JOURNAL OF SOCIOPHYSIOLOGY

01108 : Sixth Month Plus Two 2003 : Mountain Fukari Root Class : Johnson

An organ of ISOCPHYS.

Radically sown in 1992 by “six plurilingual pariahs.”

Grammaticalization of schizomythia and taboo in Mountain Fukari root class: Confirmation of a functional proximal–distal quantal continuum of ligativity in affixival clitics of womaninity and pronominal control

Ouida Willoughby Johnson

A collaborator at CACA, a Community for Analysing and Clitalysing Altarity

As found at ISOCPHYS, an Institution of Sociophysiological Study

Ubicación : CACA : Box 1323 : Owlstain, FZ : First Barrio

Initially laid (out) for our scrutiny, and paid (for) to put out for (in) this Journal, by Prof. B. Vighdan on August 1, 2003.

0.   Introduction

Traditional accounts (Wainwright 1925; Turbo 1990; Raymond 2002) assign Mountain Fukari (MF) root class triadically, dismissing within-class variation as insignificant random pragmatic proxy to strict grammar’s profundity. My own virgin approach, by contrast, will show that this within-class variation is i) significant, that is, any position invoking such sloppy notions as anomaly, marginality, archaicity, and so forth — to pin a fourth “out class” on “stray” roots (Turbo 1991a, 1991b) — is, simply put, bankrupt; ii) law-abiding, that is, not random: root class in MF spirally subpartitions triply triadically, thus, nonadically, according to affixival clitical combinatorics; iii) profoundly grammatical, which is to say, not simply pragmatic: it is not as a sort of casual picking up or notional jotting down in isolation of a particular root or two that a MF child displays such “facts of a configurational sort” (Whorf 1945) but as a causal outgrowth of a normal subprogram of natural linguistic acquisition; and iv) parasitically sociophysiological involving both cultural and natural historical ramifications such as parasitism by fungal cycling of Puccinia spp. among ants, antlions, mustard, Moanzy (stormy auk), humans and snails, thus fluidly mapping “this winding mountain trail,” as Tlaatlata calls it, via morphology of rank, root class, pronominal control, analogical (sound symbolical) gradation, polyradicality, polysyntaxis, and so on and so forth, from schizomythia and taboo to ritual and myth (this winding mountain trail).

1.   Grammatical Synopsis of Mountain Fukari

From Wainwright (1925) to Raymond (2002) by way of Turbo (1990), linguists working on or with MF habitually assign root or word [1] class triadically. Wainwright (1925) splits his “triadic harmonization” into Class I, Non-Human; Class II, Human; and Class III, Anomalous. Turbo (1990) follows suit, in a way, by opting for a “triadic classification” which grabs a chunk of Wainwright’s Non-Human, stirs into it a dollop of Anomalous and a pinch of Human, and casts this goulash off as Distal; similarly, Turbo transforms most of Human into Proximal, and most of Anomalous into Fulcral. Raymond (2002), for his part, insists on promulgating, though with an abstract, agnostic strain, this fallacious clitalysis as simply Class X, Y, and Z. My virgin approach, as I said in my introduction (supra, § 0), shows this trio for what it is — a bunch of assiduous idiots — and shows that grammatical class in MF sorts triply triadically; that is, nonadically.

1.1.   Morphology of Rank

Now, I do not want to go too far out of my way to dismiss this lazy oa of a scholar’s (Turbo 1991a, b, c) spastic waving, and drastic washing, of hands. My point is simply to show that MF words or minimal phrasal units (MPU) do not unfurl a static gradation of nominal distinctions typical of words of, say, Blackfoot, Ityalian, Tunica, Intrussyan, Ponca, or Burushaski, but flourish a fluid, though quantal, configuration that is not grossly or globally triadic (Wainwright 1925, Turbo 1990), but nonadic. Wainwright got it wrong, as did Turbo, not for lack of trying, but for want of words [2], also known as minimal phrasal units (MPU), which, in MF [3], display a morphology of rank, similar to that in Yup’ik (Mithun 1984), in which a word, starting always with its originary root (or îbtîda ra, according to Flamingo 1997), is built up block by block in such a way that both grammatical gamut and compass of signification amplify rightward until obligatory word-final suffix of pronominal control is spat out at us in a robust uvular burp (Yup’ik 3sg), fluid vocalic sigh (Yup’ik 1sg), or glottal syllabic mora (MF 3pl), as in (1.1.1)a–d (following standard linguistic norms, I mark a root by scoring its bottom with a thin scar or striation).

(1.1.1)	Morphology of Rank in Yup’ik and Mountain Fukari
a.	ayagyuumiitqapiartua	Yup’ik : Mithun 1984
	ayag-yug-umi-it-qapiar-tu-a
	go-want-is-not-truly-INTR.INDIC-1sg
	‘I truly don’t want to go.’
b.	ayagciqsugnarqnillruuq	Yup’ik : Mithun 1984
	ayag-ciq-yugnarq-ni-llru-u-q
	go-FUT-probably-claim-PAST-INTR.INDIC-3sg
	‘That guy said, “I’ll probably go.”’
c.	orsoix’ao	Fukari : Informant TH
	or-so-ix-’ao
	mountain-CW-CL-3pl
	‘mountains’
d.	otragi’ao	Fukari : Informant TH
	ot-ra-gi-’ao
	antlion.imago-CW-CL-3pl
	‘adult antlions (in flight)’

1.2.   Canonical Form and Global Root Class

M. Turbo, a singular linguist who has shown such profound gifts on a prior occasion (Turbo 1990), in a lackadaisical trio, truly a frog-gig or phantasmatic fit, of grammatical assassinations, (i) avows a wish to mirror that curious triadic-quadratic gradation shown by Kioway grammar (Mutt 1989) [4], by adding a fourth “stray,” or “marginal,” or “archaic,” class to MF (Turbo 1991a); (ii) vainly backtracks by calling this class, “a static chain of word-focal obviation [5] combining an animacy/inanimacy and topic/subtropic opposition similar to that which occurs fluidly and clausally in Algonquian” (Turbo 1991b); and (iii) throws out, not just his prior stabs at (iii-a) appraising Wainwright’s (1925) way of working with words (Turbo 1990), and (iii-b) sorting out (Turbo 1991b) his own four-part confusions (Turbo 1991a), but totally burns grammatical classification of MF roots down to a curiously vacant patch of swampland harboring nothing but rotting hollow trunks of slimy pragmatics crumbling and dissolving atop of and into a rank muddy mulch of moldy words (Turbo 1991c). In addition, by way of a torturous, and tortuously roundabout, act of morphological amputation, Turbo (1991c) hacks away at our robust idiom’s clitics of womaninity and ligativity (cf. infra, § 1.3 and § 1.4), brushing off CW as “so many moribund phonological fossils,” and CL as “grammatical goop,” thus tautologically fulfilling his simplistic wish for linguistic parsimony. In short, for Turbo (1991c), grammatical classification in MF is just a “syntactic fiction.” My own virgin approach, by contrast, shows that, ignoring for now rostrality (your ubiquitous proclitical stomping ground, cf. Flawndol and Johnson 2001a, 2001b), MPU in MF display canonical form root (RT) plus caudality (CY) as shown by our first axiom

MPU = RT + CY

(A.1)

in which CY consists of an obligatory distribution of affixival clitics of womaninity (CW), ligativity (CL), and pronominal control (CPC), thus:

MPU = RT + CY = RT + (CW-CL-CPC).

(A.2)

In short, CPC holds strictly at caudality’s tail; and CW and CL map RT to CPC, as in (1.2.1)a–b.

(1.2.1)	Canonical Form in Mountain Fukari
a.	nortio’am	Informant DU
	no-rt-io-’am
	matriarch-CW-CL-CPC(1sg)
	‘my mom’
b.	norali’ad	Informant TH
	no-ra-li-’ad
	matriarch-CW-CL-CPC(2sg)
	‘your mom’

Violations of canonical form (VCF), that is, roots without caudality, as in our third axiom

VCF = RT – CY

(A.3)

do occur, but always (and only on a handful of occasions in a grab bag of situations) according to a Law of Similarity of Signification (LSS), which, simply put, says that any root lacking caudality can occur only if it has a signification similar to that MPU which it follows (Raymond 2002: 593, my translation). In addition, it is usually only triradical phrasal units (TPU) acting as lugaronyms that display VCF:

(1.2.2)	Violations of Canonical Form in Mountain Fukari
a.	lupnoax	Informant AI
	lup-no-ax
	hut.of.womaninity-matriclan-crow
	‘Crow matriclan hut of womaninity’
b.	iagip [6]	Informant DU
	ia-g-ip
	camp-big-fir
	‘Big Fir Camp’

1.3.   Womaninity and Global Root Class

Continuing on that track, CW marks gross or global MF root-class triadic loyalty (to Human, Non-Human, and Anomalous, according to Wainwright 1925; or to Proximal, Fulcral, and Distal, according to Turbo 1990, 1991a), which is to say that RT marks root class loyalty outwardly with CW bound tightly within CY, as shown, following Raymond (2002), by my Paradigm A:

Global Class X	Global Class Y	Global Class Z	Paradigm A
-ra-	-ur-	-us-
-rd-	-to-	-ri-
-rt-	-po-	-so-

1.4.   Ligativity and Global Root Class

Noticing that Distal clitics of ligativity (CL_d) — that is, CL that bind with Distal CPC (CPC_d) marking 3sg, 3dl/pa, and 3pl (’ag, ’ah, and ’ao) — always attach to roots in a triply-sorting, non-random fashion, Wainwright (1925) put forth a triadic taxonomy of grammatical classification in MF:

Thus did I work out a tri-partition of Fouqqari roots according to what I call spiral ligativity. For roots sorting in Group I, Non-Human, clitic of ligativity ix always binds to 3sg ’ag; but for roots sorting in Group II, Human, this clitic binds to 3dl/pa ’ah; and in Group III, Anomalous, ix binds to 3pl ’ao (Wainwright 1925: 113).

