I have to object to the assertion made by Prof. Augh (May 2009, SpecGram CLVI.3) regarding the study of natural languages in linguistics. While I’m quite certain he means well, banning natural language research is going a bit far. Surely, students’ access to natural languages should be limited (such is common sense), but there is valuable data to be obtained from the study of all
Dear Prof. Sleikh,
Though we rarely make contact with our authors after their work has been published (for fear that they might demand remuneration, letters of recommendation, lengths of string, etc.), we decided to make an exception with this letter, as your request seems sincere.* Here was the reply we received after several months of waiting:
* In an unrelated matter, thank you, Prof. Sleikh, for your generous donation to Speculative Grammarian! Your tote bag is “on its way”.
To the editors of SpecGram:
How many linguists does it take to pick up a box from the ground?
Dear Ms. Suchin,
If it’s a black box, one linguist can pick it up; no number can, however, open it. If it’s any other color, it isn’t of any theoretical interest.
Speculative Grammarian accepts well-
I’ve recently read of a study (Richard Stephens, John Atkins, and Andrew Kingston 2009; “Swearing as a response to pain”; NeuroReport 20: 1056-1060) that shows that swearing can actually decrease one’s perceived pain and increase one’s pain tolerance. I haven’t heard of any response from linguists on this matter, so I thought I’d ask the editors of the journal I always think of whenever swearing and linguistics come to mind at the same time: Speculative Grammarian.
This is quite an interesting discovery, though in hindsight quite obvious. We wish we’d thought to study it first, so as to bring linguistic fame and worldly fortune to ourselves. Damn. It hurts us deep in our editorial souls that we didn’t pursue this ourselves.
Actually.. it’s a g*dd*mn c**ks*ck*ng shame we m*th*rf**k*ng b*st*rds didn’t get our f**k*ng sh*t together in time to figure this the fr*kk*ng h*ll out before those *ssh*l* c**ts did. F**k*ng t**ts don’t deserve the fr*ll*ng credit. *r*ng*t*n!
Huh. We do feel better.
To the SpecGram Advertising Department,
Why do you continue to allow these shenanigans with Panini Press and Psammeticus Press? Panini has made grandiose claims but published nothing. There is no editor of record, and their ads have been mostly negative attack ads aimed at Psammeticus. Their ad in the last issue demonstrated a level of desperation that is undignified and inappropriate. The good folks at ΨPress seem above the fray, as they should be. Why do you keep allowing these scurrilous accusations to appear in your pages? Why let an incompetent upstart sully the name of your long-
Dear Dr. Academic,
While it is true that Speculative Grammarian is so culturally, historically, financially, and contractually entangled and embroiled with Psammeticus Press, entwined at such a deep and meaningful level, that not even a $1500-
While we can neither confirm nor deny blatant conspiracy theories claiming that SpecGram Editor Emeritus Pulju is engaged with Panini and keeping them afloat by means of his personal fortune, or that the SpecGram Financials Hedge Fund is enmeshed in a scheme to short Panini stock while the SpecGram Ad. Dept. jacks up rates and blackballs Panini among the journal’s contributors, we can state definitively that none of the accusations have been proven.
It is true that SpecGram ad rates have been going up sharply, but only in keeping with recent global economic developments. It is true that PsPress locked in much lower multi-
|An Apology to Mathematicians—A Letter from the Apologetical Editor|
|Lexicalist Sampson Found, Rescued—SpecGram Wire Services|
|SpecGram Vol CLVII, No 2 Contents|