The Garcia-Soma-Thyrring Plurality Postulate
Soma

There once lived a snake-store owner who went by the name of Fishy. Fishy had a terrible stuttering problem, and often had trouble stating large sentences to his customers. No one knew exactly what caused his stuttering, so Fishy resigned to simply using as few words as possible, so as to minimize his embarrassing hindrance. Most people could get through life this way, but Fishy had a store to run. A snake store. A snake store with plenty of types of snakes, and tons of snake tanks (assorted types, even!). Explaining things to his customers usually involved him saying phrases like

"There are many red and blue snakes in all of the tanks."
or
"Pick some of the snakes from the one tank."
or even sometimes
"Chances are you'll be killed by that snake."

Day in and day out Fishy stumbled over these phrases, his stuttering never getting a single moment of clear-spoken rest. At night he had strange dreams, dreams in which he spoke clearly, in which he was a venerable rhetorical master, dreams in which his mastery of speech was not due to something being fixed inside him, but rather that language had shifted and evolved into a more manageable and blissfully useable form!

Well dream no more, Fishy! n-dimensional words are here!

With the recent advent of the Garcia-Soma-Thyrring Plurality Postulate, the oft-neglected links between mathematics and linguistics have been gloriously bridged. This monumental discovery allows the complex and frequently confusing problem of multiple groups of plurality to quickly and easily be expressed through the use of exactly one word! Let me explain.

We all are familiar with the concept of plurality. If I possess one, singular, shining green snake, I say simply that I own a 'snake'. Should I borrow another green snake from my cousin to scare visitors to my home, that would be increased to 'snakes' - two dimensional (normal) plurality. The problem comes when I desire to differentiate between the different types of snakes. Suddenly I inherit two more snakes - a pair of red snakes. How do I clarify to people that when I am talking about my snakes, I am considering the fact that I have not only a pair of green ones, but a pair of red ones as well? Three dimensional plurality!

The secret to the third dimension is easy. You simply add an 'i' to the end of the already-plural word to signify that whatever is before it is plural as well. This signifies that you have more than one 'snakes'. Let me break it down:

First Dimension of Plurality [Singular]
snake
Second Dimension of Plurality [Numerous Singulars]
snake -> (snake) + (s) = snakes
Third Dimension of Plurality [Numerous Groups of Numerous Singulars]
snakes -> ((snake) + (s)) + (i) = (snakes) + (i) = snakesi

To get from a second dimension word to a third dimension word, all you have to do is take the second dimension word (snakes) and add the third-dimension plural ending 'i' to it in order to show that you have more than one 'snakes'. Thus, snakesi means that you have numerous groups of snakes. Bear in mind that snakesi doesn't specify how many are in each group, or even if each of these groups only has one snake in it, only that you have more than one group of snakes.

The fourth dimension follows the same structure as the third, except that instead of an 'i' ending an 's' ending is utilized. This makes for easy remembering - both 'i' and 's' are common endings for plural words in English. In order to pluralize a third-dimensional word, take the word (ending in 'i') and add an 's'. Thus, snakesi becomes snakesis. Broken down:

Third Dimension of Plural [Numerous Groups of Numerous Singulars]
snakes -> ((snake) + (s)) + (i) = (snakes) + (i) = snakesi
Fourth Dimension of Plural [Numerous Groups of Numerous Groups of Numerous Singulars]
snakes -> (((snake) + (s)) + (i)) + (s)= ((snakes) + (i)) + (s) = (snakesi) + (s) = snakesis

The fifth dimension follows the pattern of the third dimension, yielding snakesisi, while the sixth dimension mirrors the fourth, creating snakesisis. This pattern continues up into infinity, yielding such theoretical words as snakesisisisisisisis, which, although they do not have a palpable household usage, could possibly become entrenched in common scientific rhetoric.

Using the Garcia-Soma-Thyrring Postulate, Fishy can now express his thoughts in a much simpler form:

"There are many red snakesi." - now it is clear that he is referring to one type of snake in many groupings [tanks throughout the store].
"Pick some of the snakes." - now it is obvious that the snakes only belong in one grouping [one tank].
"Chances are you'll be killed by that snake" - it is still only one snake. No need to fix the first dimension!

Now, although this system seems plain and simple, there are some irregularities that the user must confront. Simple - incredibly simple - irregularities, but irregularities nonetheless. Under the surface of the ocean lives an animal called the octopus. Whenever an octopus hosts a party, he or she invites all of his or her friends, which creates a number of octopi. What if numerous parties are occurring? How do we pluralize these octopi? The Garcia-Soma-Thyrring Plurality Postulate recognizes the forced and ineloquent stumbling of 'octopii', and states that if a word in second-dimensional plurality does not end in 's', that the third-dimensional 'i' be replaced with an 'o'. Thus, the plural of octopi is octopio, and the plural of that is octopios. Even though a word like 'oxen' does not end in an 'i', it still must be pluralized as oxeno. Nota bene:

Every second-dimensional word ending in 's' is pluralized with an 'i', while ones not ending in 's' are pluralized with an 'o'.

Each subsequent dimension, however, continues to follow its normal rules. Octopiosisis is the correct eighth-dimensional term for an octopus. Although the rulesi are not complicated, the Garcia-Soma-Thyrring Plurality Postulate guarantees that English becomes a more transparent, easily-communicable, and flourishing language - and chances are that the sciences will flourish along with it. We are entering into a Golden Age of communication, an age not yet ushered in, but decidedly beckoned by this newfound discovery.