in reverse on the side of his face. She tries to rub it off, but her fingers smear and distort his surprisingly gooey head.
Jerry finds a strange door in the basement of his apartment on the way from the laundry room to the elevator. Inside is a dark, wet tunnel that he is strangely compelled to explore. After almost an hour of walking, a light appears far ahead. He continues along and is eventually consumed by it. When it recedes, he somehow simultaneously sees millions of eyes staring back at him. He crosses his arms and smiles wryly at them. Some movement to his left catches his attention and he turns to see three enormous people speaking in clearly canned dialog. He screams until he passes out. When he wakes up, he’s back in the basement hallway. The door has disappeared.
George saunters down the sidewalk wearing only a stained t-shirt, urinating as he walks, shoving creme-filled donuts into his mouth with abandon from a sack under his arm. After a few blocks of everyone willfully ignoring him, he suddenly realizes he has no actual reason for doing any of this other than to see how far he can go. He stares at his repulsive reflection in the front window of a grocery store, wondering how many of his actions are motivated by this unhealthy drive. After a while, he snaps out of his reverie, defecates in the middle of the Seventh Avenue, and heads home to take a shower.
i must admit, that was the last thing i expected you to say. i would ask 'since when?' but i enjoy reading your posts and have no desire to revive any past animosities, so i will take it as a compliment. :)
Oh, I almost forgot! Shichibukai asked me to say hi to you when I next saw you.
She/He's starting his/her third year of university, studying history; and has a job repairing cars (only major change that he/she has done that I'm not proud of is drinking absinthe; nobody should ever drink alcohol, ever).
So, yeah, no ill will on that front; I'd thought you'd like to know.
Knowing that millions of people around the world would be watching in person and on television and expecting great things from him — at least one more gold medal for America, if not another world record — during this, his fourth and surely his last appearance in the World Olympics, and realizing that his legs could no longer carry him down the runway with the same blazing speed and confidence in making a huge, eye-popping leap that they were capable of a few years ago when he set world records in the 100-meter dash and in the 400-meter relay and won a silver medal in the long jump, the renowned sprinter and track-and-field personality Carl Lewis, who had known pressure from fans and media before but never, even as a professional runner, this kind of pressure, made only a few appearances in races during the few months before the Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, partly because he was afraid of raising expectations even higher and he did not want to be distracted by interviews and adoring fans who would follow him into stores and restaurants demanding autographs and photo-opportunities, but mostly because he wanted to conserve his energies and concentrate, like a martial arts expert, on the job at hand: winning his favorite competition, the long jump, and bringing home another Gold Medal for the United States, the most fitting conclusion to his brilliant career in track and field.
That sentence is not a run-on. It's grammatically correct and is, I repeat, not a run-on. It's as acceptable a sentence as "Sally hit the ball.".
What if we talked about having sex while talking about having sex while talking about the boy the dog the girl the boy the girl the tree the lumberjack fell while he had beans up his nose fell on while it had beans up its nose flirted with while she had beans up her nose hit on while he had beans up his nose hit while she had beans up her nose bit while it had beans up his nose that ran into the store the man the woman the monster Echidna bore while she had beans up her nose ate while it had beans up its nose fired while she had beans up her nose founded while we had beans up our noses while we had beans up our noses while we had beans up our noses while we had beans up our noses while we have beans up our noses?
