Quotes—Page 2: More of What People are Saying

Here are a few more of our favorite things people have said about Speculative Grammarian over the years, collected wild on the internet, or domesticated in email.

Jump to page:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22


Q1014. How grammar is taught in school (or how Strunk & White teach style).

Alessandra Zarcone


Q1013. Speculative Grammarian: A language Tumblr with a satirical twist for the common lexicographer.

Tumblr Staff


Q1012. I have the book which has this and it was super fun.

V.


Q1011. It’s funny 😊

Pauline


Q1010. I’ve always hated the “untranslatable words” blog posts that crop up, that ... is really funny satire.

objectlesson


Q1009. Oh my god.

The data shows that articulators are used.
....well, you’re not wrong....
—severy


Q1008. Apparently there’s a comedy magazine about linguistics? I like the cartoon featured in this month’s issue of Speculative Grammarian.

Andrew Toskin


Q1007. Not only badling, but badhist as well. kek. ... Those were truly untranslatable words. I didn’t even bother reading them.

clausangeloh


Q1006. Warning: SpecGram is addictive for linguists.

Jonathan Downie


Q1005. Take that, non-linguists of the world. :-)

Zingword


Q1004. I’m not so sure about constlangoleur, but if you shorten it to conlangoleur, I think I like that better than conlanger. That should catch on.

—Elinnea


Q1003. *blinks multiple times*

Huw James


Q1002. SpecGram is amazing. My favorite is the recurring Things You Didn’t Know You Didn’t Know (Because They Aren’t Actually True), featuring purportedly real quotes from real student work by real college students. There’s one in particular, a test question asking about phonological processes/allophony, that has some particularly hysterical answers. Here’s an example, but if you search “ten dots” in the archive you can find others.

It’s a marvelous magazine.

—alynnidalar


Q1001. Want to understand the reviewer feedback on your last journal paper? This is a useful guide.

Jonathan Downie


Q1000. Hoe verhoudt linguïstiek zich tot andere wetenschappen? Goede cartoon.

sonja barentsen


Q999. I don’t think that linguists “ought to” know multiple languages per se—but the reason the comic doesn’t ring true is that linguists are reminded, upon hearing this question, of the fact that they would undoubtedly be better at their jobs if they did know more languages.

—JS


Q998. I’m loving some of this. Specially the one that says “bring a weird grammar”.

—Irkan


Q997. Knowing lots of languages is probably not a job requirement for a linguist, however I can think of one very famous linguist who would be a lot better off if he knew a couple of languages other than English. Especially ones that are as dissimilar from English as possible.

—John Roth


Q996. Should have stuck with philologist instead of trying to change the meaning of linguist, eh?

—Karen


Q995. I get good results from asking a philosopher “What’s the big idea?”

—Dan Lufkin


Q994. Linguists’ revenge to the old chestnut “so, how many languages do you speak?”

Cath Cellier-Smart


Q993. D’après Levi-Strauss, les anthropologues feraient de la #LinguistEnvy comme les linguistes font de la #PhysicsEnvy.

Cruel & Unusual


Q992. And then there’s the ethical aspect: How many languages are German, Dutch, Afrikaans, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian? I usually say 2½. If it were Iceandic, Basque, Mandarin, Urdu, Tongan and Quechua then it really would be six.

—Dan Lufkin


Q991. Salvete! This month’s Speculative Grammarian (an online satirical linguistics journal) has an article on Latin that I found amusing.

sumelic


Q990. I don’t get the comic. Are linguists asking these questions based on what the words’ roots literally mean? Because then it doesn’t make any sense. X-ologist is someone who studies X, not someone who has many things that have to do with X. Anesthesiologist is the closest one to make any sense, but it is still “one who studies not feeling”, not “one who doesn’t feel”.

—BZ


Q989. Speculative Grammarian: satirical linguistics articles, including a “choose your career in linguistics” link that guides you to your future!

Northeastern University Linguistics


Q988. I have introduced my colleague to the SpecGram podcast, specifically Language Made Difficult. I apologise in advance!

Jonathan Downie


Q987. So what wine does pair well with linguini?

—Mark Anderson


Q986. Scientists Discover New Case System. #brilliant

Shlomo Argamon


Q985. The first question I ask a linguist is, “Are you cunning?”

—Ralph Hickok


Q984. Maybe you should call yourselves ‘languagists’ instead?

—Philip


Q983. This is an awesome take on a classic math joke: how do subfields of linguistics prove numbers to be prime?

michiexile


Q982. I very nearly just took @SpecGram seriously without realising it. Writing this essay will be the end of me...

Dan Jordan


Q981. The greatest mistake across all disciplines is taking ourselves (and our positions) far too seriously. Enjoy! Disclaimer: I haven’t proofed the diagrams against the sources cited. Rely on them at your own risk. ;-)

Patrick Durusau


Q980. Wait wait wait... Let’s get to the real issue here. The author’s name is April May June and she is a Freshman in Elementary Education.

notadialect


Q979. “Hmm taalkundige, hoeveel talen spreek je dan?” #linguist #strikeback

Sanne Berends


Q978. Brilliant#linguists strike back!

Anson W. Mackay


Q977. For the non-linguists among us, speaking lots of languages is something awe-inspiring. And the fact is that lots of linguists are indeed polyglots. So while I like to think that I wouldn’t be crass enough to ask the question, I can understand the instinct, and I think it comes primarily from admiration and envy.

—Pflaumbaum


Q976. I doubt people really know what marine biologists, opthamalogists or anesthesiologist actually “do,” either.

—Jeff B.


Q975. We know that speaking lots of languages is a superpower we don’t have. We feel admiration or envy. On the other hand, we don’t know what linguists do. We suspect linguists may pretend to the scientific study of language without knowing languages. We find this possibility funny. We don’t realize that the study of language has nothing to do with actual languages.

—John Swindle


Q974. Interesting that no-one has raised the point that perhaps linguists really ought to be able to speak more than one language....

—Martin Ball


More ...


Last updated Mar. 18, 2017.