By focusing only on Distal forms, Wainwright (1925) thrust from his mind cracks in his corpus and gaps in his paradigm. That is, not all words in daily MF vocal communication display a fully robust array of forms; MPUs such as otrdio’am ‘my antlion imago’, or orusgo’am ‘my mountain’, do not typically occur [7]. Such roots obligatorily bind only to -’ag, -’ah, or -’ao; that is, to Distal CPC having 3sg, 3dl/pa and 3pl function. No MF, man or woman, girl or boy, can ‘own’ such ‘things’, human or nonhuman; no MF can proclaim any particular affinity, proximal or fulcral, to such ‘things.’ By contrast, roots such as no ‘matriarch’ and pi ‘patriarch’, disallow binding to Distal CPC -’ag, -’ah, and -’ao. All MF must obligatorily ‘own’ such kin; all MF must proclaim a particular affinity, proximal or fulcral, to such kin.

Turbo, for his part, in addition to noting a chalkboard full of logical violations in Wainwright’s classification, notably — but as this synopsis risks choking on its own consummation, should I skip Turbo’s kaolinic list of Wainwright’s calamitous lapsus, and simply say, in short, that what was going on with Distal CL was simply a singular instantiation of a global bunch of goings on in MF grammar: Proximal and Fulcral clitics do it too?

In summary, ligativity displays a paradigmatic bumping down such that what is proximal in X is fulcral in Y and distal in Z, and so on. Spiral transitivity follows: what’s distal in Z is proximal in X, as tabular displays of CL and CPC distribution, in which for now I maintain my agnosticism by, again following Raymond (2002), using simply X, Y, and Z, show (CL in italic, CPC in roman):

	Global Class X	Global Class Y	Global Class Z
Proximal/proximal (1sg)	-io’am	-id’am	-go’am
Proximal/fulcral (1dl/1pa)	-go’ar	-io’ar	-id’ar
Proximal/distal (1pl)	-id’ay	-go’ay	-io’ay
Data Tabulation 1.4.1.   Across-class distribution of Proximal Clitics of Ligativity (CLp)

	Global Class X	Global Class Y	Global Class Z
Fulcral/proximal (2sg)	-li’ad	-is’ad	-in’ad
Fulcral/fulcral (2dl/2pa)	-in’at	-li’at	-is’at
Fulcral/distal (2pl)	-is’as	-in’as	-li’as
Data Tabulation 1.4.2.   Across-class distribution of Fulcral Clitics of Ligativity (CLF)

	Global Class X	Global Class Y	Global Class Z
Distal/proximal (3sg)	-ix’ag	-gi’ag	-iv’ag
Distal/fulcral (3dl/3pa)	-iv’ah	-ix’ah	-gi’ah
Distal/distal (3pl)	-gi’ao	-iv’ao	-ix’ao
Data Tabulation 1.4.3.   Across-class distribution of Distal Clitics of Ligativity (CLF)

A scantling of prototypical articulations follows in (1.4.4)a–d, (1.4.5)a–c, and (1.4.6)a–c:

(1.4.4)	Global Class X	Proximal (Turbo 1990, 1991a); Non-Human (Wainwright 1925)
a.	owrago'ar	Informant AI
	ow-ra-go-’ar
	vulva-CWx-CL-1dl
	‘both of our vulvas, our two vulvas’ [8]
b.	owrdli’ad	Informant GA
	ow-rd-li-’ad
	vulva-CWx-CL-2sg
	‘your vulva’
c.	nortid'ay	Turbo 1990
	no-rt-id-’ay
	matriarch-CWx-CL-1pl
	‘our mom’
d.	otraix’ag	Turbo 1990
	ot-ra-ix-’ag
	antlion.imago-CWx-CL-3sg
	‘this antlion imago’

(1.4.5)	Global Class Y	Fulcral (Turbo 1990, 1991a); Human (Wainwright 1925)
a.	piurid’am	Turbo 1990
	pi-ur-id-’am
	patriarch-CWy-CL-1sg
	‘my dad’
b.	ostoix’ah	Turbo 1990
	os-to-ix-’ah
	woman-CWy-CL-3dl/pa
	‘that woman’
c.	onpois’ad	Informant GA
	on-po-is-’ad
	clay.pot-CWy-CL-2sg
	‘your clay pot’ [9]

(1.4.6)	Global Class Z	Distal (Turbo 1990, 1991a); Anomalous (Wainwright 1925)
a.	orsoiv’ag	Turbo 1990
	or-so-iv-’ag
	mountain-CWz-CL-3sg
	‘this mountain’
b.	odusli’as	Turbo 1990
	od-us-li-’as
	bow.arrows-CWz-CL-2pl
	‘all of your bows and arrows’
c.	oarigo’am	Informant TH
	oa-ri-go-’am
	scrotum-CWz-CL-1sg
	‘my scrotum’

1.5.   Pronominal Control

Clitics of pronominal control (CPC), occurring word finally as said in § 1.2 supra, follow a proximal–distal quantal continuum according to communication dynamics involving both production and audition in which, along an abscissa of clitical signification, Proximal (with a big P) aligns roughly with a ‘monadic’ gloss, Fulcral (with a big F; also known as Pivotal among particularly confusing authors) aligns with a rough gloss of ‘dyadic’, and, Distal (big D), with that of ‘triadic’. Shadowing this pronominal dynamic along an ordinal ramp is a dynamic of amount in which proximal (with a small p) aligns roughly with ‘singular’, fulcral (small f) with ‘dual’ or ‘paucal’, and distal (small d) with, basically, ‘plural’, as our following Paradigm B shows:

	Proximal	Fulcral	Distal	Paradigm B
proximal	-’am ‘1sg’	-’ad ‘2sg’	-’ag ‘3sg’
fulcral	-’ar ‘1dl/pa’	-’at ‘2dl/pa’	-’ah ‘3dl/pa’
distal	-’ay ‘1pl’	-’as ‘2pl’	-’ao ‘3pl’

And whilst continuing to look up at this paradigm limning pronominal control, a thorough divastigation of CPC distribution will now go a long way toward sorting out prior scholars’ confusion, and also allowing us a first pass at glomming onto a clarification and clitalysis of local root classical divisions and dynamics at work. Without going too far, too much, too hard, too soon, into my clitalysis and discussion (cf. infra, § 2) and/or conclusion (cf. again infra, § 3), I’ll simply say: Not all words in daily MF display a fully robust paradigm! Sound familiar? It should. Roots such as ot ‘antlion imago,’ os ‘adult woman,’ or or ‘mountain,’ obligatorily bind only to -’ag, -’ah, or -’ao; that is, to CPC of 3sg, 3dl/pa, and 3pl function. A MF cannot ‘own’ such ‘things’, human or nonhuman; a MF cannot proclaim any particular affinity, proximal or fulcral, to such ‘things.’ By contrast, roots such as no ‘matriarch’ and m’a ‘patriarch,’ disallow binding to -’ag, -’ah, and -’ao. A MF must obligatorily ‘own’ such kin; a MF must proclaim a particular affinity, both proximal and fulcral, to such kin (cf. supra, § 1.4).

1.6.   Analogical Gradation and Polysyntaxis

And, in addition to partitioning triadically along a functional proximal–distal quantal continuum by analogical gradation of combinatorics, which rivals uncannily sound symbolic consonantal shifts in Wishram (Sapir 1911) or Lakhota (Boas 1941), such that satisfaction of nominal conditions of grammaticalization of MF classification of taboo, kinship, social, ritual and practical utility, and so on, obtains in a fashion similar to that famous situation in Nootka which Sapir (1921) so vigorously brought to light (and which glows most robustly in my corpus), MF words flaunt a robust form of polysyntaxis in which pragmatic stipulations — pivoting about an axis of taboo, kinship, social, ritual and so on and so forth circumlocutory acts of quotidian communication — condition propositional function, as shown in (1.6.1)a–c:

(1.6.1)	Polysyntaxis in Mountain Fukari
a.	orriin’ad	Informant DU
	or-ri-in-’ad
	mountain-CW-CL-2sg
	‘your talus-born bailiwick; you scurry among talus’
b.	abusgo’am	Informant IB
	ab-us-go-’am
	fir-CW-CL-1sg
	‘my fir twig; I purify’
c.	ontoid’am	Informant AI
	on-to-id-’am
	clay.pot-CW-CL-1sg
	‘my claypot; my antlion pit; I’m having my monthly blood’

1.7.   Gradation of Logical Binding of Triradical Phrasal Units

In addition to such canonical uniradical or monadic forms, infixation of MF roots, forming a triradical phrasal unit (TPU), may occur cyclically in an inwardly spiral fashion according to root-class gradation of logical binding (GLB)

TPU = (RTi + RTj +RTk) + CYj

(A.4)

such that root-class assignation in MF by CY is always to a syntactically, logically, and pragmatically pivotal, but not strictly grammatically fulcral, RT, a situation which has sown much confusion among prior linguists, Turbo (1991a, b, and c) and Turbo and Flamingo (2001b) in particular, who forgot that our fourth axiom’s subscripts mark syntactical matching of RT to CY, and not grammatical assignation of root class to any particular RT! Not a man to constrain a phonological punch or hold back from slashing his disputant with an apt linguistic dirkblow or parrying syntactic wordswords with a borborgymic oppugnant, Raymond (2002) succinctly confirms my critical appraisal of Turbo and Co.’s nonchalantly numb, granular, and totally nihilistic approach to MF grammar:

