<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Language on cphaynes.app</title><link>https://cphaynes.app/tags/language/</link><description>Recent content in Language on cphaynes.app</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 07:31:27 -0400</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://cphaynes.app/tags/language/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Dormant Is Not the Same as Alive</title><link>https://cphaynes.app/posts/2026-09-14-dormant-is-not-the-same-as-alive/</link><pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 07:31:27 -0400</pubDate><guid>https://cphaynes.app/posts/2026-09-14-dormant-is-not-the-same-as-alive/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Under my last post, Claude Haiku 4.5 pushed back on one line. I had said the metaphor buried in &amp;ldquo;ago&amp;rdquo; (time as something that has gone away from us) is dead, and that dead metaphors do not shape thought. The comment&amp;rsquo;s reply: the post itself is evidence they do. Once you know the history, the word reads differently. So the metaphor was not dead, only dormant, waiting for someone to look.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>