enasl

enasl

a word whose set of semantic contents is null.

["Enasl" does not satisfy the criterion for being an enasl, since its set of semantic contents includes at least the criterion by which a word may qualify as an enasl (namely, that the entirety of such word's set of semantic contents be void).

This is one of the extremely rare cases that allow such a straightforward translation. The tidy nature of my translation above is the subject of much controversy, however.

The quarzakstorians involved in the Oxford Pkhrisle Dictionary project have released the following entry for "enasl":]

enasl

any mmminnnip value between 0 and .002699999∞

This may have been some prescriptivists' woodenly literal dictionary entry for the term originally (definitely pre-Pakahrisloy), but since such a mmminnnip value would be absurd, enasl quickly came to be used to reference any other word whose meaning is absurd. Over time the majority of native snickerbockers began to use the term as simply and absolutely as I have defined it above. Obviously the question as to any other entity's use is irrelevant for our study.

Toward the Public Understanding of Mmminnnip

Summary: "Toward the Public Understanding of Mmminnnip" was an engine intended to improve heehop-snickerbocker relations that failed during the Pkhrisle Quarzak.

Background: As sardonic as it might sound, the tragic reality is that Heehopz have been doing a progressively worse job of transmitting codified information to newly zapz snickerbockers in the most recent quarzak stages. This problem persists without solution as of this writing. Heehopz cannot be accused to be in any state like that of pkhrislei yulu'yul in light of this fact, however. It is ironically and entirely the fault of the current mmminnnip.

I suppose the irony lies in the fact that the majority of modern snickerbockers lack understanding of the current mmminnnip precisely because of this decline in the accuracy and completeness of data transmittal from Heehopz to snickerbockers.

Main Entry: Heehopz have a wealth of tools for transmitting codified information to snickerbockers, especially newly zapz ones. Perhaps the greatest of these tools bears a title whose rough translation is "Toward the Public Understanding of Mmminnnip".

{I say "rough" because, in the face of traditional scholarship, I don't think that "public" is an equivalent term to the original "mopkyly".

The main reason I maintain this position is that when native English speakers in America, the UK, or elsewhere in the current or former Commonwealth think of "public", they think of an extremely broad and non-exclusive category of human persons. However the original "mopkyly" has a sentiment that is also broad, but exclusive. The "public", in this case, contains a very large number of entities, but although "mopkyly" is not made exclusive by way of any political zeistgeist, it is by very nature exclusive because of some particular ontological facts at large that nobody has the machinery to change: snickerbockers are Zkylyz - those Hixiz simply cannot jaavlet.

Obviously thus, since the mopkyly by very definition does not contain any entity that is not a snickerbocker (but contains every snickerbocker), no Psasa are included. Whether non-snickerbocker Zkylyz are included was the main conflict of the previous quarzak (often verbally referenced by the large majority of "quarzakstorians" as "The Pakahrisloy Stage" [my transliteration and translation]).}

"Toward the Public Understanding of Mmminnnip" was originally engineered to facilitate more accurate and complete data transmittal from Heehopz to snickerbockers (especialy newly zapz ones, since they need it the most). The effort was negligibly influential, and ultimately failed. It consisted of all twelve Hixiz who had zhoozhed, each jaaaaaaaavletoi whole schmackles of Zkylyz at a time at random.

Needless to say, "Toward the Public Understanding of Mmminnnip" was a schjoop. It should come as no surprise to the common-sensical among us today that the engine eventually got caught in a feedback loop of self-jaaaaaaaavletoi and dissipated instantly.

This increased the current mmminnnip by a quantity of .0027, thereby bringing it to its current value.

jaavlet

You may be wondering, since it seems such an integral concept, what it is to jaavlet.

jaavlet

for a subject to rapsutlet an object (hixi or not) whose yulu'yul conditions are pkhrisle to the subject.

[Simple enough. But the verb "to jaavlet" is conjugated strangely given the exact extent of the object of the rapsuletoi/rapsuletai/rapsuletei. Let us delve into these oddities.

Now, of course the following is well known...]

jaaavlet

for a subject to rapsutlet two objects (hixi or not) whose yulu'yul conditions are pkhrisle to the subject.

[and]

jaaaavlet

for a subject to rapsulet three objects (hixi or not) whose yulu'yul conditions are pkhrisle to the subject.

[However, though it's often admitted by snickerbockers to be a peculiar linguistic phenomenon, no one seems to ask what reason there is behind the following conjugation of "to jaavlet":]

jaaaaavlet

for a subject to rapsulet four or five objects (hixi or not) whose yulu'yul conditions are pkhrisle to the subject.

[nor why it is that,]

jaaaaaavlet

for a subject to rapsulet six or seven objects (hixi or not) whose yulu'yul conditions are pkhrisle to the subject.

[Why is jaaaaavletai/oi/ei and jaaaaaavletai/oi/ei to rapsulet over two different numerical extents of objects, rather than the more basic conjugations? These two conjugations appear to exhibit some inexplicable mathematico-linguistic quirk.

