I was disconcerted to see that you had printed Prof. Wahnsinnbetrunken’s “reply” to my squib on Cat. I like to think of Speculative Grammarian as a journal at the forefront of linguology, morphemology, morphemonomy, and the recently fashionable phonetosemantiscatology. It saddens me to see you stoop to the level of a tabloid or gossip rag in giving voice to cranks and mudslingers like Wahnsinnbetrunken. Since he has taken it upon himself to “call me out”, as it were, I feel it only right that you also print my reply:
First, Wahnsinnbetrunken, “negative one cat” is indeed ungrammatical; you’re just naysaying because you’re a big meanie poopoo head. Furthermore, I’m puzzled that you would refer to my research as “infantile”, when you’re the one who’s a great big wah-
We’re glad to print your reply to Wahnsinnbetrunken, and to give Dr. Wahnsinnbetrunken a chance to respond to you in turn and in kind. It seems he became rather impassioned and fell back to his native tongue, which may well be Lëtzebuergesch.
Weechteegtooir! Seei keein Ideeut! Doo hest eeinee Foorz eem Hurn! Ich peesse-a dur gleeich uns Beein!As best we can tell, via output from our AutoGrammatikon™ quasi-
You think you are hot snot on a silver platter, but you are just a cold booger on a paper plate!
We love to see this level of mature debate. It is this kind of academic give-
To the editors of SpecGram:
How many linguists does it take to pick up a box from the ground?
Dear Ms. Laksmono,
Picking up a box from the ground requires at least
Dear Mr. or Mrs. Editor,
We use “Historicity of Texts and Textuality of History” in my Historical Socio-
We’ve often asked ourselves a similar question. We agree with Editor-
Indeed, the idea that Linguistics is the ultimate field of study was proposed (with evidence) more than 15 years ago by noted scholar of the Linguistic History of Historical Linguistics, I.M. Shirley Wright.
[T]here is a universal trend for highly motivated, hard working people, who tire easily of lesser subjects, to progress along a hierarchy of disciplines, culminating with linguistics.
We believe, and the evidence cited supports the notion, that everything eventually goes back to Linguistics. We also believe, more speculatively, that eventually all fields should and could be integrated into Linguistics. The main problem with the second part of that idea, though, is that historians have a bigger and better funded lobby than Linguists.
Another issue is that if all fields were integrated under Linguistics, then Linguistics itself would, in some sense, lose all meaning because it would refer to absolutely everything. Thus it is possible that the merger has already happened in academic pre-
To the editors of Speclative Gramarian [sic—Eds.]:
One of the linguistics guys at my work was dissing my electronic dictionary because it didn’t have the word “quotidian” in it. I said I didn’t know what that word meant, so I probably didn’t need it to be in my dictionary. He said that was the whole point of a dicitonary [sic—Eds.]. Then he pulled out this big fat book he said was an entomological (sp? Outlook fixed it for me [of course it did—Eds.]) dictionary. It had pages of words I never heard of [of course it did—Eds.] and all this stuff about where the words come from. I told him that seemed kinda dumb. He tried to explane [sic—Eds.] it to me, but I didn’t get it. He said you could explane [sic—Eds.] it to me more better. [Sick!—Eds.]
What’s the dilly, yo?
Dear Dr. Bouffon,
Under no circumstances is it a felicitous proposition to engage in a “my lexicon is more unabridged than your lexicon” altercation with a linguist. They might proffer the Compact Oxford English Dictionary. While it may not impress you, it most unquestionably will give you eye-
That, dear sir, is why it matters.
Speculative Grammarian accepts well-