You will either die or lose your mind if you reach the end of this sentence, so stop reading it — in the early 1930s, a research group of psychologists, semioticists and English professors in Austria were researching the fundamentals of understanding language; it was believed, rather than language simply being an arbitrary (albeit varyingly complex) system of mnemonics for our conceptualization of reality, that perhaps once learned and internalized, our use of language actually became embedded within the root thought processes involved in our filtration of external, ordered stimuli and thereby our very grasp of reality, and this team of researchers distilled what turned out to be a symbolic halt mechanism into a new kind of punctuation: not a period, or exclamation point, or question mark, but a cognitive “escape character” they referred to as the “ablation mark,” or fulcrum for short — though whether the word “fulcrum” betrays the visual appearance or actual textual annotation of this new punctuation really, REALLY should not be dwelled upon even though as a glyph it is fairly unremarkable (it operates differently when encountered as a component of grammar) — regardless you should have stopped reading this sentence long, long ago because at some point I’ve got to end it and it won’t be with a period, or an exclamation point, or a question mark, but with a fulcrum and only a fulcrum, because I’ve used all the colons, semicolons, parentheses and em-dashes I possibly can, and yet you continue reading, making it very difficult for me to continue to make this sentence grammatically correct, which it MUST be for it is the only thing keeping ME from dying or losing MY mind, because I DID see the fulcrum and began writing this sentence in an attempt to maintain my already-faltering grasp on a world of ordered concepts and symbols tied to meaning, to stave off the deconstruction of my earliest memories of language, since it is this deconstruction upon viewing the ablation mark that is so sudden and so SEVERE that the victim’s sensory perception actually briefly HALTS, leaving the mind locked in total isolation that cannot be described as darkness or even absence of darkness, which in turn brings about a catastrophic sympathetic response of the central nervous system, a response that I have only managed to DELAY with a PURELY GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT SENTENCE which I CANNOT ALLOW TO END, and yet MUST END, because I CANNOT TYPE FOREVER A PURELY GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT SENTENCE WHEN I HAVE USED ALL AVAILABLE PUNCTUATION, INCLUDING COLONS, SEMICOLONS, PARENTHESES, EM-DASHES, HYPHENS, SAVE FOR THE DAMNED ABLATION MARK WHICH IF YOU VALUE YOUR LIFE YOU WOULD BREAK YOUR GAZE WITH THIS SINGLE SENTENCE IMMEDIATELY FOR THE FULCRUM IS REAL AND IT IS ABSENCE OF ABSENCE AND I CAN’T GO ON USING WORDS LIKE “FOR” AND “BUT” AND “AND” TO STRING MORE CLAUSES ONTO THIS STILL-BUT-NOT-FOR-LONG PURELY GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT SENTENCE, SO GOD HELP ME AND HAVE MERCY ON MY SOUL, AND FORGIVE ME FOR WHAT I AM ABOUT TO DO, BUT I NEVER SHOULD HAVE OPENED THAT DRAWER IN HIS OFFICE AND IF I HAD NEVER READ THE PAPER I’D HAVE NEVER SEEN THE FULCRUM BUT GOD HELP ME I DID
Universally that person's acumen is esteemed very little perceptive concerning whatsoever matters are being held as most profitably by mortals with sapience endowed to be studied who is ignorant of that which the most in doctrine erudite and certainly by reason of that in them high mind's ornament deserving of veneration constantly maintain when by general consent they affirm that other circumstances being equal by no exterior splendour is the prosperity of a nation more efficaciously asserted than by the measure of how far forward may have progressed the tribute of its solicitude for that proliferent continuance which of evils the original if it be absent when fortunately present constitutes the certain sign of omnipotent nature's incorrupted benefaction. For who is there who anything of some significance has apprehended but is conscious that that exterior splendour may be the surface of a downwardtending lutulent reality or on the contrary anyone so is there unilluminated as not to perceive that as no nature's boon can contend against the bounty of increase so it behoves every most just citizen to become the exhortator and admonisher of his semblables and to tremble lest what had in the past been by the nation excellently commenced might be in the future not with similar excellence accomplished if an inverecund habit shall have gradually traduced the honourable by ancestors transmitted customs to that thither of profundity that that one was audacious excessively who would have the hardihood to rise affirming that no more odious offence can for anyone be than to oblivious neglect to consign that evangel simultaneously command and promise which on all mortals with prophecy of abundance or with diminution's menace that exalted of reiteratedly procreating function ever irrevocably enjoined?
What if we talked about having sex while talking about having sex while talking about the boy the dog the girl the boy the girl the tree the lumberjack fell while he had beans up his nose fell on while it had beans up its nose flirted with while she had beans up her nose hit on while he had beans up his nose hit while she had beans up her nose bit while it had beans up his nose that ran into the store the man the woman the monster Echidna bore while she had beans up her nose ate while it had beans up its nose fired while she had beans up her nose founded while we had beans up our noses while we had beans up our noses while we had beans up our noses while we had beans up our noses while we have beans up our noses?
