OK, so I'm exaggerating, but the sentence is "awesome." (I can't disclose the identity of the paper because I'm reviewing it. It won't be published any time soon.)
Here is the sentence:
"We will use a useful method [8,9,11,33] to construct the general solution of Eq. (8)."
(To be fair, the authors do go on to give a couple sentences about the method even though they don't elaborate sufficiently. The sentence just sounds awesome when taken out of context. The real problems with the paper lie elsewhere.)
Not only is that "awesome", I see you have labeled it as such ("awesome"). So, tell me, what is the subtle semantic difference between "awesome" and mockery?
ReplyDeleteBeing "awesome" is a quality of the thing itself, whereas mockery is what I am doing to it. In principle, there exist "awesome" things that I won't mock (aside from the gentle nudge of the quotes themselves). The one example that comes to mind immediately is the music video for "Once in a Lifetime," which is both "awesome" and awesome. Now, the question is whether there is anything that is "awesome" but not awesome that I wouldn't feel compelled to mock. I'll have to think about that one.
ReplyDeleteI just like saying the word "smock".
ReplyDeleteSmock smock smock.
For the benefit of my other readers, smock is defined as follows:
ReplyDeletesmock |smäk| (noun)
a loose dress or blouse, with the upper part closely gathered in smocking.
• a loose garment worn over one's clothes to protect them : an artist's smock.
• (also smock-frock) historical a smocked linen overgarment worn by an agricultural worker.
verb [ trans. ] [usu. as adj. ] ( smocked)
decorate (something) with smocking : smocked dresses.
ORIGIN Old English smoc [woman's loose-fitting undergarment] ; probably related to Old English smūgan [to creep] and Old Norse smjúga ‘put on a garment, creep into.’ The use of the verb as a needlework term dates from the late 19th cent.
lol
ReplyDeleteI thought you might appreciate that. :)
ReplyDelete