Bʀoᴋɛɴ Nɛws Nɛᴛwoʀᴋ SpecGram Vol CXCI, No 4 Contents Þe ⟨ð⟩-er ⟨þ⟩-y Question—Þeedles Þ’Þee

Book ९०

Differential Accusative case
In the animals’ ‘speech’ has no place.
When advancing the claim
“Human codes are supreme”
DOM’s my preferred coup de grâce.
—Morris Swadesh III

In Boulogne in 1905
This thing ‘Esperanto’ came alive.
A century later
This question’s now weightier:
Just how will the movement survive?
—Nine Teens of Fife

Boulogne?! Boulogne-sur-Mer!
You must keep the last two terms there.
It’s not the accusative—
Optionally usative:
If you leave that off, no-one will care.
—Ike Yooza-Tivv(on)

If I happen to have a tough week
And I find I can’t drop off to sleep
Then it’s syntax I picture:
For its mystical structures
Make my sleep both transformative and deep.
—Polly Szemy

I had an idea for a grand book
Which became, over years, a mere handbook.
Then some errors were spotted
And some ‘i’-s weren’t dotted—
And it all ended up as a banned book.
—Sin Tactician

My theory, I thought, was profound,
But my foes ran it into the ground.
When I took to the stage,
They declared, in a rage,
“I’m convinced that these changes aren’t sound.”
—Pete Bleackley

I’ve tried just as hard as I’m able
To comprehend this here truth table:
If ¬q ⇒ p
I’m starting to see
That truth itself may be unstable.
—Ruth, T.

Pxthen what’s next?
It’s this: (Px ∨ ¬Px)
And that states bivalence!
But one thing is salient:
This is neither syntaxis nor text.
—P. of Eks

The principle, there, of bivalence
Is certainly syntaxis-relevant!
Yes, not natural language—
But it’s not mad entangle-age:
There’s a meaning to the order of elements.

Now the question of whether it’s text
Is a trickier issue to fix.
Can we write Dickens
In logical symbols?
You might as well ask Ollie Twist.
—X. of Pee and Bill Sikes

Bʀoᴋɛɴ Nɛws Nɛᴛwoʀᴋ
Þe ⟨ð⟩-er ⟨þ⟩-y QuestionÞeedles Þ’Þee
SpecGram Vol CXCI, No 4 Contents