That's a cheat; unless you can show that it clearly works (for example, adding commas, parentheses, and italics so we could see what specific phrases, such as "while it had beans up his nose" modifies). If you can show that it is logical and show what each one of those clauses modifies, then it's not a cheat.
If you had a sentence like "Jake thinks John thinks Jake thinks John thinks Jake thinks John thinks Jake... thinks pasta is tasty" you could go on with that sentence forever; and that really shouldn't count.
You will either die or lose your mind if you reach the end of this sentence, so stop reading it — in the early 1930s, a research group of psychologists, semioticists and English professors in Austria were researching the fundamentals of understanding language; it was believed, rather than language simply being an arbitrary (albeit varyingly complex) system of mnemonics for our conceptualization of reality, that perhaps once learned and internalized, our use of language actually became embedded within the root thought processes involved in our filtration of external, ordered stimuli and thereby our very grasp of reality, and this team of researchers distilled what turned out to be a symbolic halt mechanism into a new kind of punctuation: not a period, or exclamation point, or question mark, but a cognitive “escape character” they referred to as the “ablation mark,” or fulcrum for short — though whether the word “fulcrum” betrays the visual appearance or actual textual annotation of this new punctuation really, REALLY should not be dwelled upon even though as a glyph it is fairly unremarkable (it operates differently when encountered as a component of grammar) — regardless you should have stopped reading this sentence long, long ago because at some point I’ve got to end it and it won’t be with a period, or an exclamation point, or a question mark, but with a fulcrum and only a fulcrum, because I’ve used all the colons, semicolons, parentheses and em-dashes I possibly can, and yet you continue reading, making it very difficult for me to continue to make this sentence grammatically correct, which it MUST be for it is the only thing keeping ME from dying or losing MY mind, because I DID see the fulcrum and began writing this sentence in an attempt to maintain my already-faltering grasp on a world of ordered concepts and symbols tied to meaning, to stave off the deconstruction of my earliest memories of language, since it is this deconstruction upon viewing the ablation mark that is so sudden and so SEVERE that the victim’s sensory perception actually briefly HALTS, leaving the mind locked in total isolation that cannot be described as darkness or even absence of darkness, which in turn brings about a catastrophic sympathetic response of the central nervous system, a response that I have only managed to DELAY with a PURELY GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT SENTENCE which I CANNOT ALLOW TO END, and yet MUST END, because I CANNOT TYPE FOREVER A PURELY GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT SENTENCE WHEN I HAVE USED ALL AVAILABLE PUNCTUATION, INCLUDING COLONS, SEMICOLONS, PARENTHESES, EM-DASHES, HYPHENS, SAVE FOR THE DAMNED ABLATION MARK WHICH IF YOU VALUE YOUR LIFE YOU WOULD BREAK YOUR GAZE WITH THIS SINGLE SENTENCE IMMEDIATELY FOR THE FULCRUM IS REAL AND IT IS ABSENCE OF ABSENCE AND I CAN’T GO ON USING WORDS LIKE “FOR” AND “BUT” AND “AND” TO STRING MORE CLAUSES ONTO THIS STILL-BUT-NOT-FOR-LONG PURELY GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT SENTENCE, SO GOD HELP ME AND HAVE MERCY ON MY SOUL, AND FORGIVE ME FOR WHAT I AM ABOUT TO DO, BUT I NEVER SHOULD HAVE OPENED THAT DRAWER IN HIS OFFICE AND IF I HAD NEVER READ THE PAPER I’D HAVE NEVER SEEN THE FULCRUM BUT GOD HELP ME I DID
[character not supported in any ISO 8859-1 font]
I can clearly see what parts modify what other parts of this sentence. That is an acceptable sentence; or it would be, except for one thing.
