Could someone point me to a ES text that shows MK writing style in a way that is not neologism-laden, Lorkhanily ambiguous, or shows evidence of heavy linguistic digging? If that exists, of course.

PS: I would like to thank you, loregoer that shows me how far someone may dig and decipher a setting's lore. You have been very educational, and certainly entertaining, to me. Is there anything I can do to repay the favor?

Hahahahaha

I like you.

Hah. I'll bite.

http://www.imperial-library.info/content/pocket-guide-empire-and-its-environs-first-edition is written by Michael Kirkbride and Kurt Kuhlmann. It is extremely informative, straightfoward in its language, and forms the basis for probably about half of all we know about Tamriel. It is only "ambiguous" in the sense that it is written from a clear in-universe point of view with motives other than simply informing (in other words, it's propaganda, which also happens to be true in many cases).

The http://www.imperial-library.info/content/imperial-census-daedra-lords is simple and interesting, but should not be taken in isolation. Like the above, it's Imperial in origin.

The http://www.imperial-library.info/content/seven-fights-aldudagga are just really fun, and while just as metaphorically complex as anything else he's written they are also good stories in themself. It reflects on Nordic history and literature and makes a good substitute for the lack of any weighty (read: "MKish") metaphysical texts in TES V. The only thing you might take issue with is the language is unusually vernacular in parts, and more [loreword of great importance]-y in others - partly for reasons of humour, and partly because it's old Breto-Nordic story, written for commoners and not necessarily scholars.

http://www.imperial-library.info/content/lord-vivecs-sword-meeting-cyrus-restless is a good fun tale, although the fact that it's about Cyrus fighting Vivec might be strange enough in itself to relegate it to "dubious authenticity".

Oh, and there's http://www.imperial-library.info/content/cosmology which is there precisely for the purpose of clarifying stuff like the 36 Lessons and Monomyth.

By the way: none of the above are in-game (although the PGE came with the game). If you want in-game ones, it'll take a bit of digging, because MK's style is really the only way of identifying stuff he contributed to in the game - devs don't put their names on stuff unless it's posted online, really. Loads of "simple" stuff from Morrowind is probably by him, but I can't say it is with certainty.

Honestly I think more of them are understandable than not. We Ate to Become, The 36 Lessons, The Loveletter, and the Magne Ge Pantheon are just extreme examples on one side of the spectrum (especially Magne Ge...)

Cosmology is fairly straight forward: http://www.imperial-library.info/content/cosmology

As is Many Headed Talos: http://www.imperial-library.info/content/many-headed-talos

Shor son of Shor may be slightly more obscure, but not really: http://www.imperial-library.info/content/shor-son-shor-full

Also the ones that Umpty already mentioned.

A couple more that I'm pretty sure are by MK, that are in game:

http://www.imperial-library.info/content/varieties-faith-empire (note the name of the author) is, like the PGE, biased but presents a large amount of information which later games have clearly built upon.

http://www.imperial-library.info/content/monomyth your mileage may vary with this one. It's generally clear, and like the PGE its influence cannot be overstated, but tends to deal with big and difficult concepts. If you're familiar enough with the pantheons of Tamriel ("Aedra and Daedra" for beginners, and Varieties of Faith for more depth) it should be straightforward - but it's ambiguous enough that it's still debated today.

The big lore texts from Oblivion (Song of Pelinal, Trials of St Alessia, the Adabal-a, so on) vary in comprehensibility, and I'm not too sure which of them are by MK, but they're worth a look anyway. Would be nice to know.