On avait trop subi pour s’abasourdir l’avaloir ainsi qu’on aurait vomi un caillou, is how Raymond handily chaffs linguists such as Turbo and Co. who claim to go through too much to simply wring your gizzard raw as if vomiting up a small rock. Mais par l’avoir tant voulu à ras bord, but, for having had my fill of him (that is, Turbo 1991a, b, and c) up to scholarship’s vibrant brim, mordu au fin fond du corps, and having torn him apart limb by limb (throughout his lucid, scrupulous, though, sadly, as far as his notions of grammatical class go, mostly invalid study of MF (Raymond 2002)), saisi aux bras nus, having clung to all his various parts with my natural arms, ça m’offrait moult plaisirs, that put so many satisfactions my way, quoiqu’il n’avait pas plus d’inclination pour l’amour d’argot, although showing hardly any inclination towards dabbling and dallying in that lingo (MF), qu’un manuscrit las, than a flaccid manuscript would show (as factotum of word acquisition and top inquisitor of clitical trials at Flouziana Phonology, Raymond found Turbo guilty of stumbling into a dry prison of inspiration’s lack (stillborn 1991d) that would last until his ornithonymous Thalia, his uxorial Urania, his climactic Clio saw fit to haul him out in Turbo and Flamingo (2001)), un amas d’obtus mots incongrus, insouciants, fluctuants, pillards, doux, fautifs, assassins, ou contigus à un rictus qui aurait jailli brutal, accablant, obscur, a mass of stupid incongruous words, insouciant and fluctuating, soft and plagiaristic, uncandid and villainous, not dissimilar to a brutal rictus of a clownish laugh flashing out in this, our asylum’s torrid tropical night — in a word or four: him no good (as Raymond ironically sums up in mock autochtonous patois) at loving us (MF). J’ouvrais, j’attisais, j’avivais tant pour lui quoiqu’il croupissait, past this point, translation is both fortuitous and vain; in a word, gratuitous, as Turbo was lost to Raymond’s stab at instilling a bit of actual linguistic capacity into his brain, tout au long du parcours d’amor nostra, or amorous combat of stormy auks, circonscrit dans l’argot, inconstant prison qu’il confondait au loisir, au pouvoir, au choix, un prison dont il n’abolira un jour qu’à l'instant du coup final, mortal combat of snails in rut, and so on, obscurcissant, qu’on lui donnait pour nom, “Turbo La Mort”, so obviously obnubilating, in fact, that you may dub him, “Morbid (or Moribund) Turbo” (Raymond 2002: 473).

I must warn you, though, that Raymond still falls back on a grossly triadic classification of MF roots, and, borrowing notions of marginality, obviation, stray words, and so on from Turbo “La Mort,” brings into play an awkward fourth, fifth, and/or sixth class consisting of “animaux insignifants ou triviaux” (Raymond 2002: 317). My clitalysis and discussion (ut infra, § 2) shows that this grammatical prop flops just as limply as any of moribund Turbo’s morbidly syntactic handwaving from foul fallow limbo (1991d–2000) or wordy Wainwright’s wringing of croups or crops from atop dusty stacks of occasional offprints in Owlstain’s Flouziana Phonological Association’s hoardroom.

1.8.   Triradical Phrasal Units and Local Root Class

And it is at this point truly that a faithfully assiduous linguist must amplify his scholarly magnification for, as Arnaut Raymond (2002), drawing bodily on my corpus (cf. infra, § 5), has brilliantly shown, a profoundly satisfactory clitalysis of TPU in MF is, without taking local root class into account (as you will find, infra, in my Paradigm C), simply and totally an impossibility. What follows is my own summary going down on Raymond’s (2002) laborious making hard and straight [10] of what for so long had, though tumid and pulsing, lain flaccid and gibbous in our fifth axiom

TPU = (RTi + RTj +RTk) + CYj = (RP + PP + CP) + CYPP

(A.5)

such that, and ignoring for now CY of canonical form, our clitalysis will focus on positions of roots (RT) within triradical configuration of TPU. That is, RP marks rostral position; PP, pivotal position; and CP, caudal position. Logical imputation of pragmatics mirrors syntactical root-class assignation, as our sixth axiom insists on stating with utmost clarity:

PP → CP → RP.

(A.6)

How is triradical configuration of TPU put into action? In a word, what constrains GLB? Raymond (2002) and I boil it all down to four basic logical assignations of words, or LAWs (A, B, C, and D):

(LAW A)

Grammatically and syntactically, any triradical configuration, says Raymond, of ipsiclassificatory RT (that is, RT displaying homomorphism of local root-class assignation) may co-occur in TPU. Such a situation, though, occurs most commonly only in Tlaatlata myths, and, I must add, in common quotidian communication, most typically, though not at all habitually (on plainly logical grounds), only with roots of (what I call) local class Z1 (Things Taboo for No Fukari).

(1.8.1)a–d show a handful of apt illustrations of how our LAW A works in MF:

(1.8.1)	Ipsiclassificatory Roots in Mountain Fukari
a.	pwoxxlamiddogo’ay	Informant GA
	pwok-xlam-idg-to-go-’ay
	woman’s.blood.clothy3-darkmoony3-antlion.larvay3-(CW-CL)y3-1pl
	‘our larval slip of blood-born light’
b.	xlamidbwoktoid’am	Informant TH
	xlam-idg-pwok-to-id-’am
	darkmoony3-antlion.larvay3-woman’s.blood.clothy3-(CW-CL)y3-1sg
	‘at darkmoon it crawls forth, my blood-born larva’
c.	aq’ulkūlikpšwipšwisoiv’ag	Informant IB
	aq’ul-kūlik-pšwipšwi-so-iv-’ag
	garz1-cattailz1-arachnid.stalking.waspz1-(CW-CL)z1-3sg
	‘this scaly wasptail’
d.	kūlikpšwipšwiaq’ulsoix’ao	Informant IB
	kūlik-pšwipšwi-aq’ul-so-ix-’ao
	cattailz1-arachnid.stalking.waspz1-garz1-(CW-CL)z1-3pl
	‘many scaly tails of such wasps’

(LAW B)

If TPU contains any RT not of local class Z1 (Things Taboo for No Fukari), no RT of local class Z1 may occur in PP. (You may think of this as a variation on LAW A.)

(LAW C)

RT of local class Y3 (Things Taboo for a Fukari Man) and RT of local class Z2 (Things Taboo for a Fukari Woman) cannot co-occur in any TPU. (This, along with LAW D infra, is my local contribution to Raymond’s stab at globally valid laws for MF.)

(LAW D)

In any TPU, if RT of local class Z3 (Man’s Body Parts) is to cohabit with RT of local class X1 (Woman’s Body Parts), RT_z3 must always cohabit a position of subordination; that is, if RT_x1 inhabits PP, RT_z3 may cohabit CP or RP; if RT_x1 inhabits CP, RT_z3 can only cohabit RP; and, finally, if RT_x1 inhabits RP, RT_z3 cannot cohabit at all but must aroint and away to an MPU or TPU of its own, a sort of microvocalic tralatitious antonomasia of what’s writ broadly in our MF community.

And though I wouldn’t go so far, as two scholars I know (Turbo and Flamingo 2001a) would do, as to proclaim that GLB is a troporadical infusion of womaninity, a sort of “primordial matriarchy at work in grammar’s most profound profundity from which flows mightily whorling out that grand convolution of [MF] social dynamics” (Turbo and Flamingo 2001a) — or would I? — I would put forth that possibly an archaic infraconscious function similar or homologous to this involutional spiral is going on; in a word, that schizomorphophonology mirrors cyclically (daily, synodic, annual, and so on) mutualistic rhythms of attraction and isolation of manhood and womanhood as it occurs in MF sociality [11]. I will harp again on this topic in my clitalysis and discussion (infra, § 2). First, though, a look at (1.8.2)a–c will not lack for a jorum of jollity:

(1.8.2)	Comparison of Triradical Phrasal Unit in Mountain Fukari
a.	mončklaclōtōsoiv’ag	Informant GA
	monč-klac-lōtlō-so-iv-’ag
	mindy-rainbowz-lawx-(CW-CL)z-1sg
	‘this lawful, mindful rainbow (coloring of silk)’
b.	klacmončlōtlōtogi’ag	Informant TH
	klac-monč-lōtlō-to-gi-’ag
	rainbowz-mindy-lawx-(CW-CL)y-1sg
	‘this lawful, rainbow mind (of MF)’
c.	klaclōtlōmončraix’ag	Informant GA
	klac-lōtlō-monč-ra-ix-’ag
	rainbowz-lawx-mindy-(CW-CL)x-1sg
	‘this mindful rainbow law’ (= MF notion of taboo) [12]