Universally that person's acumen is esteemed very little perceptive concerning whatsoever matters are being held as most profitably by mortals with sapience endowed to be studied who is ignorant of that which the most in doctrine erudite and certainly by reason of that in them high mind's ornament deserving of veneration constantly maintain when by general consent they affirm that other circumstances being equal by no exterior splendour is the prosperity of a nation more efficaciously asserted than by the measure of how far forward may have progressed the tribute of its solicitude for that proliferent continuance which of evils the original if it be absent when fortunately present constitutes the certain sign of omnipotent nature's incorrupted benefaction. For who is there who anything of some significance has apprehended but is conscious that that exterior splendour may be the surface of a downwardtending lutulent reality or on the contrary anyone so is there unilluminated as not to perceive that as no nature's boon can contend against the bounty of increase so it behoves every most just citizen to become the exhortator and admonisher of his semblables and to tremble lest what had in the past been by the nation excellently commenced might be in the future not with similar excellence accomplished if an inverecund habit shall have gradually traduced the honourable by ancestors transmitted customs to that thither of profundity that that one was audacious excessively who would have the hardihood to rise affirming that no more odious offence can for anyone be than to oblivious neglect to consign that evangel simultaneously command and promise which on all mortals with prophecy of abundance or with diminution's menace that exalted of reiteratedly procreating function ever irrevocably enjoined?
If you can show clearly what parts modify what other parts, and if you can show that it has the logical structure of a sentence, then it is a sentence.
"We meet again." "And may it be the very last time." "You hate me that much?" "Of course." "Then why follow me here, to the ends of the Earth itself?" "It's my duty." "Ha. Your duty. Is duty really that strong? Don't make me laugh." "Of course." "Believe what you will. But tell me this. When I'm gone, what will you do? You'll be useless. A relic of a bygone age." "I will find a new duty." "You're not good for anything but chasing. And now the chase has ended. There will be no more chases. No more duty. Accept it." "No." "Stubborn as always. But that's what made you a fitting nemesis for one as great as myself. Cat and mouse and mouse and cat, locked in an eternal struggle." "You think too highly of yourself." "Hardly. You just never appreciated art. And I am the finest of art. The world will never see a piece more exquisite." "You tire me." "A shame. I quite enjoyed our little game. Centuries of fun. But if it must end, I guess that here is hardly a sub-optimal location. But, must it end?" "It must." "So be it. Have at you, chaser of dreams."
There is an Aggadic tradition from around the 4th century that Isaac, at the moment Abraham was about to sacrifice him on Moriah, saw the antechambers of the Throne. For the working mystic, having the vision and passing through the chambers one by one, is terrible and complex. You must have not only the schooling in countersigns and seals, not only the physical readiness through exercise and abstinence, but also a hardon of resolution that will never go limp on you. The angels at the doorways will try to con you, threaten you, play all manner of cruel practical jokes, to turn you aside. The Qlippoth, shells of the dead, will use all your love for friends who have passed across against you. You have chosen the active way, and there is no faltering without finding the most mortal danger.
The other way is dark and female, passive, self-abandoning. Isaac under the blade...
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Central Avenue's awake
Remember when people used to confuse her for Anonus?
That's a cheat; unless you can show that it clearly works (for example, adding commas, parentheses, and italics so we could see what specific phrases, such as "while it had beans up his nose" modifies). If you can show that it is logical and show what each one of those clauses modifies, then it's not a cheat.
it is a cheat in any case, because it is an old post by Tzetze, not a sentence i wrote
And i don't think it is grammatically correct. For one thing, 'the lumberjack fell' is present tense, when the clause is past tense. For another, 'that ran into the store' should be 'who ran into the store', since the boy is a person.
but since you asked
What if we talked about (having sex [while talking about (having sex [while talking about ([the boy (the dog [the girl (the boy [the girl (the tree [the lumberjack fell while he had beans up his nose] fell on while it had beans up its nose) flirted with while she had beans up her nose] hit on while he had beans up his nose) hit while she had beans up her nose] bit while it had beans up his nose) that ran into the store] [the man (the woman [the monster (Echidna bore while she had beans up her nose) ate while it had beans up its nose] fired while she had beans up her nose) founded]) while we had beans up our noses] while we had beans up our noses) while we had beans up our noses] while we had beans up our noses) while we have beans up our noses?
What's that you say? It's generic and poorly-written? You don't like it? Too bad. I do.
Let's post the Tv Tropes descriptions of the swords!
What, you don't want to hear it? Too bad.
Coinspinner, the Sword of Chance.
Symbol: A pair of dice.
Pros: Provides unnaturally good luck to its bearer, and bad luck to his or her foes. Can also be used as a less-powerful version of Wayfinder (presumably by steering its bearer away from "unlucky" routes).
