I would like to ask Jonathan van der Meer whether he is Dutch, and what effect Dutch accents have on picking up dates in the US (assuming he lives in the US, as implied by his easy strewing-
Also, would you please publish another list of people portrayed in the front cover pictures? I am frustrated every month as I realize these people were probably real linguists, and I don’t have a clue who they are.
Señor van der Meer is from the American South and has a native Southern Drawl. We’re sort of afraid to dig too deeply into his past in general and specifically whether he uses his real name. He definitely does not have a Dutch accent. If you use your Dutch accent when trying to pick up dates in the US, let us know how it goes! (A thought, though: most Americans probably couldn’t reliably identify a Dutch accent. Alas, we’d bet money on most of them not being able to connect “Dutch” and “The Netherlands”.)
As for recent linguists featured on the cover, here’s the list beginning in 2008:
CLIII.3: Ludwik Łazarz Zamenhof
And, of course, Jules Oppert is on the cover of the current issue.
I will scream in agony if I read or hear anyone summarizing this paper as, “Radley argues that ‘linguists’ have missed the entire point of language and linguistic analysis by unifying the goalie and the bumping mechanism.”
With respect to Radley’s recent article, “No Escape From the Bremley Bump”, Radley argues that ‘linguists’ have missed the entire point of language and linguistic analysis by unifying the goalie and the bumping mechanism. What balderdash!
My only comment after reading “No Escape From the Bremley Bump” is that Radley argues that ‘linguists’ have missed the entire point of language and linguistic analysis by unifying the goalie and the bumping mechanism. What schizophrenia!
I just finished reading “No Escape From the Bremley Bump”, and all I have to say is that Radley argues that ‘linguists’ have missed the entire point of language and linguistic analysis by unifying the goalie and the bumping mechanism. What haberdashery!
The author, Milton B. Radley, Ph.D., replies:
We received a considerable amount of mail about the recent announcement concerning Panini Press. Below is a representative sampling. —Eds.
To the Editors of Speculative Grammarian,
I was rather disturbed by the attack ad placed by Panini Press in your last issue. It’s one thing to criticize your competition, but quite another to resort to ad hominem smears against the editors of such a prestigious publishing house. I also resent the implication that authors published by PsPress are somehow of a lesser quality. And I see you’ve given Panini their own home page on your website. What gives?
It’$ ju$t bu$ine$$. The world i$ more than big enough for two powerhou$e a¢ademi¢ lingui$ti¢$ publi$her$ (and even $everal $maller a¢ademi¢ publi$her$, too, like Benjamin$, Cambridge, £in¢om, Mouton, Oxford, $pringer, and the re$t of the little gu¥$).
$o don’t get ¥our kni¢ker$ in a knot. P$ammeti¢u$ and Panini are both our publi$hing partner$ now. There’$ more than enough $pe¢Gram publi$her lovin’ to go around.
I read your recent announcement re: Panini Press with great interest. Finally, real linguists will have an outlet worthy of our genius! I’m already preparing a manuscript for publication, and am looking forward to the first PP publications. And while I bear no malice towards Psammeticus Press or their editorial staff, I will say that it seems to me that the PsP editorial staff is nothing but a bunch of rank lexicalists who deserve to be neutered and potty-
I read your recent announcement re: Panini Press with great disgust. The gall! I am
Dear Mssrs. MVrVntz,
Thank you for your insightful words. We here at SpecGram appreciate the opportunity to air fair and balanced opposing viewpoints from our readers and subscribers, especially those that point out the dangers of lexicalism while threatening the downfall of our cherished institution.
Speculative Grammarian accepts well-