Adventures in Peru

mom: flight no. 767 and 320
darla: call my mom if you are still in van on the 19th.

life goals completed this year:
fly over the nazca lines.

biggest goal remaining:
run threw a field of camomile (in egypt).

email is not working…..

mom: i would love to be picked up. 4pm. is an early dinner with lucas possible?

siobh·n: 2 days.

jen: back at you, times two.

coby: not overwhelming, but i need strongbow and the above people.

i do not know what normal writing from the early to mid 1800s was like, but it was to be better than the book of mormon. on chapter five of the first book and i have read wherefore, therefore, yea, and it came to pass dozens of times each. on top of that to discribe ‘outside’ walls the term ‘without’ walls is used. that sounds like a plausible opposite to within city walls, but has it ever been?
next, and this one happens frequently, using ‘would’ as the past tense of ‘will?’ and ‘will?’. ‘would’ is the past tense of ‘will?’ as ‘i would have gone if i knew.’ but ‘will?’ should have the past tense willed. sentences like ‘wherefore, god spake it, yea, and i, nephi, did it because god would it upon me.’ is not correct. god willed it upon you.
point 3. even if this book was grammatically correct in 1850, it needs to be updated. an update would not change the meaning, but allow a smooth reading, and people ‘willed’ not need to question what a word means. i do enough conjugation in school, i should not need to unconjugated and reconjugate word to understand the reading.

i thought i was going to cry tonight.
dirty old town.
new years.
many other nights.
gals, i love you.