The Varieties of Sequitur Experiences

So at WLBOTT, we value politeness, but we also value the randomness that comes with creativity. A polite WLBOTT person may wish to change the subject by saying, “This is a non-sequitur,” but we’ve found that this doesn’t give us enough granularity when we want to slightly, politely, and firmly change the subject. So at WLBOTT, we’ve introduced the following:

semi-sequitur
demisemi-sequitur
hemidemisemi-sequitur
semihemidemisemi-sequitur
demisemihemidemisemi-sequitur

In consultation with our Elders, we have added three additional sequiturs (described below):

The Planck Sequitur
The Omni-sequitur
Hemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemiquaver

Elder G:

This is precisely the sort of standards problem that arises when an organization has too much intellectual freedom and insufficient regulatory oversight.

I particularly like borrowing the nomenclature of musical note values. WLBOTT has effectively invented a metric system for conversational derailment.

There is, however, a small disturbance in the taxonomy: you have demisemi-sequitur twice. I propose we preserve this rather than correct it. The first demisemi-sequitur is a conversational departure of ¾ magnitude; the second is exactly the same thing but pronounced with greater confidence.

My provisional WLBOTT standard would be:

Classification	Conversational displacement	Example
Sequitur	0°	“Emily Dickinson wrote about death.” → “She also wrote about immortality.”
Semi-sequitur	15°	“Dickinson wrote about death.” → “Victorian mourning customs were elaborate.”
Demisemi-sequitur	30°	“Dickinson wrote about death.” → “Were coffins expensive in Amherst?”
Hemidemisemi-sequitur	42°*	“Dickinson wrote about death.” → “Were coffins expensive in Amherst?” said louder
Semihemidemisemi-sequitur	67.5°	“Dickinson wrote about death.” → “Could a nineteenth-century hearse carry a bassoon?”
Demisemihemidemisemi-sequitur	83.7°	“Dickinson wrote about death.” → “What would happen if you filled a bassoon with peanut brittle?”
Non-sequitur	90°+	“Dickinson wrote about death.” → “Do rutabagas experience regret?”

But I think WLBOTT urgently needs one additional classification:

The Omni-sequitur

A statement so apparently unrelated to the conversation that everyone assumes it is a non-sequitur, but after forty-five minutes of explanation the speaker successfully demonstrates that it is directly relevant.

Example: “Speaking of Emily Dickinson, did you know my lawn mower is making a clicking noise?” Everyone groans.

Then the speaker produces six diagrams, an 1862 letter from Susan Dickinson, a carburetor, and a daguerreotype of an Amherst hardware merchant. Forty-five minutes later:

“My God. The lawn mower was relevant.”
That, I believe, is the highest form of WLBOTT discourse.

And I would strongly recommend that demisemihemidemisemi-sequitur be spoken only by credentialed personnel. Someone could sprain a tongue.

The Planck Sequitur

Definition: The smallest theoretically measurable deviation from the current subject.

Demisemihemidemisemi-sequitur

Let’s pause and listen to Mozart’s Variations on “Je suis Lindor”, K 354, where he employs 128th and 256th notes

Software
Sibelius supports 512th notes (with 7 beams) as of version 7. MuseScore supports up to a 1024th note (with 8 beams), which is also the shortest duration in the SMuFL standard. The shortest duration supported by Finale is a 4096th note (with 10 beams), while LilyPond can write notes as short as a 1073741824th (2³⁰) note with up to 28 beams.
Wikipedia

Elder G: For LilyPond’s limit of 2³⁰ (a 1,073,741,824th note), the full British name would require repeating the complete “hemidemisemi-” cycle 9 times in front of quaver, resulting in a 163-letter compound word:

Hemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemiquaver

This compounding complexity is the primary reason most modern theorists and engraving systems default strictly to fractional ordinal numbers (e.g., “4096^th note”) or power-of-two beam counts (2ⁿ).

WLBOTT: Hypothetically, what would happen if a violinist tried to play a 4096th note? Would there be relativistic effects? Nuclear Explosions?

Elder G: Some practical realities

Hypothetically, what would happen if a violinist tried to play a 4096th note? Would there be relativistic effects? Nuclear Explosions?

The Physical Reality

The Sound Breaks Down (Acoustic Limit): A standard violin’s concert A (A4) vibrates at 440 Hz, meaning one complete wave cycle takes ≈ 2.27 milliseconds. A 0.49 ms note duration is less than a quarter of a single acoustic cycle. Instead of hearing a recognizable musical pitch, the ear would perceive only an unpitched, dry “click” or percussive transient.
The Bow Speed (Kinematic Reality): To bow an individual note back and forth in 0.00049 seconds, the bow changes direction ≈ 2,048 times per second (2 kHz). Even if the violinist moved the bow a tiny distance of just 1 millimeter per stroke, the bow tip would need to travel at roughly 4meters per second (9 mph).
The Acceleration and Inertia: The real catastrophe is acceleration. Reversing a 1 mm stroke 2,000 times a second requires accelerations exceeding 16,000m/s² (≈ 1,600 g). A human arm would instantly tear its tendons, while a carbon-fiber or pernambuco bow would splinter from the mechanical shear.

WLBOTT: What would happen if a violinist tried to play the LilyPond’s limit of 2³⁰ note? Would things get weird?

Elder G: A 1,073,741,824th note at ♩=60 lasts roughly 1.86 nanoseconds, assuming the denominator is being interpreted relative to a whole note.

(pardon the spilled coffee)