Gostak distims the doshes

Gostak distims the doshes: a phrase coined in 1903 by Andrew Ingraham.

Nonsense using known syntax and words (Surrealism), and nonsense using unknown words with normal syntax (Carroll),  or nonsense using known words and unorthodox syntax (Crouse), or nonsense using unknown words with unorthodox syntax (Beamer's use of "exotic" symbols). following or not the phonotactics (CVC pattern and variations) of a known language, or just pure gibberish that cannot be spoken, like mojibake. symbols that don't signify beyond the fact that they are marks that don't signify. To have marks that signify the absence of signification is to raise the concept of signification to a paradoxical level. And Pursch is doing it with seemingly normal looking lexis, but whose import remains unknown.

(It) may be argued that no current theory of grammar is capable of distinguishing all grammatical English sentences from ungrammatical ones. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously)

Variations on a ''senseless'' (but not necessarily meaningless) language string: ‘’Colorless green ideas sleep furiously’’ from Chomsky as famous example. Philosophical positivism: we should not use meaningless words... clean up the language.

Nonsense writings. Examples, procedures. Why today's types are asemic, not just nonsensical. Not the opposite of sense, but language artifacts whose sense or nonsense is impossible to declare. They foreground their materiality, their processes, their otherness, their gestural base, their primary nature as acts or events. The delemmatization that is often used to disfigure their solid identities dissolve their forms towards their concrete, nonspecific origins in proto-semiotic environments. Nonsense is not the same as meaningless or asemic.

Two ways of moving towards asemic domain: 1. Senseless sentences and 2. morphemic deformations or violations. The first because the words when added up don’t make sense, the second because linguistic items are subjected to various deformations that we can no longer recognize any normal word or morpheme.

A feverish salad of outlandish word combinations that challenge sense and interpretation. We are no longer in the old realm of explication du texte that wants to tease out the meanings of a piece. The goal of this kind of writing is to map out combinatorial possibilities that have not been allowed or thought of using words that are known or unknown.

Known signs orthodox order, unorthodox order
Unknown signs: orthodox order, unorthodox order
Un/known= statistical, relative familiarity

Signs have lost their center: what restricted their combination;  grammar is arbitrary, linguistic identity or value is also arbitrary. ergo: the entry of aleatory, which is not ''chance'' opposite of order, but open order, an order without a center or a master discourse in place. The massive technology now used to control, restrict, and orient the manipulation of signs is geared toward the production of results. It defines the value of signs in the process. As a new dictator, super AI is always a menacing figure in SF. As the new definer of the real, super AI has usurped human perceptions.

Roughly:

1.   Orthodox syntax with orthodox combination of known words (general prose)

2.   Orthodox syntax with unorthodox to minimally orthodox combination of known words (Margo 1st title, post-semantic)

3.   Un/orthodox syntax with un/orthodox combination of un/known words (Beamer, Margo 2nd title, asemic and post-semantic)

4.   Un/orthodox syntax with un/orthodox combination of known words (general poetry)

5.   Un/orthodox syntax with unorthodox combination of known words (Surrealism, post-semantic)

6.   Unorthodox syntax with some unorthodox combination of known words (Mallarme)

7.   Unorthodox syntax with unorthodox combination of unknown words (asemia, glossolalia, post-semantic, mojibake)

8.   Orthodox syntax with orthodox combination of unknown words (Carroll, proto-semantic, nonsense texts)

9.   Zero syntax with zero combination of known words (Ganick, not asemic but post-semantic or proto-semantic)

10. Zero syntax with zero combination of unknown words (pure metaplasm, asemic and post-semantic)

Meaning can be relatively recognizable up to being severely limited. Unknown words can include any symbol or paralinguistic item.  The distinction between orthodox and unorthodox may not be easy to fix or is dynamic, but doesn't mean the difference is totally unwieldy.  Asemic, post-semantic, proto-semantic (invoking other sources of meaning, sound, tempo, pitch, volume, tone, emphases, etc.)