Editors of SpecGram,
One of the difficulties with teaching linguistics is coming up with data for problem sets. We of course want the data to be naturalistic, but not too complex or irregular. It feels like a lie of omission to leave out crucial but irregular parts of a paradigm to simplify students’ homework; doubly so when the language source of the data is identified. The last thing we want is for students to feel that they’ve learned a real world “fact” that is untrue.
Dr. H. O’Muerk
Professor of Academic Conundra
Universitas Ūniversa, U.S.S.R.
Dear Doctor O’Buerk,
Recent research by the SpecGram Constlangoleurious Interns indicates that people who disapprove of conlanging are generally motivated by the fear that somebody else is having more fun than they are. In your case, such fears would appear to be entirely justified.
I have some advice for colleagues who want to attract a higher caliber of students to their programs: recruit students from the STEM disciplines. At first blush, it may sound like a hard sell, but point out to them that the big scary “Phonology Filter” they’ve heard about
For those that catch the linguistics bug but can’t fully commit, encourage a double major or at least a concentration in linguistics. Alternatively, lead them toward NLP and AI and point out that they can abandon “real” linguistics for nearly pure statistics (ooooo, machine learning!) for real money at big tech firms after graduation.
Dr. P. Lunder
Dean of Student Acquisition
D\d\dear D\d\das B\b\booty,
Your approach seems illegal, immoral, and fattening
Speculative Grammarian accepts well-