Tuesday, March 4, 2008

zkyly, psasa

zkyly

a hixi that can jaavlet.

psasa

a hixi that cannot jaavlet.

1 comment:

Louis said...

A Note on "zkyly, psasa" in Clarification

I say merely "clarification" in lieu of "toward clarification" or "partial clarification" to avoid redundancy in titling, but make this comment as a means to clarify the precise meaning of the intended use of "clarification" in the title (namely, incomplete clarification, or statements that clarify [albeit perhaps not to the point where further clarification is impossible or even impractical], or simply elaborative defining that adds precision to definitive boundaries and not additional defining characteristics). In the previous sentence I use "clarify" in the same sense the sentence suggests I use it in the title.

A schmackle of Zkylyz is made by theoretically grouping together more than one zkyly. Without going into too much detail, suffice it to say that the capitalization in this case is grammatically correct.

By "grammatically correct" in the previous case I simply mean that when discussing Zkylyz in primarily English terms whilst using primarily English grammar, it is considered polite to proceed thusly. This may be explained in later posts. The beginnings of an attempt to explain "Who", if "Who" can be used accurately here (who knows, God knows [Who knows?]), it is that "considers" it polite to do so may provide fertile ground for discussion and controversy.

I know what you're thinking, and I am willing to argue my case ("my case" references the first paragraph).

In the case of psasa however, the singular is correctly pluralized simply by capitalizing the first letter.

Adding a z to the end creates an entirely different word: Psasaz means like hoardle, except not in the limbodic sense.