Y so formal ???

for -> form -> formal -> ...
(3 -> 4 -> 6 -> ...)
Imagine it without the 'f'
'or' -> 'or,'m' ->' or,'m','al' -> ...
(2 -> 3 -> 5 -> ...)
Is pattern changing ???
Meaning is changing !!!
meaning to meaningful...
meaningful to meaningfulness ...
or Just reverse!
or vice versa ...
whatever ...
The affinity of 'f' always enhances the process , the process of perception.
Imagine life without 'f'...
'lie'???
Correct !?!
Everything equals to nothing without 'f', if we forecast for forever ...
That's So ...
A wise Geek always formulate a formula to be focused as 'Formal'...
where oral fails , 'formal' flows ...
It seems to be so much magical that even if I'm advocating for 'formal'...
But that's not always the truth ...
On the other hand 'Formality' means you have to compromise with 'Normality'...

"I'm formal,
I'm not normal."

In deep fragmentation form it can be generalized as follows:

"Consider Mr. X is trying for Miss Y.
The first job for Mr. X is to have a f-look(female- look) on him.
How can it be possible ?
Only through a f2f(face to face) communication.
Aerial or facial!!!
Now here comes the problematic process.
The guy has to show his formality in his normality to scale further in the process of enticement.
He has to pass 'Hi' willingly or unwillingly.
He has to smile defying his frowning charm.
The guy has to act 'formal' until gal reacts to the normal.
The side business flourish .
The audience get new 'mashala' to change their taste of eye and ear.
But the gal never get anything except virtual 'formality' in cost of candidness, honesty and essential sassy-ness."
Is the essence of this formal panegyric of 'Formal' passable ?
Think So.
then,

Y S0 'formal'?