I hear that you are trying to offer me some feedback that I can use, Remi, and I thank you for trying. I must confess in response that I have no lead from this feedback. I have gratitude for your effort to respond, and relief that, unlike the feedback from Silverfox, Skep, and DWA which typically is deliberately insulting, your post is not insulting. Nonetheless, I have no idea what to do next -- except wait for your further comments on my distinctions between the often conflated meanings of the words "valid", "logical", "reasonable", and "rational".

One of the issues I have recognized after discussing Eye-Zen English concepts face to face with others is the following. Once we finish our formal education we have formed habits of language use that we now feel entitled to consider both "natural" and socially adequate. Yet most people's education, mine also, did not include any formal study of communications (and of course I do not refer to the physical means of communication such as telephony, digital protocols, etc., but to styles of communication between human beings). Therefore, when we have got used to saying, for example, "I am very frustrated", most of us consider that anyone suggesting that that is not as good as saying "I have frustration now" is behaving much as that "ghastly grammar teacher" whom we resented in our teens for correcting us behaved.

Certainly the emotions in reaction would be similar.

Yet, truth is that I do NOT seek to trigger the same emotions in my interloctors as their grammar teachers did, even if that is what happens -- possibly because some are imagining that that is indeed what I seek.

In truth, I seek a world in which people communicate rather than simply talk at each other using linguistic habits formed in teenage years or in the representation, often hyped or in some other way false, of a commercially self-interested message.

I seek this because (1) manifestly there is miscommunication between Qom and Jerusalem, between Ramallah and Gaza, between virtually every international capital and Jerusalem, between North Korea and Washington, between Islamabad and New Delhi, etc., etc. and also between owners and employees, between buyers and sellers, between parents and children, husbands and wives, siblings, and cousins, teachers and students, etc. etc.; because (2) manifestly this miscommunication is causing misery and death; and because (3) IHXENs and IHYNNs when used conscientiously by people caught in situations of some misery find solutions where formerly they were desperate do produce satisfying results.

So, yes, I can understand, at least in part, why Silverfox, Skep, and DWA feel annoyance when I suggest they try a linguistic that seems unnatural and thus will require some work to see the benefits of it.

Yet, since Homer, Crossbowman, Cadizat, and now you, Remi, have begun to try IHXENs and IHYNNs, and sense the glimmerings of value in their use, I wonder if the negative insults of Silverfox, Skep, and DWA, are only manifestations of scarcely self-aware moods of pride and skepticism, or only echoes of irksome schooldays.

What have they got to lose? Just as significant: what have they got to gain?