wabe
grost
borascible
mimsy
corb
slobaciously
borogores
guzzard
himmeltanious
frabjous
beveldric
pomskillious
uffish
treduty
Now look at the three near-English nonsense words below. Which word belongs with which author?
1. slithy
2. dorlim
3. crumboblious
The majority of students correctly matched “slithy” to Lewis Carroll, “dorlim” to Ogden Nash, and “crumboblious” to Edward Lear. Distinctiveness of style in writing near-English does not pertain solely to professional nonsense writers, either. In written exercises, my students created their own original examples of most types of nonsense we studied. In one exercise, students wrote original near-English nonsense sentences. When I compared hundreds of students’ written exercises, it was apparent that an individual’s style of near-English was recognizable, for the various non-English words that the individual created all resembled each other. In other words, a person’s style of near-English is a sort of fingerprint, somehow reflecting that individual’s mind. As we move forward, additional, similar connections between nonsense and the mind will emerge.
exercise
Near-English
A shining flazoma easily turbled five sarbic muffards away.
Some lazy ink trunes spoogled dardly on the green lummuck.
1. Write an original example of a near-English sentence.
2. Introspect, then record your feelings and impressions about this type of nonsense.
The three types that we analyzed up to this point are only a small fraction of the types of nonsense that occur. I found more than seventy types in my own four-and-a-half-decade study of the subject. However, a list of seventy-plus types would be too long for any practical purpose and too difficult to learn or remember.
A system of classification that takes three different levels of nonsense into account is simpler and more comprehensible. First we will consider the structural principle that all types of nonsense have in common. Second, we will discuss how different types of nonsense can be combined. Then, third, we will see how a corresponding type of nonsense can be built around practically any structure of ordinary language.
Nonsense of each type follows some rules and breaks others in its own distinctive combination. The three types of nonsense that we discussed above follow the grammatical rules that govern ordinary sentence structure. That is, categorical nonsense, self-contradictions, and near-English conform to standard grammatical rules for sentences.
Each of these three types of nonsense also breaks some other standard rules and conventions of ordinary language. Hence, categorical nonsense violates the rules and regulations as to which properties belong with which things. A number, for instance, can be large or small, positive or negative, cardinal or ordinal, but it cannot be lazy, intelligent, or self-indulgent, and that makes sentences like “A self-indulgent, lazy 19 greeted an intelligent 7” categorical nonsense.
Self-contradictions violate the basic rules that define making a meaningful statement. A statement says something that is true or false, while a self-contradiction takes itself back and says nothing at all.
In addition to obeying standard grammatical rules of sentence formation, near-English also follows standard phonetic rules of forming English words. However, near-English violates the fundamental rule or convention that when we speak, we use only actual meaningful words with standard dictionary definitions. In sum, categorical nonsense, self-contradictions, and near-English follow some rules of language and break other rules of language, each in a distinctive combination.
exercise
Combining Types of Nonsense
The moping shoes of logic silently screamed chibbled nanks
of colorless blue rainbow food.
Droonly dreaming bread electrically chastled a married bachelor.
1. Write an original sentence combining near-English, categorical nonsense, and self-contradiction.
2. Introspect, then record your feelings and impressions of writing this sentence.
All types of nonsense reflect this same underlying structural formula of following some rules and breaking others in a distinctive and unintelligible combination. That is the universal structural principle of nonsense of all types and the center and circumference of the concept of nonsense itself. In effect, this universal structural principle is what nonsense is—the essence of nonsense. Using this structural principle, we can characterize each distinct type of nonsense by specifying which rules of language it follows and which rules of language it breaks. Each type of nonsense, then, can be designed as a unique and distinctive combination of rule-following and rule-breaking.
Nonsense and Cartoons
Cartooning, too, follows some rules and breaks other rules to create powerful aesthetic and psychological effects. That is, cartoonists follow some rules of realistic drawing and break other rules of realistic drawing to entertain, amuse, inform, and inspire their readers. Nonsense is structurally akin to cartoons, and that reminds us of the affinity mentioned earlier between nonsense writing and cartooning.
Edward Lear, Dr. Seuss, and Shel Silverstein, for example, drew cartoons to illustrate their books of nonsense poetry for children. To say the least, then, it is interesting that these same artists would be talented in two different forms of following rules and breaking rules. At least two familiar types of nonsense occur only in cartoons or in graphic form: mock writing and nonsense letters.