Finally, an opportunity to up my post count a bit. Frivolous, no doubt.
A guy known as "Bob" Anton Wilson talks of a linguistic construction that omits a grammatical form known as a copula. I cannot say its "nom" without violating stipulations of this particular word-play. (Sadly, Bob will not walk with us again -- to coin a circumlocution. Complications from polio did him in. Bob was a big fan of philosophy and marijuana and various twists of mind.) By not using a copula, you must put a lot of thought into what you want to say and how you say it. This aids clarification of various and sundry abstract topics. This notion was put forth by D. David Bourland, Jr. (1928–2000), who was taught by Korzybski.
Obviously, this post fails to follow both conditions -- "was" is a form of a copula -- and so is "is".
What do you think of that? Probably not much -- right?

