Study notes 12/12
I'm wondering if court protocol requires that raised-hand greeting to be used only while outdoors, and (going by the cuffs of different people's sleeves) I wonder if there's any sort of sumptuary law that restricts clothing styles to specific consorts. (龙袍 helps - would 凤袍 or 凰袍 be 皇后的袍? I'd choose the second, but I'd have to double-check with the dialogue in this study material, and it's been a few episodes since the embroidery house.)
There's another common thread in this and not-Aesop, the use of a pet 狗 against a rival, specifically against one with children. Two fictional stories in the same historical period and setting tied by these details, and with the same character's 狗? Once might be an accident. Twice is a coincidence, and I don't like coincidences. Hypothesis - based on these two instances I've seen, if I keep track up to three, four, five, it'll be a pattern of little details that'll conform directly to a historical record. (What else will Stimpy try, I wonder?)
I'll always choose rambutan over 荔枝, but since they're related plants, I'll agree they're worth the focus in this ep.
Keeping an eye on 金融家.
Adding this for a 不睦邻 that has yet to expire.
Ran into a snippet in the study material on 纳贿. Excuse you? 母狗 知道 她 的 丈夫 和 儿子 的 徒刑 不是 她 的 女儿 的 错. If this is 孝心, 我不要. 这是孝心吗？我不要. (Seriously, shoutout to the translators here. Thank you.) Using 手肘 - hand elbow - for 'wrist' makes sense, but using 'elbow' in the subtitles doesn't. Dude, why not brace the actual elbow against the body instead of the wrist on a cloth loop? 她 的 姐姐 的 死亡 吗? 搏杀? 杀人? 二十八 在 哪里? Same setting - same set? 我要盐. Huh. 她 的 姐姐 保护了 他 吗? Snicker - 乙女 moment. Let me guess - 她毒了她的儿子 while 孩子's in another's care in order to 抹黑 the 看官人? Huh. Right idea, wrong method. Spare shirts! Oh dear - 看官人 抹黑 母亲 吗? 看官人 的 母亲 有了 黑心. And that's the measure. Correction - 看官人是好. Relief. Whoa, delete correction! Laughing at 铁.
Adding this to up the count - 8!
To background noise - 今, 他不可以听你, 也不要聆听.
I'd posted a while ago, years ago at this point, considering not whether AI was getting better (because there's no question it is and has been for some time) but whether humans were getting worse. My initial reaction to this news is WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU? Not to the AI whose directive was to trawl for text on which to train, but to the humans who supplied those directives. Back to dead trees, methinks.
Ending with this because something chowder-ish sounds right tasty about now.