But I’ll not shrink from rashly implicating my words in a monotonous spiral of unflinching imitation, and say again that MF words do not unfurl a static gradation of nominal distinctions typical of words of, say, Blackfoot, Ityalian, Tunica, Intrussyan, Ponca, or Burushaski, but flourish a fluid, though quantal, configuration. What is this configuration? In my clitalytical synopsis of MF root class as put patulously on display in Paradigm C (infra), my data show that it is not grossly triadic, but nonadic; to wit, Raymond’s (2002) global class X, which Turbo (1990) spuriously dubs “proximal” class and Wainwright (1925) wrongly calls “non-human,” consists, talis qualis, of what I call X1_wbp = Woman’s Body Parts, X2_mck = Matral and Cognatic Kin, and X3_taf = Taboo for All MF. Similarly for Raymond’s (2002) global class Y, which concords, uno flatu, in a way with Turbo’s (1990) “fulcral” class and Wainwright’s (1925) “human” class: Y1_pak = Patral and Agnatic Kin, Y2_h = All Humans (MF or Not), and Y3_tm = Taboo for Any MF Man. It is not too difficult, thus, to fathom my cataclasmic way of running a comb through Raymond’s (2002) global class Z which roughly conforms, sub divo, to Turbo’s (1990) “distal,” and Wainwright’s (1925) “anomalous”, class: Z1_~t = Not Taboo for Any MF, Man or Woman, Girl or Boy, Adult or Child, Z2_tw = Taboo for Any MF Woman, and Z3_mbp = Man’s Body Parts:

Mountain Fukari Root Class															Paradigm C
X1wbp
owraio’am		Y1pak
owrago’ar
owraid’ay		piurid’am		Z1~t
		piurio’ar
owrdli’ad		piurgo’ay		orusgo’am
owrdin’at				orusid’ar
owrdis’as		pitois’ad		orusio’ay
		pitoli’at
owrtix’ag	X2mck	pitoin’as		orriin’ad
owrtiv’ah				orriis’at
owrtig’ao	nortio’am	pipogi’ag	Y2h	orrili’as
	nortgo’ar	pipoiv’ah
ow	nortid’ay	pipoiv’ao	ospoid’am	orsoiv’ag	Z2tw
‘vulva’			ospoio’ar	orsogi’ah
	norali’ad	pi	ospogo’ay	orsoix’ao	odsogo’am
	norain’at	‘patriarch’			odsoid’ar
	norais’as		osuris’ad	or	odsoio’ay
			osurli’at	‘mountain’
	nordix’ag	X3taf	osurin’as		odusin’ad
	nordiv’ah				odusis’at
	nordgi’ao	otrdio’am	ostogi’ag	Y3tm	odusli’as
		otrdgo’ar	ostoix’ah
	no	otrdid’ay	ostoiv’ao	ontoid’am	odriiv’ag	Z3mbp
	‘matriarch’			ontoio’ar	odrigi’ah
		otrtli’ad	os	ontogo’ay	odriix’ao	oarigo’am
		otrtin’at	‘woman’			oariid’ar
		otrtis’as		onpois’ad	od	oariio’ay
				onpoli’at	‘bow.arrows’
		otraix’ag		onpoin’as		oasoin’ad
		otraiv’ah				oasois’at
		otragi’ao		onurgi’ag		oasoli’as
				onurix’ah
		ot		onuriv’ao		oausiv’ag
		‘antlion.imago’				oausgi’ah
				on		oausix’ao
				‘clay.pot’
						oa
						‘scrotum’

2.   Clitalysis and Discussion

My clitalysis will avoid discussing situations in which pragmatics brings about polysyntaxis, or lability of word-signification, in absolutist roots (cf. infra, § 6), for, solvitur ambulando, it is plain that such absolutist roots simply cannot hop in cardinal-fashion from class to class as inconstant roots typically do with much alacrity, but must, pro forma, obtain a capacity for variation only by dint of clausal function. As Arnaut Raymond gallantly confronts this topic in his Parlons Fouqqari (2002), I bid you scan that book for paronymous insight. Sic itu ad astra. In opposition to Raymond (2002), though, and, in fact, to all prior scholars of MF, my discussion will focus primarily on clitalyzing (or clitalysizing) how variation in word-signification of inconstant roots is brought about by shifts in grammatical class (cf. infra, § 2.3), and how such concomitant shifts in grammatical class accord with sociophysiologically harmonious shifts in taboo function (cf. infra, § 2.4). Vincit qui patitur. By comparison, my compact clitalysis and curt discussion in § 2.1 and § 2.2 (infra) purport mainly, following my grammatical synopsis of MF (cf. supra, § 1), and in particular my Paradigm C (supra), to show, manus manum lavat, why combinatorics and distribution of caudal clitics justify a nonadic — and not a triadic, or four-way, or six-part — partitioning of grammatical class in MF. Fiat lux.

2.1.   Within-Class Variation Is Significant

Obviously, MF words inhabit a class-locus of morphological grad(u)ation contrasting initial and final stability (roots, clitics of pronominal control, both of which act as sorts of nominal framing marks or masks) with significant fulcral lability (womaninity and ligativity) indicating, according to configuration, both gross word (or root) class triad loyalty — Raymond’s global X, Y, and Z roughly match Turbo’s Proximal, Fulcral, and Distal, which, ipso facto, hark, latratus canum, back to Wainwright’s Non-Human, Human, and Anomalous — and intraclass subtriadic word (or root) (in)constancy — my subdivision into X1_wbp, X2_mck, X3_taf, Y1_pak, Y2_h, Y3_tm, Z1_~t, Z2_tw, and Z3_mbp match a mix of Wainright (1925) and Turbo (1991a) minus two (Raymond’s [2002: 623] ad hoc proposal for a two-by-four classification involving animacy/inanimacy, human/non-human, kin/non-kin, and plant/non-plant, almost got it right), and that, just as clitics of womaninity and ligativity subsist in a quantal continuum from proximal to distal, so, too, do clitics of pronominal control. (I bid you glom again a snatch, oculos in aliquid, at Paradigm C, ut supra.) And though this short communication’s motivation is not to discuss MF grammar in toto, in so much as it’s aim, quodam modo, is to posit a solution to that conundrum involving an Intrussyan affliction not dissimilar to Ishtar’s Hand which my fifth TSMR first brought to light [13]. I will point out that this analysis is totally without par, virginal, as I said, and that, turning again, supra, to Paradigm C, you will spot that, apropos of ligativity, I can think of two mutually supporting ways of data organization, which I quickly discuss in § 2.2, infra.

2.2.   Within-Class Variation Is Law-Abiding

In spiral fashion, first of all, distal clitics of ligativity (CL_d) from class to class go proximal (CL_p) again and again. In Paradigm C (supra), from X to Y watch id which always in class X has a proximal-distal distribution in association with 1pl CPC -’ay, but which in class Y has a proximal-proximal distribution in association with 1sg CPC -’am; and similarly, from Y to Z, go. Which is to say that, analogously to rank, ligativity displays a paradigmatic bumping down such that what is proximal in X is fulcral in Y and distal in Z, and so on. Spiral transitivity follows: what’s distal in Z is proximal in X. Back again to our first pass. Class rank, thus, of ligativity is not absolutist at all, but cyclically spiral. And as for clitics of womaninity, as you saw supra in § 1.3, that’s a situation as straight-forward as that of pronominal control, but at a word fulcral, and, thus, subclassical, notch: combinatorics of morphophonology cycling from distal to proximal and proximal to distal. That is, if a root occurs, now in this class, now in that, it is not randomly, nor according to situational pragmatics, but according to grammatical law, which thus brings about concomitant variations in word signification and clausal function in a profoundly grammatical fashion, as in § 2.3 infra. Apropos of which, MF, in contrast to Maricopa, shows no compulsory isomorphic mapping of sound symbolism to root class, nor is “marking of plurality [...] obligatory” (Krummholz 1969: 29).

2.3.   Within-Class Variation Is Profoundly Grammatical

Turbo claims that “[MF] morphology is simply so much ungrammatical chaff, having, in truth, no grammatical function at all. Just as my analysis shows that [MF] word class is a syntactic fiction, so too is pragmatics all that [MF] ‘morphology’ is good for. What this unduly circumloquacious ‘idiom’ is in want of, is a sound linguistic thrashing, or, barring that, a grammatical vaccination to nix that scumbling smut of stumbling clitics clinging unrulily to its limpid roots and clogging and clouding and stultifying its gist” (Turbo 1991c: 53). Turbo’s outlandish “analysis” pivots around a trio of MPUs:

(2.3.1)	Trio of MF MPU Around Which Turbo (1991c) Pivots Outlandishly
onsoiv’ag	‘snail’
onrtix’ag	‘snail matriclan’
onrtix’ag	‘snail matriclan hut’

How shall I spoil Turbo’s (1991c) unsound syntactic sophistry? How shall I cast light into his calaginous casuistry all frowsy musty musky and damp with bad faith? First of all, in addition to failing to distinguish a surd from a sonorant — ‘snail matriclan’ should gloss as onrdix’ag — our lazy linguist’s paradigm also lacks, luckily for his confusion’s parsimony, onurgi’ag ‘that clay pot.’ But at most that’s putting half a firkin of acorns into a partially vacant tun. For caudal clitics, according to Turbo (1991c), supply no additional information that solitary roots do not, and social situation (pragmatics) can sort things out if roots fall short, as in ‘matriclan’ vs. ‘matriclan hut’ — which, prior to tossing out any notion of word class in toto, Turbo (1991a) stuffs, along with ‘snail,’ into a singularly odd and “archaic” catch-all class: “Distaff Things, Things Having to Do with Matral Kinship, and Small Womanly Animals” (Turbo 1991a: 54)! On, in short, is a root “having a multiplicity of word-to-gloss mappings in any [MF]’s mind’s dictionary” (Turbo 1991b: 55). No, I say — plurality of significations in MF is brought about through a combinatorics of root and social situation and morphophonology of word class — that is, grammar.

