One comment on “subschematics
  1. This is entirely awesome! The language nerd in me is intrigued by the phrase “a deep-sea voyage to the bottom of the sea.” At first glance it appears redundant–wouldn’t a “voyage to the bottom of the sea” be “deep-sea” by definition? But not necessarily! Although “bottom of the sea” often connotes great depth, technically a 30-foot kelp forest dive is a “shallow-water voyage to the bottom of the sea.” However, a voyage “to” the bottom of the sea (presumably “from” the surface) couldn’t be 100% deep-sea, it would have to be at least partially shallow-water, on the way down and on the way back up. So the original phrase is, in its strictest interpretation, internally inconsistent. It could be corrected to either “a shallow- and deep-sea voyage TO the bottom of the sea” or “a deep-sea voyage AT the bottom of the sea”–the latter, of course, is redundant and could be shortened to merely “a voyage at the bottom of the sea” or “a deep-sea voyage.”

    Hmmm. Maybe I should write patents.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>