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.