Ecology of words. According to Spitmarkx’s Law of All Words (LAW), succinctly formulated in the first plumation of his first arrowscript, § 01.01, of his Luftig-Pfeilschriftige Abbildung of 1848 as “Das Wort is alles, was der Faust ist (The word is everything which is the fist — Le mot est tout ce qui c’est le poing),” the subjectivity of word-production mirrors the objectivity of word-consumption, and vice-versa, as shown by
SWP = OWC.
Following Spitmarkx’s (1848) observation in § 01.07 that “Eines kann der Faust sein oder nicht der Faust sein und alles übrige gleich bleiben (Any one can either be the fist or not be the fist, and the song remains the same — N’importe lequel pourrait être soit le poing soit pas le poing et la chanson reste quand même),” we at ILE restate the formula in accordance with modern conceptions of LAW; in other words, the sociophysiological process of producing words (SPPW), equivalent to Spitmarkx’s subjectivity of word-production (SWP), is neither more nor less than the sociophysiological process of consuming words (SPCW), equivalent to Spitmarkx’s objectivity of word-production (SWP), as shown by
SPPW = SWP = SPCW = OWC.
Given that SPPW defines paperism (P) and that SPCW restates in other words wordism (W), lexical ecologists at ILE have derived from Spitmarkx’s LAW, the Lexical Conservation of Paperism and Wordism, commonly known by its popular mnemonic as the “Lee See of Pe-Word,” such that a senimality (S) transpires:
P = W → S.
In addition, Spitmarkx (1848) delineated two instances of heterolexicalia, heterolexical subjectivity and heterolexical objectivity. The former obtains where the objectivity of word-consumption dominates, or looms above, word-production, as shown by
S = OWC/WP
which Spitmarkx (1848) gave voice to in the second plumation of the first arrowscript, § 01.02, of his Luftig-Pfeilschriftige Abbildung, as “Das Wort ist der Gesicht der Türspälten, nicht der Dache (The word is the face of doorcracks, not of roofs — Le mot est le visage des interstices sous les portes où le malade qui a été obligé de partir en voyage et a dû coucher dans un hôtel inconnu pourrait apercevoir une raie de jour, et non pas des toits).” Concomitantly, heterolexical objectivity obtains in those cases where the subjectivity of word-production is dominant over word-consumption, as shown by
O = SWP/WC.
In despite of the uncountable lustrations of untold lucubrations to which Spitmarkx’s Ur-Text of lexical ecology has been intensively subject to since its primitive plumation in 1848, a disparity of opinion still obtains in regard to whether Spitmarkx would have us glean the above formula from § 01.03, “Das Wort ist durch die Türspälten bestimmt und dadurch, dass es alle Türspälten sind (The word is determined by the doorcracks, and by these being all the doorcracks — Le mot est déterminé par les interstices sous les portes où la raie de jour avait disparu, et ceux-ci sont tous les interstices sous les portes),” or from § 01.06, “Das Wort zerfällt in Türspälten (The word divides into doorcracks — Le mot se divise en interstices sous les portes).” Nevertheless, consensus reigns as to the interpretation of Spitmarkx’s two conclusions contingent upon the formula above: § 01.04, “Denn, der Gesicht der Türspälten bestimmt, was der Faust ist und auch, was alles nicht der Faust ist (For the face of doorcracks determines both what is the fist, and also all that is not the fist — Or, le visage des interstices sous les portes détermine d’un coup, et ce qui c’est le poing, et tout ce qui n’est pas le poing),” and § 01.05, “Die Türspälten im luftige Rauch sind das Wort (The doorcracks in airy smoke are the word — Les interstices sous les portes dans la fumée aérée sont le mot).”
Furthermore, Spitmarkx (1848) § 01.08, “Was der Faust ist, der Türspalt, ist das Blatt von Sandmustern (What is the fist, the doorcrack, is the leaf of sandpatterns — Qu’est-ce que le poing, c’est l’interstice sous la porte, c’est la feuille dessinée au sable);” § 01.09, “Die Sandmustere ist ein Verhängnis von Gedanken. Schnee, Dächer (Sandpatterns are thoughts’ doom. Snow, roofs — Les sable-dessins sont une fatalité de la pensée. Neige, toits);” and § 01.10, “Es ist dem Dach wesentlich, der Bundtraum eines Sandmusters sein zu können (It is essential to a roof that it can be the league-dream of sandpatterns — Il est essential pour un toit qu’il pourrait être le partouze-rêve d’un sable-dessin)” clearly dislimn for us arist wordism in which word-consumption is characterized by the submission of its objectivity to the dominating subjectivity of word-production, as shown by
WC = SWP/O
while in aerolexist paperism it is word-production’s subjectivity which submits to the domineering impulsions of word-consumption’s objectivity,
WP = OWC/S
prelimned so exultantly by Spitmarkx (1848) in the last plumation of his first arrowscript, § 01.11, “In der Luft ist nichts zufällig: wenn das Dach im Sandmustere verwandeln kann, so muss die Menschlichkeit des Sandmusters im Dach bereits präjudiziert sein (In the air nothing is accidental: if a roof can change into sandpatterns, the humanness of sandpatterns must already be prejudged in the roof — Dans l’air, rien n’est par hasard: si le toit peut se transformer en sable-dessin, l’humanité du sable-dessin devrait être déjà préjugé dans le toit),” which quantally inseminates the remaining complement of his Abbilding’s yazdehanity, to which we harken to refer the inquisitive reader. See you in ILE!
