Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travelers
visiting with my parents
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Judge Bean" data-source="post: 3148" data-attributes="member: 42"><p><strong>visiting with my parents</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The first sentence has a displaced pronoun ("it"), in which the subject of the sentence ("we") has missed the object of the clause ("airplane") by an inadvertent equivocation. In other words, it should apparently read "First we left in an airplane," but the peculiar structure destroys the sense in a specific way. In the second sentence, however, the phrase "the plane... jumps to the time," the core sense, is perfectly expressed, showing an ability to use the English which the writer has at first feigned not to have. The plane jumps to a time, but we can't leave in it. </p><p></p><p>This discrepancy is one of many in his writing that shows a faked unfamiliarity with English. In addition, in the far future, many other changes would have occurred naturally just to the words and sentences he is trying to write here. An airplane would not be called that, but probably would be called a jet even if it had propellors. Why? Because jets would be the things that fly, not airplanes. And jet is a short, pert, excellent word. Brevity wins over time in language: proof that I am from the past?</p><p></p><p>Likewise "chronotons," a perfectly ridiculous word in both its alleged source and the quackery of its idea. Far in the future they would no longer refer to time, especially in a state-of-the-art piece of tech, in a variation of the tired old Chronos. It sounds like Jules Verne. My guess, too, is that they'd spell it with a K, and that no one would remember its original meaning well enough to transform it back to CH for our benefit.</p><p></p><p>"Machine" as a word is almost extinct <em>now</em>. "Saturated," much the same story I'm afraid, though you may not notice its antiquated character at this time. People now have much jazzier, more descriptive terms for such mundane technological things nowadays-- "hardware," "tech," "acquire (moisture or information)," "soak up," "internalize"...</p><p></p><p>I would have written it this way:</p><p></p><p><em>... Getgo were jet out of there. Tech throws Timers internal to jet-- bang we jump.</em></p><p><em> </em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Judge Bean, post: 3148, member: 42"] [b]visiting with my parents[/b] The first sentence has a displaced pronoun ("it"), in which the subject of the sentence ("we") has missed the object of the clause ("airplane") by an inadvertent equivocation. In other words, it should apparently read "First we left in an airplane," but the peculiar structure destroys the sense in a specific way. In the second sentence, however, the phrase "the plane... jumps to the time," the core sense, is perfectly expressed, showing an ability to use the English which the writer has at first feigned not to have. The plane jumps to a time, but we can't leave in it. This discrepancy is one of many in his writing that shows a faked unfamiliarity with English. In addition, in the far future, many other changes would have occurred naturally just to the words and sentences he is trying to write here. An airplane would not be called that, but probably would be called a jet even if it had propellors. Why? Because jets would be the things that fly, not airplanes. And jet is a short, pert, excellent word. Brevity wins over time in language: proof that I am from the past? Likewise "chronotons," a perfectly ridiculous word in both its alleged source and the quackery of its idea. Far in the future they would no longer refer to time, especially in a state-of-the-art piece of tech, in a variation of the tired old Chronos. It sounds like Jules Verne. My guess, too, is that they'd spell it with a K, and that no one would remember its original meaning well enough to transform it back to CH for our benefit. "Machine" as a word is almost extinct [i]now[/i]. "Saturated," much the same story I'm afraid, though you may not notice its antiquated character at this time. People now have much jazzier, more descriptive terms for such mundane technological things nowadays-- "hardware," "tech," "acquire (moisture or information)," "soak up," "internalize"... I would have written it this way: [i]... Getgo were jet out of there. Tech throws Timers internal to jet-- bang we jump. [/i] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travelers
visiting with my parents
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top