Is that robot humming Pink Floyd?

All sentences are ambiguous. This much I know. (Just like all generalisations are false. Including that one.) Perhaps it is the way my brane is wired, but I was, for reasons not to be explained, considering various paragraphs and pondering what truth, or otherwise, could be drawn from them.

From memory, a notoriously bad thing to recall from, there was one which goes like:

…interprets quality as w, x, y and z.

Now, this doesn’t define quality, it merely sets out what the author considers it to be. So then, later, to use this as a rigid, truth-wielding definition of quality is, patently, wrong. It might be, although it was never stated, their definition, but we can’t tell that. All we can safely say is that that is what they interpret is as, in terms of four quantities.

But more on language, and I feel the great need to change mine. Again. All this rambling nonsense, making no sense (which is, I suppose nonsense, and thereby repeating myself, and hereby parenthesising the very problem I face) just won’t do. Why not? I mean, after seven years of keeping some sort of weblog, you would think, and you would be right, that I have developed a groove of my own.

As it happens, Cassandra, not for the first time, asked what I meant by some throwaway line in this here weblawg. But as what hasn’t happened before, was she read an entire paragraph out loud. I mean, of all things. And my first thought was Dear Heavens above, do I sound like that?

Probably, gentle reader, probably. What a goon.