But you still don't instill that actual individual in minds, and an actual, non-abstract, particular individual is occasionally crucial to a thought. Without that word you would basically go back to that activity in which pairs of folks try to find out a thing without using words. This is a bit of an auto-proof as I can't say its word.

It's not as if you can simply work around and pick similar words for that individual's particular noun, you miss almost all of a thought by dancing around it vs. using a fast shortcut that quickly aligns thoughts with low odds of ambiguity.

That guy lon. You know, the spacx guy. Oh yah, why didn't you say so? Musk.

I wouldn't say that using a word such as "spacx" is in spirit.

You could point to Mr. Musk by using his South African origins, but also with circumlocutions such as:

Zip2 collaborator

X.com collaborator (by and by, part of PayPal, of which a principal and also a primary joint stock-holding guy, and so an original PayPal Mafia "mafioso")

Mars colony instigator, for which aim's promotion also principal of orbital propulsion firm with first major victory involving launching an orbital craft propulsion unit again and again

Popular luxury voltaic-propulsion motorcar firm kingpin

SolarCity capitalist

Scary fast monorailish-but-not vacuum transport plan originator and champion

Philanthropic patron of folks with a major fascination for AI, apologists for both caution and gusto about it

Boring Company instigator with plans to dig subways in L.A.

plus additional stuff (that guy has had a hand in astonishingly many things...)

But for fact that said individual was said prior, and that I am slightly in a similar domain to him, I would not know which (singular) particular individual half of that points to

I think "had a hand in PayPal, is making cars that run without gas, and wants to go to Mars" is an apt approach for broad public familiarity.

Mars-bound Musk

I am highly in favor of using humorous colloquialization nyms which match anti-fifth-glyph format to point out individuals.

For Musk, ^this nym in particular

This is good! I guess a bit of thought can go a long way toward good workarounds. I'd hazard that it is harder if a taboo glyph is in both particular nouns though.

> It's not as if you can simply work around and pick similar words for that individual's particular noun

We're working with an arbitrary constraint here (and I, for one, am enjoying it, actually); we kind of /have/ to do that. ;)

> you miss almost all of a thought by dancing around it vs. using a fast shortcut that quickly aligns thoughts with low odds of ambiguity.

You seem to forget that we're trying to find clever ways to refer to people and things without using the most common letter in the English language.