With the piquant poignancy of lurid allusion
I create a dynamically progressive matrix of collusion
Whose apex crux axis is beyond finite solution
And the endergonically adhesive pragmatics imbue a cohesively coercive illusion
For the inveterate hypotaxis of livid elusions
I portray a protensive conjunction of latent confusions
Whose effervescent effluence is vagile laconic effusions
And the sardonic impending preponderance conveys sabbat consortium delusions
From the endemic puissance of eclectic synectics
I derive a dialectically semantic sorcery of syntactics
Whose apothegm aphorisms are levity terse synaptic's
And the lucidly collusive illuminisms educe the aesthetics of geomancy fatidics
Through the viable salience of kithe's intrinsics
I exude a portentous pervasion acuity of linguistics
Whose apomixes anabolics are irrefragably felicitous orotund acoustics
And the aural auspice austerities infer axioms of manumission's eidetics
By the hypercritical mitigations of anachronistic sociology
I purvey rampart ransack oblations of epistemology
Whose azure opulence articulations are futurity ostensive ontology
And the evolutional ontogeny metamorphisms incur a homogeny epiphany deontology
Yeah Monad, Outlaw's reply is almost identical in nature to that other one, in length too. You shouldn't take this too personally though. This comes from him not understanding your words. He's like a Texan hearing a strange language and thinking that they are talking about him. :) Then raising his fist and screaming: Damn foreigners! Haha! I got a couple of bad comments too but it was no surprise for me as they were mad because I commented on their poems first and they didn't like what they read so it was a sort of retaliation. Although it was totally uncalled for. I try to be honest in my critiques but I never make it personal, on any level. I didn't even get mad over it. I see it like this: if in like 200 replies I got on this site 2 of them were like that and the others mostly positive or constructive at least, that represents just the 1% of people on this planet who are total assholes and cannot get along with anybody. There are people like that, there's not much we can do about it, just try to ignore them...
Again, with the dictionary!
I must admit, I'm too tired to look up all the words, but I did a bit of guessing, and it seems to be good satire.
I had a nasty jolt when misreading epistemology as episiotomy, but that may be a personal issue.
Otherwise, it was a fun wordplay.
I'll return for a closer look when armed with more vigor and a dictionary. ;)
To be honest, wtf? I get most of these words, some are new, some I almost refuse to believe in -- yet, I see more dilution here than I do cogent communication. The cognoscibility of your imagery is nigh naught, and that exponentially so as the poem is understood more wholly.
To be frank, this is what your poem reads like to me:
(transitive) the (word) (word) of (word) (word-rime)
I (verb) a (word) (word) (word) of (word-rime)
who's (word) (word) (word) are/is (word) (word) (word-rime)
and the (word) (word) (word) (logical connector) a/the (word) (word) (word-rime)
What makes this even more astounding an observation is the fact that some words don't even work syntactically are levity terse synaptics being a fine example. Of course, here you could argue that poetry is no confined to syntax -- to which I might say, why does language have syntax at all? So that combinatorial agglomerations of words make sense. More over, I would suggest you use whose instead of who's because in all cases you're talking about qualities belonging to the foregoing. Also in the above scheme, it looks like you just picked a word, filtered it through a thesaurus and picked out words.... Why do I say this? Apothegm aphorisms, for example, is REDUNDANT. It's like saying "I ate a small petite minuscule minute apple this morning" -- all to say that redundancy generally implies ineptitude in that whoever is being redundant doesn't truly understand the nature of the words he or she is using. If you'd argue mastery on this point, then I'd say you have absolutely no [censored] clue what you're talking about, period.
In short, I think your poetry is absolute bull[censored], and I honestly think you're just trying to jerk people around while hiding behind esoteric and abstruse words. I don't even see how that could be fun, unless you derive some kind of pleasure from wasting time -- but that doesn't really involve any wit, because everything wastes a certain measure of time.
Thanks monad it makes sense. Although my spellchecker gave up on me, I get the drift of the inclinations towards illusions and matrix syntax and so forth.
Although I donít really subscribe to pantheism as general rule to live by, I derive from its a certain dialectically (diabolically inclined) semantic sorcery of syntactics which the sardonic impending preponderance conveys sabbat consortium delusions which maybe frowned upon as such by religious enterprises but in reality do convey an apex crux axis that is beyond finite solution.
Well this is astoundingly spectacular and very very spell-bound. Good stuff. jm