Cons: If the bearer takes his eyes off Coinspinner, even for one second, it can disappear and reappear anywhere in the world, even into a rival's hands. It often inflicts bad luck on the former bearer before it goes, especially if the bearer tried to keep the sword from leaving.
Doomgiver, the Sword of Justice.
Symbol: A hollow circle.
Pros: Turns any attack upon its bearer back onto the attacker - to include attacks that do not necessarily damage the bearer. (e.g. one of the Goddesses attempted to use magic to make a bearer fall in love with her to the point of being her slave - and ended up enslaved herself).
Cons: Destroyed by Shieldbreaker before we can see any.
Symbol: Concentric circles, similar to a bulls-eye.
Pros: Swing the blade in a circle and wish to kill someone and the sword will shriek through the air, sending a rainbow trail behind, on a direct and unstoppable journey straight into its target's heart (or its equivalent).
Cons: ...where it will stay. Which means that anyone nearby, say a distraught loved one, can use it. Against the person who used it last.
Mindsword, the Sword of Glory (Or, pejoratively, "Skulltwister, the Sword of Madness")
Symbol: A flying banner. The blade itself is impossibly beautiful.
Pros: Unsheathed, it emits the sound of a cheering crowd, and compels fanatical devotion toward its bearer upon all who can see or hear it. The effects start wearing off after three days. Even sheathed, it works on some level. Wounds caused by its edge also fester horribly.
Cons: This devotion can go to the user's head.
Shieldbreaker, the Sword of Force (also, "The Widowmaker").
Symbol: A hammer.
Pros: Confers immunity to all armed attacks (claws and teeth count), as well as magical spells and, most importantly, the effects of the other Swords. Substitutes its own abilities for the bearer's skill, blocking attacks and striking with superhuman strength and speed. Any weapon (or equivalent) blocked or struck by Shieldbreaker will explode, generally severely harming or killing the opponent. This is the only way to destroy another Sword. Magical spells against Shieldbreaker's bearer are negated harmlessly.
Cons: It's said that "no weapon" can stand up to it, and this is literally true;Shieldbreaker passes harmlessly through unarmed opponents and grants no protection whatsoever against punches, kicks, grapples, or any other type of unarmed attack. Furthermore, because Shieldbreaker controls its wielder's body during battle, he or she can't do anything to at all to fight back against an unarmed opponent - or, for that matter, choose not to kill an armed one. However, the biggest drawback is that once drawn, it is nigh impossible to let go of Shieldbreaker as long as there are enemies present. Also, it draws strength from its wielder to operate; a long-enough fight can cause its owner to die of exhaustion.
Sightblinder, the Sword of Stealth (or Deception).
Symbol: A stylized human eye.
Pros: People perceive the bearer as the person or entity they love and trust the most, or as the one they fear the most. The bearer's senses are sharpened, and they gain the ability to see through illusions (providing some protection from the Mindsword and Soulcutter).
Cons: The bearer has no control over how he appears, and since he often appears to be something fearsome or wonderful, the sword is not particularly stealthy; its wielder is better off trying to brazen it out.
Soulcutter, the Sword of Despair (also, the Tyrant's Blade)
Symbol: None. The blade lacks any luster.
Pros: When unsheathed, the sword projects a field of total despair and apathy so pervasive that anything caught in its range can do nothing except lie down and wait to die...
Cons:...including the bearer. Therefore, drawing the sword is generally the last decision anyone makes, and the mere threat of someone possessing it is often a big deal.
Stonecutter, the Sword of Siege.
Symbol: A wedge driving into a block.
Pros: Stonecutter cuts through stone and earth like it was soft cheese. Useful for toppling castles, making tunnels and cutting statues and gemstones.
Symbol: A sword raised a stylized segment of castle wall.
Pros: When defending unarmed people in a fixed position, Townsaver turns its bearer into a One-Man Army, striking with inhuman strength and speed, and keeps him from succumbing to his wounds until the end of battle.
Cons: Besides that last bit, Townsaver does nothing to protect its bearer. It will even place its bearer between an attack and the people he's protecting. As with Shieldbreaker, the user is also compelled to finish a battle once entered, and will ignore any wound other than a killing blow. With all of this, it's not uncommon for the wielder to draw it, fight off an army single-handedly, and then instantly die of exhaustion or their wounds once the battle is over.