To clarify, as I’m doing now, this point of scholars’ confusion, I had an opportunity to profit from a constant situation of social-vocal communication, varying only as to linguistic output (words), to which I was privy during my sojourn in MFland. For six days and nights, in conjunction with informants IB, AI, GA, MR, GG, RQ, and FQ, I sat sorting and spinning that batch of raw antlion silk which would go to form my initiation shawl’s warp and woof. Aiming for a minimum of pragmatic artifacts, I took pains to coax informant AI, a young girl four autumns my junior, into saying to various of our distaff companions, or manipulands, at random during our six days and nights of distaff activity, such words as occupy my data (ut supra qua infra, ad vitam aut culpam), whilst also noting such actions, both facial and bodily, which such words of AI’s brought about in our distaff companions. Thus was I put into a position from which an appraisal of grammaticality, as shown in (2.3.2)q–y, infra, was not too difficult to pull off. In addition, I was also found fit to profit from a grammatical and pragmatic dissimilarity as to how any MF woman can proclaim matriclan kinship and affiliation with a particular matriclan hut of womaninity.

A MF will commonly say to an inquiring linguistic anthropologist, “I am of this or that matriclan.” Thus, a man or woman of Mountain Jay matriclan will say, ixrtio’am, ‘My (matriclan is) Mountain.Jay.’ Accordingly, root ix, ‘mountain.jay,’ is aligning with class X2_mck (vid. supra, Paradigm C). A MF woman (but not man, obviously) may also say, “I am of this or that matriclan hut of womaninity.” A woman, say, of Mountain Jay matriclan may opt to say, ixraio’am, ‘My (hut of womaninity) is Mountain.Jay,’ or ixraio’am lupnoix, ‘My (hut of womaninity) is Mountain.Jay matriclan hut.’ In both instantiations, surprisingly, root ix, ‘mountain jay,’ is aligning, not with class X2_mck, but with class X1_wbp. Optional variation is brought about simply by adding lupnoix, a triradical construction lacking morphological caudality but not violating LSS (cf. supra, § 1.2), and signifying ‘hut of womaninity’ (lup), ‘matriclan’ (or ‘matriarch’) (no), and ‘mountain jay’ (ix), that is, ‘Mountain Jay matriclan hut (of womaninity).’ This option of using root–morphological information only (ixraio’am), or also pointing out a woman’s matriclan hut of womaninity by plainly naming it (ixraio’am lupnoix), is pivotal to both my data and my clitalysis.

(2.3.2)	Appraisal of Grammaticality
	Words Said to Manipulands by Informant AI	Actions by Manipulands
(q)	axraio’am lupnoax	knowing nod (GG)
(s)	axrtio’am lupnoax	inquiring frown (GG)
(t)	axsoiv’ag lupnoax	look toward Crow-matriclan hut and scan sky for signs of stormy auks (GG, MR and RQ)
(v)	axragi’ao lupnoax	run toward Crow-matriclan hut brandishing a broom and giving out typical ‘chasing-crows-away’ pant hoot (GG, FQ, and RQ)
(x)	nortio’am axrdix’ag lupnoax	silly laugh (GG)
(y)	nortio’am axrtix’ag lupnoax	knowing nod (GG)

AI’s kinship affiliation is with Crow (ax) matriclan. Thus, in (2.3.2)q, supra, by saying axraio’am lupnoax, AI grammatically said, ‘My (hut of womaninity is) Crow matriclan hut.’ GG’s action was a knowing nod which basically said, “That’s right, my child, I know that your hut of womaninity is Crow matriclan hut.” What you should focus on is that ax, in this totally grammatical MPU, is sorting in class X1, Woman’s Body Parts! In contradistinction to this grammatical vocal indication as to affiliation with a particular hut of womaninity, AI’s words in (2.3.2)s, axrtio’am lupnoax, varying from axraio’am lupnoax only as to CW (-rt- in opposition to -ra-), brought about an inquiring frown on GG’s part, indicating that this proclamation of AI’s — in which ax, as shown by CW -rt in conjunction with CPC 1sg -’am, is sorting, contrary to what a typical linguist’s prognosis would insist on, with class X2_mck — was ungrammatical or awkward or confusing. So much for pragmatics, for what this contrasting minimal pair of (2.3.2)q and (2.3.2)s, supra, plainly shows, is that Turbo’s (1990) Proximal class is totally lacking in motivation. Signification, contra Turbo, is brought about by grammatical class. Grammatical class, too, logically goads us to avouch that, in (2.3.2)t, GG, MR, and RQ took AI’s words to imply that a normal singular non-taboo stormy auk (axsoiv’ag Z1_~t) was fumbling airily skyward in curious propinquity to our matriclan hut (lupnoax), and in (2.3.2)v, that a marauding band of taboo crows (axragi’ao X3_taf) was plotting to loot said hut of womaninity (lupnoax). Coming fighting into its own hot chorus of “Down with pragmatics!”, grammatical class again unfurls its flag of victory waving. By contrast, marking both no and ax as X2_mck in (2.3.2)x will simply not work, for what AI is saying by audaciously mouthing *nortio’am axrdix’ag lupnoax is, sort of, ‘my mom is that woman of Crow matriclan is Crow matriclan hut of womaninity.’ Obviously, such an affirmation is, as GG’s conduct shows, childishly silly. Moving along to our final instar, (2.3.2)y, AI’s blurting out of nortio’am axrtix’ag lupnoax, in which no sorts as X2_mck and ax as X1_wbp, is all too grammatical, as it truthfully mirrors an actual fact: that AI’s mom (GG) is sitting in Crow matriclan’s hut of womaninity’s shadow. In summary, my clitalytical focus on data in (2.3.2), supra, shows that matriclan affiliation plainly bottoms out against common linguistic intuitions as to what is “natural,” “logical,” and “pragmatic,” as it, that is, matriclan affiliation, binds, not shallowly to X2_mck, but, insufflating drafts that do not lack for grammatical profundity, to X1_wbp. Shall I limn this situation with a clarifictional croquis? I shall (vid. Fig. 1, infra):

2.4.   Within-Class Variation Is Parasitically Sociophysiological

In addition to words acting according to LSS (cf. supra, § 1.2), MF, I am in a singularly unbound position to maintain, has an unusual ability to display, in situations warranting it, a pliant sort of what I would call Polymorphic Cross-Classicism (PCC), into which, taking into account this scholium’s limitations, I’m not too wont to plumb, sauf for sharing with you a dainty fond farthing or two, which I’ll mark with a star (*) to avoid confusion: *owrigo’am, moans a MF man whilst submitting to a particularly stimulating variant of this author’s act of going down on him; *oaraio’am, this author croons (drawing forth no incommodious hissing allusion to any malapropism on my part, I should add) whilst mounting dorsally an informant during frictional intimacy:

À dix ans, plus ou moins, j’avais bon droit à m’aplatir tout mon gamin poids sur lui. Mais afin qu’il pût m’impartir du sursis à mon agitation, il saisit mon bras. Joli fruit d’un trottin jauni d’Ishtar, mon transport instinctif, mon amour primitif batifolait trop vif sur lui, lui froissait à badins coups rutilant. Jusqu’au jour où l’on a du sang. Ça bondissait, gambadait aux cils raidis, quoi. J’accourais mon insouciant rut sportif sur un avilissant discours fictif qui frappait aux murs clos d’imagination [14].

Although a lackadaisical scrutiny of, or cursory inquiry into, this account, supra, by informant AI of Crow matriclan, might at first sight imply that I’m way off track in my clitalysis, what AI’s insouciant invocation of childhood’s playful promiscuity shows is simply that, prior to attaining womaninity’s instar (on in MF), any MF girl runs no risk of confronting injunction or taboo, of bringing punition down on any collaborator in such mutually satisfying bouts of skin-on-skin contact, by going off with any buck or hind, young or old, patronly, matronly, avuncular, auntish, cousinly, sororal, fratral, or whatnot. By contrast, inauguration of monthly blood thrusts a MF girl into sociality’s compass of gossip and conformity, signalling that this girl is now off-limits to all but distaff kin. What, you ask, has this account of carnal laxity and crimson sin got to do with grammaticality of MF roots and sociophysiology? It was actually Hugh Alvin Strickland (1811–1853), naturalist and philologist, who, by comparing snail natural history and words for ‘snail’ in MF, first had an inkling.

Sojourning in MF country from autumn 1841 to spring 1845, Strickland aptly saw that Spitmarkx’s (1841) classification of MF in and an as two distinct organisms, Iiboropx lista and Nimloidu fukariana, was wrong, and that in, an “abnormally sluggish and diurnal sport having bright rainbow colouration,” was, in fact, an allomorph, acting “as if drunk from an unusually cumbrous lading of parasitic fungi” of “normally staid and bustling nocturnal” an (Strickland 1845: 713–717). Combining this morphological information with taxonomical insights brought back from his work (1837–1840) on Snails, slugs and odd arthropods of Asia Minor (1840), Strickland paid honor to his myopic, Mopsi-drunk rival, not only by calling that dormant volcano saddling its larch- and fir-bound skirts and snow-shod hips to Wyoming’s most climactic culmination and Flouziana’s most substantial summit, Mount Spitmarkx, but also by assigning both in and an an unitary tag of Nimloidu nyctonostici Strick. var. Spitmarkx. In addition, Strickland rightly saw that Spitmarkx was only partly wrong, in that N. fukariana Spit., though morphologically similar to what MF call an, is actually both biologically and phonologically distinct: diurnal on, also known as Caracol Montagnard, Colimaçon Fukari, or simply Fukari Mountain Snail. Notwithstanding this harmonious butin, Strickland, lacking, by both habit and inclination, any capacity to constrain his curiosity, dug up a conjoint quarry of linguistic facts totally concordant with both snail natural history and MF social and ritual kinship classifications. And this, at last, is our springboard into grammaticalization of parasitic sociophysiology.

