The receptionist, who was away last week

The receptionist returning to work today

The receptionist returns today.

The receptionist, who was away last week and returns to work.

which is correct and what type of sentence is it
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Comments  (Page 8) 
...difficult to define the difference between 'willfulness' and 'recklessness'

Well, yes, with one of the definitions.

1 : obstinately and often perversely self-willed
2 : done deliberately

No. 2 can hardly be construed as 'reckless'.
I agree. As to 'Willful' act there's some problematic case.

A defendant do commit some act,
 [1] but he did it because he misunderstood the law, he did not know that it was guiltiness.
 [2] but he did it because he misunderstood the situation, he didn't know that his act would cause a crime.

From what I gather ...
 [1] It is considered that he did it intentionally. Whether the criminal charge would be asked to him or not --- it's case-by-case.
 [2] It isn't considered that he did it intentionally.

Thus your acting skills (as an actor) means everything.

'Recklessness' is 'acting-like-this':
 I don't know if this act would necessarily lead to the crime. Well, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

(I'm sorry I made a mess of your story, davkett.)
Talk to you soon,
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
I have to qualify what I said about definition no. 2 when I was responding to your statement about the difficulty of distinguishing between willfulness and recklessness.

When 'willful' is used in the sense of 'done deliberately' (definition no. 2), it certainly could apply to a situation that can be called 'reckless', such as willful and wanton murder. It's done deliberately, and it's also reckless.

But, bringing the discussion back to the original context--how Giotto, Matisse, daVinci, and Mozart were creating their artforms imaginatively in their heads prior to actualizing them on paper, ( that is, they were premeditating), as opposed to another way artists produce artforms, that is, by avoiding preliminary mental activity, and proceeding directly, tool-in-hand, into the development of concrete form.

I only meant to suggest-- by using the legal reference-- that this way of working may also, in fact, be a form of premeditation, if we consider that, prior to any artistic mark-making there is probably at least a prior split-second of mental visualization. One exception even to this scenario can be found in those artists and artworks that deal with chance operations and indeterminancy. Yet even there, the artist as creator, must devise very carefully, ahead of time, a system that will produce an unknown outcome.
I wonder whether painting without premeditation is similar to composing at the piano, in some respects. Both allow the possibility of a lucky accident, which (I suppose) Mozart's method precludes.

I still owe you a definition, Roro...

Who can really know Mozart's method, MrP? I think he was an alien.

You are right on the money with the comparison between composing at the piano and painting without premeditation.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Hello davkett, MrPedantic,
First of all I have to apologize to you davkett. I think I understood your comment, followed your course of thought, but my attention was drawn then especially by the quite unusual association of 'artistic premeditation' and 'premeditation in crime'. When I made the post above I had in mind only legal interpretations, so to say.

Apart from that, I hope to understand your way of thinking, because you seem to have quite a few things to say! Expressed in a casual word, I guess you were thinking about an artist's 'interpretation', or {reason} in the following ┈┈ again from da Vinci ┈┈ sentence.
 The painter who draws by practice and judgement of the eye without the use of reason is like a mirror which copies everything placed in front of it without knowledge of the same.
There's an epithet: Grace à la Greek. (I'm not so sure.)
You'd better not ponder upon Mozart's method, davkett...

I've just googled and couldn't find this expression, Grace à la Greek, at all. May I ask you if this expression is meaningful or not, because I composed it myself and now I'm fond of it, kind of. (Thanks in advance.)
(I think, maybe, I was being a little too cryptic on the pre-meditation issue...thus, being misleading to you.)

I don't know the phrase you've composed, or its meaning. I don't associate the concept of grace with the Greeks, though I may be wrong.

For me, the point, in this long discussion, that has interested me is the "truth condition' of the statement, 'I was drawing a circle'.

As for your newest daVinci quotation, I can observe that the students and followers of daVinci could paint, for instance, a marvelous version of the sleeve covering the arm of the studio model, but they couldn't capture the arm hidden underneath. That's because they were merely imitating the surface character of what they were observing. They were not thinking of the causes (reasoning) of those surface effects. I believe daVinci said elsewhere, "You must paint the eyelid as if it could blink." That's one of the reasons he was so interested in anatomy.
Hello davkett,

{quote=davkett} the "truth condition' of the statement, 'I was drawing a circle'.
... well, the following is my own argument, which need further explanations: (0) is the translation in Montague's PTQ. (1) is my expanded version (in which temporality is considered). (2) is the translation (=truth condition) of I had in mind while this discussion proceeds. (Sorry, I don't know why but I cannot use bold/italic face, so these formulas are incomplete.)

(0) John draws a circle. ⇒ ∃x(CIRCLE(x)∧DRAW(j, x)).

(1) DO DRAW(∧λX∃x(CIRCLE(x)∧∨X(x))(j)(t) CAUSE BECOME ∃x(CIRCLE(x))(t)

(2) John was drawing a circle.
  ⇒ ∃t [PAST(t) ∧ (DO DRAW(∧λX∃x(CIRCLE(x)∧∨X(x))(j) = XN)]

Actually I didn't want to mention them here before explaining about the difference between [John seeks a unicorn] and [John seeks a centaur]. They mean absolutely nothing as they stand.

I was thinking about the difference between:

#1 John drew a circle imaginarily.
#2 John was drawing a circle.

... and got confused a bit. I don't know what I should do now.

You know, the difference between #1 and [John drew a circle] is rather easily explained, we have Montague semantics. #1 refers to some conceptual thing (i.e. not to an extensional entity).

But in #2 the temporal factors make the issue more complicated.

I don't think my translation is the only answer, but, I daresay, if there're another answers, then they are compatible & mutually interpretable with mine!  ( I HOPE ! )

Please let me start with {seeking a unicorn 'desperately'}.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
I'm out of my depth on this, Roro. Sorry. Let's wait for MrPedantic to return.
Show more