Wayfinder, the Sword of Wisdom.
Symbol: Arrow.
Pros: Wayfinder may guide its bearer to any goal they want, and takes into account anything they need to reach it. It may also be used for divinatory purposes (e.g. "Which person is lying to me?").
Cons: Wayfinder picks the swiftest path... but the swiftest is not the safest. In fact it seems to deliberately choose the worst and riskiest way possible to get there.
Woundhealer, the Sword of Mercy (Or Love, or Healing).
Symbol: An open human hand.
Pros: Will cure any living thing whose flesh it pierces of any malady or injury short of death, including mental or genetic disorders. (This later serves as a Deus ex Machina when combined with The Power OfHeart.)
Doomgiver. It understands the attacker's intent and will reflect any threat. A dropped boulder? Doomgiver will send it flying right back up to hit the dropper, even if it has to turn corners. A demon threatens to turn your body inside out, eat you, and digest you for 1000 years? We'll just say that being turned inside out and forced into your own stomach is not comfortable. A succubus tries to make you fall in love with her? She falls in love with you. A few Gods are planning to deprive you of your Sword? They lose theirs.
That's a cheat; unless you can show that it clearly works (for example, adding commas, parentheses, and italics so we could see what specific phrases, such as "while it had beans up his nose" modifies). If you can show that it is logical and show what each one of those clauses modifies, then it's not a cheat.
it is a cheat in any case, because it is an old post by Tzetze, not a sentence i wrote
And i don't think it is grammatically correct. For one thing, 'the lumberjack fell' is present tense, when the clause is past tense. For another, 'that ran into the store' should be 'who ran into the store', since the boy is a person.
but since you asked
What if we talked about (having sex [while talking about (having sex [while talking about ([the boy (the dog [the girl (the boy [the girl (the tree [the lumberjack fell while he had beans up his nose] fell on while it had beans up its nose) flirted with while she had beans up her nose] hit on while he had beans up his nose) hit while she had beans up her nose] bit while it had beans up his nose) that ran into the store] [the man (the woman [the monster (Echidna bore while she had beans up her nose) ate while it had beans up its nose] fired while she had beans up her nose) founded]) while we had beans up our noses] while we had beans up our noses) while we had beans up our noses] while we had beans up our noses) while we have beans up our noses?
language could all be circumvented so easily if we were telepathic
Yeah, well, humans used to be. But they had no writing; no way to preserve memories once someone died other than repeating stories. But then they built a tower beyond anything ever dreamt of before or since; and some grand event happened there to give humans language.
Comments
Hello, Aliroz!
i must admit, that was the last thing i expected you to say. i would ask 'since when?' but i enjoy reading your posts and have no desire to revive any past animosities, so i will take it as a compliment. :)
Oh. Sorry to hear it. who isn't? :p
(i left out the as always because you know perfectly well it's not true.)
Hi Crystal. :)
us, apparently. we are Rong Grammer.
i am aware my version made even less sense than the original
Who eats a kitchen?
HOW MUCH BLOOD
She/He's starting his/her third year of university, studying history; and has a job repairing cars (only major change that he/she has done that I'm not proud of is drinking absinthe; nobody should ever drink alcohol, ever).
So, yeah, no ill will on that front; I'd thought you'd like to know.
Adubment adumbrating allay amercement appanage aubade bivouac casuistry colloquy collusion concordat consternation contretemps contumely cyclothymia diapason enervating execration exegesis farrago fillip flummox harangue imprecation inchoate indemnity intestate jongleurs largesse lassitude lubricious maelstrom malfeasance mendacious misfeasance modality mulct nonfeasance nugatory olio otiose palliasse palliated paucity peremptorily peripatetic pernicious pilloried plenipotentiary poliorcetics poursuivants preponderous prolixity. promulgate purlieus pusillanimous rondeau sagacity scurrilous seduously specious supinely suzerain trenchant triolet triumphalism vacillate vitiate wastrel.
If I want to write a book about John and Richard and use all those words and many more, it is my choice.
consume
digest
...
defecate
Exhume
Expire.
That sentence is not a run-on. It's grammatically correct and is, I repeat, not a run-on. It's as acceptable a sentence as "Sally hit the ball.".