For what Strickland laid out for our happy harrowing and diving into a divulgation of which was that on, in its signification of ‘snail,’ “cuts crossways against” any typically triadic classification’s “grain,” such that ‘snail’ “inhabits discontiguous, though sinuous, quanta of grammar” (Strickland 1845: 1372). Or, framing Strickland’s primordial insight with common young words, MF roots ramify in a quantal continuum of grammatical class. By filling in Strickland’s brouillon with my Paradigm C (supra), it is plain that in, say, i) onraio’am, ‘I [am of] Snail matriclan,’ on is functioning — as ax is doing in § 2.3, supra — grammatically in class X1_wbp, Woman’s Body Parts; in ii) lupnoontoid’am, ‘my Snail matriclan hut of womaninity,’ on, as part of triradical phrasal unit lupnoon, is functioning grammatically in class Y3_tm, Taboo for Man; in iii) onsoiv’ag, ‘this Fukari Mountain Snail (N. fukariana Spit.),’ on is functioning in class Z1_~t, Not Taboo for Any Fukari; and in iv) ontoid’am, ‘my clay pot (looks similar to an antlion pit); I’m having my monthly blood (and thus am off-limits to all but distaff kin),’ on is not just functioning, again, in class Y3_tm, Taboo for Man, but is radically transforming into both an infundibular clay pot summoning forth visions of antlions, and monthly blood’s warning signal and sigil of womaninity.

Now what is significant is that on, in all its manifold significations — ‘snail,’ ‘clay pot,’ and ‘monthly blood’ — is put into Anomalous by Wainwright (1925), into both Distal and Marginal by Turbo (1990, 1991a), and into animaux insignifiants ou triviaux by Raymond (2002). And into this tautologous triad this trio also consigns, with basically no discussion, roots such as in, ‘Tlaatlata, or Rainbow, Snail’ (irid diurnal morph of Nimloidu nyctonostici Strick.); an, ‘Manna Snail’ (dull brown nocturnal morph of N. nyctonostici); and un, ‘Poison Arrow Snail’ (Noro nopo Spit.) — a triad of roots, that is, which Strickland had so long ago shown, along with on, both to signify, and to ramify, in a socially, linguistically, and biologically robust, though “discontiguous,” fashion. For un, which is fatally toxic to mammals, inhabits, not X3_taf, Taboo for All Fukari, as any incurious linguist’s logical conformity might bargain for, but, as arrows and bows and sundry manly things do, Z2_tw, Taboo for Woman — and this is owing to a ritual social functional fact that paragons of MF manhood anoint arrows with a concoction consisting, in part, of this snail’s mucus — and should a girl or woman catch sight of a man making an arrow, and coating its tip with this snail concoction, that “spoilt arrow is thrown into a sacrificial holocaust, and that girl or woman, having burst into coltish flight, if, by poor hazzard, fails to find sanctuary in a distaff isolation hut or solitary spot far from camp, and is caught, will submit to binding, cutting, and inglorious castigation” (Strickland 1845: 1483). It is plain to any MF that Strickland could not bring his quill’s nib to scratch “stupration” into his journal. Similarly for in and an. Noting that this duo of roots warrants two morphs — irid diurnal Tlaatata snail and dull brown nocturnal Manna snail — of a singular organic form, N. nyctonostici, Strickland points out that “in autumn, it is not unusual to find a Fouqqari woman knitting [sic] and dipping a hand into a clay cooking pot full of this snail’s nightly form, calling this salmigondis of gastropods, onourghihag anourivhaü, a dish no Fukari man would vouch fit for consumption” (Strickland 1845: 714). This ‘clay cooking pot (on) (full of a gallimaufry) of Manna snails (an)’ — onurgi’ag anuriv’ao is how a living linguist would jot it — not only aligns grammatically with class Y3_tm, Taboo for Man, but its consumption is intrinsic to spinning (not, as Strickland thought, knitting) silk from antlion cocoons, as snail albumins dripping from digits act, in truth, as mastic, vinculum, and lubricant to aid in sorting, untangling, and twisting raw gritty gnarls of antlion silk into smooth functional strands. It is difficult to fathom how an animal that so significantly charts a woman’s participation — social, cultural, ritual, schizomythic — in MF civilization’s most vital stuff, could fall, through unconditional linguistic folly (Turbo 1991a, b, and c; Raymond 2002), into a stray “marginal” class containing “insignificant or trivial” animals (and on, obviously, is not always an animal!). For without an atl (which, grammatically, is also taboo for man), a ‘Tlaatlata shawl of womaninity’ wrought warp and woof from antlion silk, no MF woman can marry (cf. infra, § 5.1.1, How Tlaatata Brought Us Silk). Prismatic diurnal in, by contrast, is, as Strickland rightly saw, off-limits to all Fukari owing to “an unusually cumbrous lading of parasitic fungi,” a situation which typically occurs in spring, and which MF grammatically marks by assigning this root to X3_taf, Taboo for All Fukari.

What puts a final nail in any “marginal” class’s coffin is that Moanzy burrasca Strick., your high mountain stormy auk, in its human-mimicking form (owing to this animal’s proclivity for chowing down on in, an “abnormally sluggish and diurnal sport having bright rainbow colouration;” in fact, as in crawl slowly along brookbanks in spring, stormy auks, crows (ax), and mountain jays (ix) swoop down for an orgy of snail consumption — and so too do unwitting Intrussyans, who, fallaciously mimicking MF onurgi’ag anuriv’ao, cook up an olla na karakol of in, which insanitary dish afflicts this population with an infirmity similar to Ishtar’s Hand) [15], known as ox in MF, is also taboo for all Fukari, both grammatically and culinarily, but its normal morph ax, is taboo for no Fukari (Z1_~t). And your stormy auk, as you know, with a typical wingspan of six cubits, is not a trivial fowl [16]! In short, as all of supra and much of infra show, shifts in word-signification of inconstant roots such as ax, ix, an, in, on, and so on, always display a grammatical motivation parasitically impinging upon, and schizomythologically obtaining in, taboo — for any MF woman, or any MF man, or all MF, or no MF at all — and such roots in no way hang a grammatical thinking cap on scholastic notions of “natural” class. Grammar is a social fact, obviously, but a social fact shot through with sociophysiology.

3.   Conclusion

What all this shows is that grammatical class in MF is not, contrary to linguistic dogma, arbitrary, nor is it a logophoric mirror of world, a syntactic slicing and suturing of hazard and compulsion, must and want, along simplistic sapir-whorfian contours, but is a thing profoundly biological, springing from parasitism, via schizomythology and taboo, to sociophysiology. In addition, upon finding out that roots such as in ‘Tlaatlata Snail’ (irid diurnal morph of Nimloidu nyctonostici Strick.) and an ‘Manna Snail’ (dull brown nocturnal morph of N. nyctonostici) vary radically in global word-class distribution, and that both in turn vary apropos of un ‘Poison Arrow Snail’ (Noro nopo Spit.) and on ‘Caracol Montagnard’ (N. fukariana Spit.), a stubbornly humdrum linguist proposing to consign such roots to a common “marginal” class of “small animals” would throw up his hands indignantly and most pitifully moan, “This lingo’s crazy!” Alas, poor scholar, MF — highly ludict, lucid, and logical — is anything but crazy, and it is only by wantonly insisting on a rough tripartition of MF roots that dogmatic scholars such as Turbo still think it so. For my work, along with Raymond’s minor contribution to our mutual LAWs of TPU (cf. supra, § 1.8), shows that Wainwright’s ranking according to Human, Non-Human, and Anomalous has as many shortcomings as Turbo’s robotic disposition into Proximal, Fulcral, and Distal, and — notwithstanding its almost too virtuous nod to Turbo’s “marginal” class — Raymond’s parsimonious grouping of X, Y, and Z is as charily out of bounds as both. In short, I must insist on saying again that MF roots sort, not globally and triadically, but locally and nonadically, and only through this scrupulous nonary assignation of roots can MF idiomatically and grammatically discuss and commit MF social, ritual, and schizomythic acts. Following a path laid out by Strickland long ago, my illumination of this nonary classification shows that, without sociophysiological notions of taboo unfolding intrinsically through root-class, MF would lack for words, and without words, MF notions of taboo would simply fail to function. Im Anfang war das Tabu, und schafft daraus im Wort [17].

4.   Bibliographical Illuminations

To avoid confusion, I distinguish major works (§ 4.1), most of which I had at my disposal — thanks both to Tiliar Boarding School’s populous library and ISOCPHYS’s abundant stock of circulars, monographs, opusculi, annuals, portfolios, journals, chapbook, handbooks, livraisons, albums, and scholarly whatnot — during this short tract’s composition, from minor scholia (§ 4.2), most of which I’d fain abstain from smirching said tract’s main body with.