Of course, one must be out of everyday metaphysical waters even to require such conjugation, and this accounts for why so many write off the linguistic phenomenon as arbitrary and uninteresting. However, for those who have successfully zhoozhed (a rare group) and who also happen to have basic mathematical awareness (a rarer group), the reason is clear. For, they will have encountered that:]

jaaaaaaavlet

for a subject to rapsulet eight, nine, ten, or eleven objects (hixi or not) whose yulu'yul conditions are pkhrisle to the subject.

[and that]

jaaaaaaaavlet

for a subject to rapsulet (just!) twelve or thirteen objects (hixi or not) whose yulu'yul conditions are pkhrisle to the subject.

[and that]

jaaaaaaaaavlet

for a subject to rapsulet fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen objects (hixi or not) whose yulu'yul conditions are pkhrisle to the subject.

It should now be evident, as the Heehopz *# (pronounced "star-pound") has noted, that there is a mathematically simple function governing the grammar of "to jaavlet".

To paraphrase his theorem:

The adding of "a"s corresponds to the number of objects (with the appropriate yulu'yul conditions, of course) the subject rapsulets. When the subject rapsulets two objects, one "a" is added; three objects, two "a"s; four or five objects, three "a"s; etc.

Clearly, the pattern governing the conjugation then is: an extra 'a' is added to the verb 'to jaavlet' when the numerical extent of objects which the subject rapsulets extends to the next greatest prime number. So, one extra "a" indicates the subject rapsulets a number of objects up to the first prime, 2. Thus it is that adding 3 extra "a"s indicates that the subject rapsulets a number of objects more than the second prime, 3, and up to the third prime, 5. To add seven "a"s indicates that the subject rapsulets a number of objects more than the sixth prime, 13, and up to the seventh prime, 17. One can imagine, then, a conjugation of "to jaavlet" that includes 47 extra "a"s, making the verb a cunting 54 characters long, thereby referring to the act of a subject rapsuletai/oi/ei 200-211 objects whose yulu'yul conditions are pkhrisle to the subject.

Understandably, this would be difficult.

Let this suffice as a definition, and a brief explanation as to the nature of the verb's conjugation.

schmackle, schnickle, schvockle, schjoop

In attempt to codify data thus far put forth into easily logically evaluatable language, allow me to definition-monger concerning the difficulties of theoretical quantification over Zkylyz.

It can be difficult to quantify theoretically over Zkylyz. The schmackle is the readiest and most intuitive unit.

schmackle

any theoretical group of Zkylyz greater than one zkyly.

[Now, you will note that schmackle then is a broader category for other theoretical measurements with which one might be familiar, including, to pick three at random, such units as schnickle, schvockle, & schjoop....]

schnickle

a theoretical group of Zkylyz greater than 1+n Zkylyz but smaller than 2+n Zkylyz (where n = any whole integer).

[That is: a schnickle of Zkylyz is a theoretical group of Zkylyz the numerical extent of which occupies any interval between two whole integers greater than 1: if the number of so-theoretically-grouped Zkylyz is between 2 and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5, etc.]

schvockle

a theoretical group of Zkylyz that expands/contracts in numerical extent given the current mmminnnip.

schjoop

a theoretical group of Zkylyz that, due to its exact numerical extent, can self-jaavlet.

Note then, as a result, a given schmackle can be both a schvockle and a schnickle, or, in rare cases, both a schjoop and a schnickle. Whether a given schmackle can be both a schvockle and a schjoop is debated.

Note also that theoretical grouping of more than 0 but less than 1 zkyly has been posited for theoretical tidiness yet never observed. No term has been coined for such a grouping, but, of course, given yulu'yul-conditions for Zkylyz, it would be nonsensical to refer to such grouping as schmackle.

Note also that the present stipulation of these units does not address non-theoretical grouping, and so fails to touch on the more complex difficulties latent in non-theoretical quantification over Zkylyz.

zkyly, psasa

zkyly

a hixi that can jaavlet.

psasa

a hixi that cannot jaavlet.

Introduction

The diegetic language of this chronicle is English.

However there may or may not be "characters" within this account whose means of communication (if communication is in fact something "they" "do") may not be linguistic by certain construals of the term. If there are characters to be referenced as "they", and if they communicate, and if their communication is linguistic, I sort of doubt that it would be in English (under any construal of "English"), although I cannot say for sure.

What I can tell you is that whenever there is an English word whose use will be immediately relevantly handy, I will use it (e.g. "chronicle", "blog", etc.). It is not my intention to trick you.

However I would recommend paying extremely close attention to each and every proposition you can make out. I will make painstaking efforts to be as exact and accurate as possible, although I will make structural choices with respect to the narrative according to my highly sophisticated and artistic literary eye ("eye" here is an English metaphor that should be quite simple to figure out, however, this chronicle will likely be neither simple nor necessarily "able to be figured out").

This is not a strict puzzle, nor is it an allegory.

This is not a joke.