Ordinary language is all right.
One could divide humanity into two classes:
those who master a metaphor, and those who hold by a formula.
Those with a bent for both are too few, they do not comprise a class.
Often little animals will not get as much as they want; big ones will take whatever they please.
Some animals don't get along.
Animals can be genuinely happy to see you.
Animals will sometimes want to be left alone.
Animals can be so inconsiderate.
There are cookies in the box, and cookies on the box, and milk on the box, but there's no milk in the box. Something funny is going on here.
If only Beth Gibbons hadn't spoken to the audience at the Roseland show.
I would be happier if more academic performances ended with fewer questions that sound like 'is this really right?' and more questions that sound like: 'where does our investigation point us next?'.
What do narrative structures afford to their authors and to authors' readers? (Especially if the authors' works are not, for the most part, narratives?)
'She… and then she…'
'Despite… we still…'
'Once again A. and B.…'
'B. has always… but now…'
'We… but we…'
Important relatives: 'Are we…?', 'Have we…?', 'Will we…?'.