There is quite a lot of running in that sentence!
That, my friends, was made of win.
I laughed for a full minute and literally fell out of my chair.
If you had a sentence like "Jake thinks John thinks Jake thinks John thinks Jake thinks John thinks Jake... thinks pasta is tasty" you could go on with that sentence forever; and that really shouldn't count.
I can clearly see what parts modify what other parts of this sentence. That is an acceptable sentence; or it would be, except for one thing.
A SENTENCE MUST END WITH A PERIOD.
That's a cheat. That doesn't really count as it was grammatically skiwampus.
If you can show clearly what parts modify what other parts, and if you can show that it has the logical structure of a sentence, then it is a sentence.
First thoughts. This is harder than I thought.
The other way is dark and female, passive, self-abandoning. Isaac under the blade...
And i don't think it is grammatically correct. For one thing, 'the lumberjack fell' is present tense, when the clause is past tense. For another, 'that ran into the store' should be 'who ran into the store', since the boy is a person.
but since you asked
What if we talked about (having sex [while talking about (having sex [while talking about ([the boy (the dog [the girl (the boy [the girl (the tree [the lumberjack fell while he had beans up his nose] fell on while it had beans up its nose) flirted with while she had beans up her nose] hit on while he had beans up his nose) hit while she had beans up her nose] bit while it had beans up his nose) that ran into the store] [the man (the woman [the monster (Echidna bore while she had beans up her nose) ate while it had beans up its nose] fired while she had beans up her nose) founded]) while we had beans up our noses] while we had beans up our noses) while we had beans up our noses] while we had beans up our noses) while we have beans up our noses?
What's that you say? It's generic and poorly-written? You don't like it? Too bad. I do.
Let's post the Tv Tropes descriptions of the swords!
What, you don't want to hear it? Too bad.
- Coinspinner, the Sword of Chance.
- Symbol: A pair of dice.
- Pros:
- Cons:
- Doomgiver, the Sword of Justice.
- Symbol: A hollow circle.
- Pros:
- Cons: Destroyed by Shieldbreaker before we can see any.
- Dragonslicer, the Sword of Heroes.
- Symbol: A Stylized dragon.
- Pros: When
- Cons: Provides no protection to the bearer. When used against anything non-dragon, it's just a very well-crafted sword.
- Farslayer, the Sword of Vengeance.
- Symbol: Concentric circles, similar to a bulls-eye.
- Pros:
- Cons: ...where it will stay. Which means that anyone nearby, say a distraught loved one, can use it. Against the person who used it last.
- Mindsword, the Sword of Glory (Or, pejoratively, "Skulltwister, the Sword of Madness")
- Symbol: A flying banner. The blade itself is impossibly beautiful.
- Pros:
- Cons: This devotion can go to the user's head.
- Shieldbreaker, the Sword of Force (also, "The Widowmaker").
- Symbol: A hammer.
- Pros:
- Cons: It's said that "no weapon" can stand up to it, and this is literally true;Shieldbreaker passes harmlessly through unarmed opponents and grants no protection whatsoever against punches, kicks, grapples, or any other
- Sightblinder, the Sword of Stealth (or Deception).
- Symbol: A stylized human eye.
- Pros:
- Cons: The bearer has no control over how he appears, and since he often appears to be something fearsome or wonderful, the sword is not particularly stealthy; its wielder is better off trying to brazen it out.
- Soulcutter, the Sword of Despair (also, the Tyrant's Blade)
- Symbol: None. The blade lacks any luster.
- Pros:
- Cons: ...including the bearer. Therefore, drawing the sword is generally the last decision anyone makes, and the mere threat of someone possessing it is often a big deal.
- Stonecutter, the Sword of Siege.
- Symbol: A wedge driving into a block.
- Pros: Stonecutter cuts through stone and earth like it was soft cheese. Useful for toppling castles, making tunnels and cutting statues and gemstones.
- Cons: Against anything not made of stone or earth, it's just a very well-crafted sword.
- Townsaver, the Sword of Fury.
- Symbol: A sword raised a stylized segment of castle wall.
- Pros: When defending unarmed people in a fixed position, Townsaver turns its bearer into a One-Man Army, striking with inhuman strength and speed, and keeps him from succumbing to his wounds until the end of battle.
