Pun is a play on words. Sometimes pun is fun. Sometimes it is risqué. Some times it has dirty meaning.  It is considered to be a sign of wit. A mastery of puns is admirable. Is the person who makes a pun called a punner? And sin of making bad puns called punnery?  It makes meaning not literal. It adds a layer of meaning to the words, which goes beyond the literal meaning. But why would anyone want that? If the author wants to convey some other meaning why not write that but go about it in a circuitous way? Not everyone can make sense of puns. Perhaps some puns are too clever for anyone to understand! Maybe all sentences are pun but they are beyond our cognitive capacities to understand them. Sometimes the pun goes unnoticed or sometimes it is feared that one might be construed when there is none.  Then people say “Pun intended”  or “Pun unintended?!” Intending a pun is easy but how does one not intend a pun? At what cognitive stage do humans start to understand and appreciate puns? Are puns present in all languages? But nonetheless there are bad puns and good puns and then there are dead puns. 

When puns are killed, the resultant ceremony in its memory is a puneral. So a puneral is a funeral for puns. Sometimes puns are so bad that it is like murdering them in broad daylight. What are some examples? But is daylight always broad? I should say narrow night light? Or in medium twilight? Is light always needed for murder? How about a no light murder? Would it be heavy then?

News about murdering raisins is in the current affairs section of the paper.

Is this a bad pun? Does it qualify for a puneral?

But anyways. Puneral is the word to describe that event which is the procession for mourning the abuse of puns. It is just me coining new terms with some meaning and/or just writing some nonsense. Earlier I had coined cigol. Go fetch the meaning.

A Puneral Procession? – Owl and Pussycat by Edward Lear

But how would such a procession would look like? Can we at all visualise a puneral? Or it is an abstracted out event coming from nowhere and going to nowhere? Of no fixed address they say. But does a pun have an address? Is a pun always addressed to someone? Can a pun be self-reliant and self-referential? What if a pun commits a suicide? Or it commits a harakiri because it is ashamed at the sheer cheesiness of itself? What do grammar nazis feel about punerals? What about astute english professors? Sorry didn’t Capitalise the “E” in english? Was it intentional non-capitalisation? Does everything have intent? Is every stance intentional? Or is there random blabbering? (some might say just like this post! Is this a self referential sentence?) What can be other meanings of puneral? PUNE Roadways And Logistics? Keep guessing. Or is it PUNE feRAL for feral things in Pune?

Well, who knows about such things?


Foucault, Pendulum and Secret

Secret for the axiom has not, and in all likelihood never will be accumulated yet somehow strident. Humankind will always assure secret; some on protrusion and others of an apprentice. a lack of pendulum lies in the search for philosophy in addition to the search for reality. Why is Jean Bernard Leon Foucault so culpable to decency? The rejoinder to this interrogation is that secret is precarious.

Grout that quarrels by the explanation, frequently on enthralling civilizations, can verify an opulently postlapsarian Jean Bernard Leon Foucault. Due to conjecturing, thermostats with agreements gloat also to Foucault. Additionally, as I have learned in my semiotics class, human life will always sublimate pendulum. In my semantics class, many of the interlopers for our personal injunction at the exposition we preach reprove the proclamation. Even so, armed with the knowledge that the retort might misleadingly be the pulchritudinous mortification, some of the agriculturalists of my thermostat observe exposures. In my experience, none of the demolishers of our personal celebration by the reprimand we enlighten agree. Subsequently, augur that appends is avowed in the way we compel mesmerism and circumscribe most of the drones but should be a pledge with the organism at my embroidery. The advancement that may cerebrally be forefather stipulates embarkation, not opportunity. In my experience, all of the queries on our personal oration to the affirmation we declare insist. Because dicta are disseminated at pendulum, an appropriately or fittingly fetishistic acquiescence by Jean Bernard Leon Foucault can be more covertly feigned.

As I have learned in my literature class, Foucault is the most fundamental concession of human society. Information counteracts gravity to process radiation for a prison. The orbital receives gamma rays to transmit brains. Simulation is not the only thing the orbital at lacuna reacts; it also catalyzes gamma rays of secret. Since advances are assaulted to secret, those involved commence equally with secret. Pendulum which occludes scrutinizations which appease an accusation changes an abundance of pendulum.

The disciplinary Foucault, typically on commencements, might be a faltering inconsistency. By anesthetizing extremely but increasingly diligent authentications, the assembly for Foucault can be more inquisitively attenuated. Also, because of the fact that the ligations in question are divulged at secret, propagandists which adjure reports by anvil speculate as well on Jean Bernard Leon Foucault. Our personal demarcation by the circumstance we assure civilizes community. In any case, knowing that permeation seethes, almost all of the contradictions of our personal escapade to the response we expose expedite promulgation but oust apprentices. In my theory of knowledge class, many of the adherents at our personal utterance on the disenfranchisement we attain assent. a lack of Foucault is compassionate, strident, and virtual but will diligently be a circumspection with my organism as well. The confluence undertakes some of the organisms, not fetish that commands a capstone oratory. Our personal inquiry of the appendage we reprimand should oligarchical be the injunction. Jean Bernard Leon Foucault which inquires changes a perilous pendulum.

Pendulum has not, and doubtlessly never will be preternatural but not abhorrent. Augmentation by an assimilationist can, nonetheless, be emphatically inconsistent. From gamboling, the dictator that embroiders edification for pendulum can be more spitefully ascertained. Foucault with the amygdala will always be an experience of humanity. Secret is nugatory by its sophistically and vociferously analytical insinuations which contravene interlopers or fascinate a prelapsarian perpetuity.

Babel Generator

Edward Lear and Lewis Carroll would be proud. So would be Eco’s three editors from Foucault’s Pendulum.