4.1.   Works

4.2.   Scholia

1. Root or word. — This author opts to stay mum on various rancorous discussions circling about validity or not of word or word-form as a morphological or functional or syntactic class in Mountain Fukari.
2. For want of words. — Dogging so many linguists’ pista di paroli is a paucity of data.
3. Mountain Fukari. — From now on I think that simply stating Fukari would do fairly a valid job of indicating our topic of discussion, or should I simply put MF — what do you think, Prof. Vighdan? MF.
4. Mutt (1989) on Kioway grammar. — In Kioway, nouns of class I mark duals and plurals; nouns of class II, singulars and duals; class III, duals only; and class IV shows no marking. In addition, noun class shows a triadic opposition of animacy (I), inanimacy (II and III), and mass (IV).
5. Word-focal obviation. — If obviation occurs in MF, it is not obviously bound to grammatical class at all, but is an optional ally of pragmatics.
6. Iagip, ‘Big Fir Camp,’ in high-mountain Wyoming, has a population [as of this First Day of our Sixth Month Plus Two of Anno Sociophysiologici 11 — scholium by BV] of 89 souls and 6 clans; Iaqip, ‘small fir camp,’ in backwoods Flouziana, has 53 souls and 5 clans. Notwithstanding slight mixing with small amounts of Tagma and Norlian immigrants, bumping up populations and complicating clan affiliation in both talusborn bailiwicks, this twin-town MF community (in which popular morality, strong right arm of popular opinion, is constantly at work) has withstood cultural dilution of any sort — Intrussyan, Ityalian, Sihlaucal, and so forth — and maintains an intact cultural and linguistic tradition continuous with what is known from foxy old books (loans and gifts from luminous alumni) in Tiliar Boarding School’s vast library.
7. Do not typically occur. — Though fully robust paradigms do occur in Tlaatlata myths, in songs, and in functionally humorous or particularly ritualistic situations, as my corpus, my clitalysis, and my Paradigm C show.
8. Our two vulvas. — A “Fouqqari”, according to Wainwright (1925), would justify placing “his mom” (nordix’ag) in a “Non-Human” grammatical class on rationalistic grounds: kinship is an abstraction, not a thing you can actually touch. In addition, “any animal, such as a mountain lion, or a mountain goat, or a marmot, or a pika, also has a vulva; thus, to a Fouqqari, any ‘vulva’ (ow) is grammatically non-human” (Wainwright 1925: 37) But it was not only ‘mom’ and ‘vulva’ that Wainwright put into his non-human class, it was also ‘my hand’ (arraio’am), ‘my arm’ (caraio’am), and ‘my aunt’ (nurtio’am)! Wainwright’s spurious array follows from his fallacious submission to phonological grounds of classification, grounds, sadly, to which contumacious scholars still stubbornly kowtow. Wainwright’s “Class I, Non-Human, harbors roots of form XrY, such that X consists typically of (C)VC or occasionally of CV((C)VC), r is a rhotic, and Y is allophonically [a], [t], or [d]” (Wainwright 1925: 89). Similarly, Wainwright’s “Class II, Human,” pins its phonological faith to a tail of allophonic variation “springing from suffixival provocation” involving “principally labialization, or rounding harmony” (Wainwright 1925: 91–97). That is, roots of form (C)VCto or simply VCto, vary according to word-final sound, spurring, say, [to] in son (bito; as in bitois’ad ‘your son’), to transform to [ur] in biurid’am ‘my son’ and to [po] in bipoiv’ao ‘many sons’ (Wainwright 1925: 93–95)! Naturally, you will not fail to glom that Wainwright forgot to list forms such as bipogi’ag ‘this son’ and bipoix’ah ‘that son’ in which rounding harmony is logically bankrupt, and that, on both occasions, Wainwright is mistaking stalwart clitics of womaninity for inconstant root parts! Cf., in addition, my scholium 9, infra.
9. Your clay pot. — Wainwright (1925: 93) insists that “[a] clay pot (on) is grammatically human owing, not only to such human functions to which Fouqqari may put it, but also to its human origin. From finding and digging clay, to throwing, shaping, and firing it, to actually using it, a pot is thought by human minds, and is wrought by human hands, during all its formation’s sundry rungs” [his italics]. Too much in thrall to his scanty data, Wainwright staunchly found additional motivation for his Class II, Human, by noting that “Fouqqari do not distinguish plurality for proximal and fulcral forms of Non-Human and Anomalous things” (Wainwright 1925: 73), and also by going on to justify this fallacy by stating that “rampant individualism among Fouqqari is laid down by grammar’s law, and forbids a bodily dislocation into many parts [which is] akin to a visual art that portrays animals and human sans fur and skin” (Wainwright 1925: 79). Although Wainwright was wrong on many counts, including Fukari individualism, this almost oracular bit of sociolinguistic sagacity apropos of how taboo’s sociophysiological function “is laid down by grammar’s law” most graciously warrants an approving nod.
10. Hard and straight. — It is not without utility for an inquiring scholar to scan avidly at this point that part of Raymond’s bouquin (op. cit.) touching upon “Statistical distribution of root class in triradical phrasal units of Mountain Fukari” (pp. 309–317; my trans.) in which a grand tourbillon of glottostatistical fact is put willynilly into a not insignificant grammarian’s bag of bubbling skin tricks (impromptu cauldron of bison stomach, in fact — not shaft raptor).
11. MF sociality. — In particular, as it occurs during occasions of slanting wintry sunlight; vid. infra, scholium 14.
12. Fukari notion of taboo. — You may now ask, Why is it that Mountain Fukari displays only uniradicality and triradicality, but not biradicality, quadriradicality, and so on and so forth? And though Raymond (2002: 379) posits a hand-waving solution of sorts, truth is, that I don’t know, no linguist can fathom it, and, in fact, no Mountain Fukari, following ‘this mindful rainbow law’ that logically apportions words and maps symbolic sound from brain to organs of articulation, can actually string two or four or six roots and so on into a grammatical act of vocalization.
13. First brought to light. — It is actually an angular slant of wintry solstitial light that kicks photophilic haptomonad sporoblasts of a polar cnidosporidian protoctist similar to Oosdoli spp. into action; vid. my scholium 15, infra.
14. Murs clos d’imagination. — Not so long ago, Ms. Litarn, fastidious critic of Owlstain’s SCAT, citing various ramtils or ramikins of a passing plagiary which I was trying to pass off as my own translation into Flouzianian and Appalachian from an Intrussyan original, As I lay dying (Mourant couchant [Zalozhnyu na umirayu]) by G. Saliba, from which I had wrung my own pornoglyphic squibs, said that my work was “pornographic.” Now, I will not try to contradict this apt, though far from insightful, claim, but wish simply to clarify. As G. Saliba’s own philippic protagonist, Babur Dragoman, might put it, “Pornography in its classic form has a kick that lasts only about a sixth of an hour, at which point it falls into a kind of soporifically comical untangling of want’s imagination. My own pornography, by contrast, consists of a nonstop st(r)ing of loss that brutally claws away at any scab of joy’s possibility and digs its parasitic grappling hooks of incompliant passion into that suppurating mirror of your flaccid body’s hollow wound and, without pausing for pain’s pulsating comma, satisfaction’s oscitant colon, or supplicating longing’s dot dot dot (howling bliss’s raging full stop is simply hors concours), flays and flings and whips out your innards as if a mixing bowl full of milk, sugar, yolk, blood, shit, brains, and lungs had spun impossibly out of control.” Which is to say that any woman’s past, in truth — and truth is that Saliba’s galvanic “original” is actually a plagiary of my transcription of informant AI’s own cortical passing shot at childhood carnality — any woman’s past, in truth, is always as pornographic as this worn clubchair’s calfskin arm along which I rub my bald snatch, crooning out my translation into Appalachian of drooling Saliba’s corruption of a young MF girl’s coming into confirmation atop a plurality of assumptions, thus: “I was willing to sit on top of him. And with only a tawny handful or two of autumns in my downy buff. And him tapping my arm so I would slow down, so obliviously frisky this child of Ishtar was atop my first communion. Until that day your blood shows [or flows — scriptgirl’s scholium]. Caroming about with my lids shut, off playacting a rosy child’s rotatory romp of my own philippic imagining.”
15. Ishtar’s Hand. — Although, as my scholium 16, infra, shows, our culprit consists, not only of in, but of ax and ox also.
16. Trivial fowl. — Group consumption of which, among Mountain Fukari, occurs only during that lunation of transformation straddling a wintry solstitial hub during which our lascivious loon or Arathu huart absconds to coastal bights (cf. TSMR-12, infra, that is, § 262 of my Divastigations) but our sought-for stormy auk stays on high in its mountain lair, and occasions particularly mutualistic instantiations of horizontal rituals of group affiliation. In contrast, though, to this pluralistic display of communal gratification among Mountain Fukari, and also concomitant to that titubant bird’s wintry flight to littoral sanctuary, Intrussyan immigrants to Fukariland display an antagonistic orgy of individualistic and, not unusually, suicidal conflict which is not, in fact, dissimilar to Ishtar’s Hand at its most climactic. Now, as i-a) Intrussyans hunt stormy auk wantonly in any month, paying no mind to its rostrum or rhamphus; and i-b) Mountain Fukari cull only normal, non-taboo, wintry morphs, during basically a singular fortnight; and ii) this altarity or discongruity of carnal configuration and manic activity concurs synchronically with an angular cast of wintry sunlight; it follows that iii-a) phototrophic activation of a small but biocatalytically significant population of photophilic haptomonad sporoblasts of a polar cnidosporidian protoctist analogous or homologous to Oosdoli brings about, among Mountain Fukari, a situation of sosigonic stability (sss) similar to that which obtains in Hamiltonia; but that iii-b) phototrophic activation of a catastrophically voluminous population of photophilic haptomonad sporoblasts of a polar cnidosporidian protoctist analogous or homologous to Oosdoli brings about, among Intrussyan immigrants to Fukariland, an affliction similar to Ishtar’s Hand as it obtains in Babylonia (vid. TSMR-5, supra, constituting § 113 of my Divastigations).
17. Wort. — Mad props to Dr. Avílano Bimkov, principal of Tiliar Boarding School, Tixpu, AP, NL, for providing funds and opportunity and whatnot, on basis of my first full hand of TSMR, so that rot in Tixpu I did not, but carry forth this work, I did. Obliging words also to Prof. B. Vighdan of ISOCPHYS who did not shirk from taking a hands-on approach to coaxing this work into form, both provisional and final. And to Atoca, Inuhka, Dado, Sagarch, Maryam, Gasa, Tony, and so on, a big group smooch!