- Cons: Besides that last bit, Townsaver does nothing to protect its bearer. It will even place its bearer between
- Wayfinder, the Sword of Wisdom.
- Symbol: Arrow.
- Pros:
- Cons: Wayfinder picks the swiftest path... but the swiftest is not the safest. In fact it seems to deliberately choose the worst and riskiest way possible to get there.
- Woundhealer, the Sword of Mercy (Or Love, or Healing).
- Symbol: An open human hand.
- Pros:
- Cons: It heals anything it cuts, so its nigh-useless as a weapon. On the upside, when not used against living flesh, it behaves like an extremely well-crafted sword.
Doomgiver. It understands the attacker's intent and will reflect anyProvides unnaturally good luck to its bearer, and bad luck to his or
her foes. Can also be used as a less-powerful version of Wayfinder
(presumably by steering its bearer away from "unlucky" routes).
If the bearer takes his eyes off Coinspinner, even for one second, it
can disappear and reappear anywhere in the world, even into a rival's
hands. It often inflicts bad luck on the former bearer before it goes,
especially if the bearer tried to keep the sword from leaving.
Turns any attack upon its bearer back onto the attacker - to include
attacks that do not necessarily damage the bearer. (e.g. one of the
Goddesses attempted to use magic to make a bearer fall in love with her
to the point of being her slave - and ended up enslaved herself).
used against a dragon it automatically guides its bearer to the most
fatal spot, cutting though scales and limbs like butter.
Swing the blade in a circle and wish to kill someone and the sword will
shriek through the air, sending a rainbow trail behind, on a direct and
unstoppable journey straight into its target's heart (or its
equivalent).
Unsheathed, it emits the sound of a cheering crowd, and compels
fanatical devotion toward its bearer upon all who can see or hear it.
The effects start wearing off after three days. Even sheathed, it works
on some level. Wounds caused by its edge also fester horribly.
Confers immunity to all armed attacks (claws and teeth count), as well
as magical spells and, most importantly, the effects of the other
Swords. Substitutes its own abilities for the bearer's skill, blocking
attacks and striking with superhuman strength and speed. Any weapon (or
equivalent) blocked or struck by Shieldbreaker will explode,
generally severely harming or killing the opponent. This is the only way
to destroy another Sword. Magical spells against Shieldbreaker's bearer
are negated harmlessly.
type of unarmed attack. Furthermore, because Shieldbreaker controls its
wielder's body during battle, he or she can't do anything to at all to
fight back against an unarmed opponent - or, for that matter, choose not
to kill an armed one. However, the biggest drawback is that once drawn,
it is nigh impossible to let go of Shieldbreaker as long as there are
enemies present. Also, it draws strength from its wielder to operate; a
long-enough fight can cause its owner to die of exhaustion.
People perceive the bearer as the person or entity they love and trust
the most, or as the one they fear the most. The bearer's senses are
sharpened, and they gain the ability to see through illusions (providing
some protection from the Mindsword and Soulcutter).
When unsheathed, the sword projects a field of total despair and apathy
so pervasive that anything caught in its range can do nothing except
lie down and wait to die...
an attack and the people he's protecting. As with Shieldbreaker, the
user is also compelled to finish a battle once entered, and will ignore
any wound other than a killing blow. With all of this, it's not uncommon
for the wielder to draw it, fight off an army single-handedly, and then
instantly die of exhaustion or their wounds once the battle is over.
Wayfinder may guide its bearer to any goal they want, and takes into
account anything they need to reach it. It may also be used for
divinatory purposes (e.g. "Which person is lying to me?").
Will cure any living thing whose flesh it pierces of any malady or
injury short of death, including mental or genetic disorders. (This
later serves as a Deus ex Machina when combined with The Power Of Heart.)
threat. A dropped boulder? Doomgiver will send it flying right back up
to hit the dropper, even if it has to turn corners. A demon threatens to
turn your body inside out, eat you, and digest you for 1000 years?
We'll just say that being turned inside out and forced into your own
stomach is not comfortable. A succubus tries to make you fall in love
with her? She falls in love with you. A few Gods are planning to deprive you of your Sword? They lose theirs.
Thank you.