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.