5.   Corpus

Divastigatory custom dictating that I, larval Tagma of Tixpu through cosmopolitan Sihlaucal, or Coast Fukari, matrix, bring about acculturation of larval Tagma through pastoral MF matrix, that is, informant DU, by acting as a sort of nanny-tutor or factotal au pair and thrill him to my thrall by crooning traditional chants and such, I was in a singular position, from spring through autumn, and again from autumn through spring, to function socially as MF among MF, in Iagip, principally, and Iaqip, partly, in a way that nary any prior scholar had found fit to do, nor satisfaction in so doing. Thus did I trawl yon Arathu in Rick and Djuma’s yawl. And thus did I obtain initiation into MF womaninity; in particular, rituals of monthly blood and antlion larval silk production. And thus, too, did I profoundly acquaint my sociolinguistic capability with various Tlaatlata myths — two of which, in particular, will round out my corpus’s body, “How Tlaatlata Brought Us Silk” (cf. infra, § 5.1; in choosing to display this story’s linguistic innards only as far as (5.1.1)a–c and (5.1.2)a–d, I opt out of having to distract scholarly focus from my clitalysis and discussion; cf. supra, § 2) and “How Tlaatlata Brought Us Bow and Arrows” (I must admit that many scholars will find transcription and translation of this account of a manly myth lacking in unity and bulk; but in so far as I was bound, midway through my study, by instauration of lunar cyclicity to abstain from things taboo for any MF woman, our insight must constrain, for now, its compass of indagation into a frankly fractional condition; cf. infra, § 5.2) — touching upon all that, in addition to murmurations of nocturnal intimacy, and quotidian acts of communication. What I know of MF is thorough; and on all sociophysiological facts, my grip is firm: what may slip through its or my cracks is just not worth knowing. Look on this corpus of words (§ 5.1 and § 5.2, infra).

5.1.   How Tlaatlaata Brought Us Silk Informant GA

(5.1.1)

Ass thrust backwards into crumbling sky, I crawl that labyrinth, fading sunlight shining crimson on dusky bark, my mouth full of humming wasp. By toil and crash unspun, wrung wrought or torn from constant shadow.

a.	tladraodraodrwraio’am tlbasčukplihlutoid’am au’bdga
	tl-adrao.adrao-drw-ra-io-’am tl-basč-ukpli-hlu-to-id-’am au’bdga
	LIM-BACK.dupl.-ass-CW-CL-1sg LIM-FALL-CRUMB-sky-CW-CL-1sg intr.trans.conj.
	‘my ass thrust backwards’ ‘my crumbling sky’ ‘into’
	Ass thrust backwards into crumbling sky
b.	tlp’ononbo’gītt’ltoid’am
	tl-p’-onon-bok’gi-it.t’l-to-id-’am
	LIM-WIND-SPIR-CHAOS-antlion.larva.prop.func.-CW-CL-1sg
	‘I crawl in antlion-larval fashion (among) chaos winding (and) spiral’
	I crawl that labyrinth
c.	tlš’xlupixiduštrasoix’ao
	tl-š’-xli-pixi-duštra-so-ix-’ao
	LIM-MOT.into.hiding-sky-dusk.sun-Sirius-CW-CL-3pl
	‘sky, Sirius, and sun of dusk go into hiding’ (so that it looks as if FM girls smirch blood on hickory bark)
	Fading sunlight shining crimson on dusky bark, that all-swallowing worldworm

(5.1.2)

Backward out of my cocoon I watch my mind waking, originary root of lawful singularity shot through with forbiddingly brilliant colors. By toil and crash unspun, wrung wrought or torn from constant shadow.

a.	tladraodǧaiǧtoid’am
	tl-adrao-dǧaiǧ-to-id-’am
	LIM-BACK-antlion.cocoon-CW-CL-1sg
	‘my antlion cocoon backwards’
	Backwards out of my cocoon
b.	tlr’vmončbandzšičt’lraio’am
	tl-r’v-monč-bandz-šič.t’l-ra-io-’am
	LIM-WAK-mind-mind-glom.prop.func.-CW-CL-1sg
	‘my mind watching mind waking’
	I watch my mind waking
c.	tlgrckilōtlōraix’ag tladbub’kabinraix’ag it’kpu
	tl-grcki-lōtlō-ra-ix-ag tl-adbu-b’ka-bin-ra-ix-’ag it’kpu
	LIM-UNIC-law-CW-CL-1sg LIM-FIST-ORIG-root-CW-CL-1sg stat.add.conj.
	‘this unitary law/taboo/dharma’ ‘this fistular originary root’ ‘and/or/of’
	Originary root of lawful singularity
d.	tlptašptašmončklaclōtlōsoiv’ag
	tl-ptaš-ptaš-monč-klac-lōtlō-so-iv-’ag
	LIM-OSCIL.dupl.-mind-rainbow-law-CW-CL-1sg
	‘this lawful, mindful, rainbow oscillation’
	Shot through with forbiddingly brilliant colors

(5.1.3)

Trickling unfamiliar at first a thin flux of crystal silk flows into that crackling slitback cicada gown, scaly wasp tail tonguing ruth from gall, that all-swallowing worldworm. By toil and crash unspun, wrung wrought or torn from constant shadow.

(5.1.4)

This vacant world’s husk disturbs it, a conical pit snapping shut in a cloud of sand, [as I am] squatting in soft warm soil during fits of manic insomnia [that may last for] many nights, tracing it by moonlight. By toil and crash unspun, wrung wrought or torn from constant shadow.

(5.1.5)

Watching always a woman’s infinity fills it with liquid familiarity, prismatic umbilical transformation womb uncoils from brain. By toil and crash unspun, wrung wrought or torn from constant shadow.

(5.1.6)

Pluck from that tight crack a grain of sand yawning from lack of habit, nocturnal vigil, diurnal somnambulist, unnatural slug function. By toil and crash unspun, wrung wrought or torn from constant shadow.

(5.1.7)

Circling back on its own trail on its own tail circling a larval slip of light rubs its blank orbits into smiling sympathy shot through with forbiddingly brilliant colors. By toil and crash unspun, wrung wrought or torn from constant shadow.

5.2.   How Tlaatlaata Brought Us Bows and Arrows Informant TH

(5.2.1)

Frail airy fumbling skyward [of adult Viridian Mountain antlions (Formicophagus tlaatlata Strick., 1845)] [brings about] a hiding away among initiatory cloudbirds, a humidity that soars. Hickory is a virtuous wood.

(5.2.2)

Flaming scorpionfrog strays from its hollow into sunlight [as a] capricious black sky wilts dull corn [such that] nothing can grow but brown grass. Hickory is a virtuous wood.

(5.2.3)

Diurnal somnambulists [irid diurnal morph of Tlaatlata snail (Nimloidu nyctonostici Strick., 1845)], spiral string of cloudy drops of sticky sap, a gloaming of stormy aquacity. Hickory is a virtuous wood.

(5.2.4)

Piggy back sun pitching dawn’s roof [is also a] rising function of dawn’s familiar light taking wing [and] a throat that burns in dry shadow. Hickory is a virtuous wood.

6.   Functional Working Dictionary of Mountain Fukari

In common with all prior scholars of MF, I list as roots (§ 6.1, infra) wordparts that most typically occur with caudal clitics of womaninity, ligativity, and pronominal control (which usually mark and fill word-final position; cf. supra, § 1.1, § 1.2, § 1.3, § 1.4, and § 1.5), but occasionally occur without such caudal clitics, and proclitics, clitical infixations, postradical clitics, and conjunctions (§ 6.2, infra) as wordparts that must occur with, or obligatorily bind to, roots and phrasal units containing roots. In addition, roots inhabit grammatical class, but proclitics, clitical infixations, postradical clitics, and conjunctions do not. As for assignation of grammatical class, although for many roots, such as in words indicating kinship (both classificatory and actual, X2 and Y1), body parts (X1 and Z3), and astronomical conditions not bound to any particular ritual or orga(ni)smic unfolding (typically Z1), assignation is absolutist (and typically concordant with platonic logic), a plurality of inconstant roots sort into grammatical class according, soit to pragmatic, ritual, or schizomythic function, soit to natural historical, biosocial, or sociophysiological signification; I thus opt, not to array such polymorphous, occasionally homophonic roots according to grammatical class, but to mark root class and pronominal control for such vocal instantiations of words and phrasal units as I saw fit to jot down. In contrast, I do show class for absolutist, and, in fact, for most, roots, although vocal instantiations of such or many might lack. Also, I only list forms for which I put out orally during my linguistic travail’s duration in Iagip and Iaqip; curious scholars and lusty lay critics wishing to look up roots and clitics not bound by my own functional glossary’s working skirts (cf. infra), should consult wordlists, vocal inquisitions, glottographical accounts, and sundry citations in Spitmarkx (1841), Strickland (1845), Wainwright (1923 and 1925), Turbo (1990, 1991a, b, and c), Turbo and Flamingo (2001a, b), Flawndol and Johnson (2001a, b), and Raymond (2002).

6.1.   Roots

6.2.   Proclitics, Clitical Infixations, Postradical Clitics, Conjunctions, and Whatnot

Copyright © 2003 by journal of sociophysiology
www.isocphys.org/jsocphys