Quotes—Page 15: 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


Q400. Some of those are too tough for me. I must be dumber than I thought. The cryptogram with the eêés is one in point.

—Tribble


Q399. A puzzle a day keeps the pedant away: This is for just a few of you... yes.. youI’m looking at you.

—jee


Q398. Oh SpecGram, you make my dayevery day! You’re the first thing I read in the morning, and then I feel great for the rest of the day! Rock on!

—Ingeborg Sophie


Q397. I love the about us, but really, what does it say?

—Moira Croley


Q396. As far as I can tell, SpecGram’s current list of authors is entirely made up. Which is a shame, because some time in the past, they had at least some articles written by actual linguists.

—psygnisfive


Q395. Neatness! It made me laugh.

—SelMessitihildi


Q394. This is awesome.

—boy #12


Q393. Telenovelas follow a very similar basic storyline. So the article is saying, they have a verb, where they then give loads of names in a row as objects of this verb, and each fits into the correct place in this schema of a telenovela’s character relationships.

—candrodor


Q392. De a SpecGramből többek között megtudhatjuk azt is, mi fán terem a naiv lingvisztika vagy miért lenne szükség vámpírnyelvészekre.

Dr. Dér Csilla Ilona


Q391. Egyik kedvenc cikkem szerzője a pszichoanalízis és a kognitív nyelvészetegészen pontosan Freud és Lakoffelméletének az összeházasítását kísérelte meg a diszfunkcionális nyelvészet jegyében.

Dr. Dér Csilla Ilona


Q390. A SpecGram, teljesebb nevén a Speculative Grammarian c. online folyóirat igazán szeretnivaló jelenség: remek a címe (hát még a címoldali mottók!), a szerzőgárdája, tudományos paródiáiban pedig nem kímél egyetlen nyelvészeti iskolát sem.

Dr. Dér Csilla Ilona


Q389. Nyelvészhumor: SpecGram

Dr. Dér Csilla Ilona


Q388. Dans la catégorie langage et linguistique ... Speculative Grammarian, “premier journal savant présentant des recherches dans le domaine négligé de la linguistique satirique.”

Sandra


Q387. Fag-satire er moro!

—Tom Vidar


Q386. The perennially hilarious Speculative Grammarian single-handedly makes Linguistics the most exciting science! ... I suggest you start from the beginning and read to the end. Quite possibly the most engaging linguistics journal to ever exist!

Dustin Alfonso Chacón


Q385. The Inebriation Hypothesis: If you’re not a linguistics nerd, you’ll have to trust me. This is hilarious.

Scott Scheule


Q384. Ook mooi

Mark Wijnne


Q383. I loled at the last [article].

nohat


Q382. As said, a before vowels and an otherwise. We know how/when, but not why. ... It’s interesting to know that this was a source of great debate for many years. A lot of people argued that this was anything but phonologically determined, wasting a ton of time and effort. Pay attention to phonology!

Charlie


Q381. How about a mash-up of mythology, cryptozoology and linguistics? Part 1 and part 2.

Scott


Q380. LOL! Der Artikel ist ja hilariös!

André


Q379. This is a good example of how fracturing your thoughts can greatly misconstrue the meaning of your words.

—drsmooth23


Q378. Here is a fascinating article on why Winnie Illi Pu is not quite authentic Classical Latin as the Romans would have written it. I do not agree with the final conclusion though.

Elizabeth J Pyatt


Q377. I read a satirical linguist journal sometimes.

—Ahab


Q376. Loving the new issue of Speculative Grammarianperfectly timed to avoid an essay, as usual!

Marina Lauer


Q375. Speculative Grammarian is a collection of linguistic satire. There is a load of stuff there, but this set of puns caught my eye.

Sean Roberts


Q374. Oh my! Pick Astronomy! Wow! Though Ben Browder just isn’t my type. (Or Physics, even better!)

—Sylvia Sotomayor


Q373. A humorous take on NLP.

—Steven Nunn


Q372. That’s it. No need to synthesize. Now, you damn lazy linguist, go find one of those!

Maju


Q371. [It] reminded me of that genial linguistic magazine: Speculative Grammarian, which I had not read in years. It’s still as good as ever (for an intellectual good laugh).

Maju


Q370. In Soviet Russia consonants palatalize you! I laughed so hard at that.

Mike Aubrey


Q369.Step one: find a native speaker” Amazing!

—F00tnotes


Q368. Neeerdy! yay: “How to do Fieldwork on Proto-Indo-European”.

Rob Brogan


Q367. I love Speculative Grammarian so hard: “How to do Fieldwork on Proto-Indo-European”.

—notthemarimba


Q366. There are many views on this little mark [the serial comma]. Look here to read one solution.

Grammar Police


Q365. SpecGram is full of clever and witty articles on a wide range of linguistics topics and you could be the next illustrious author to be published!

The Underlings


Q364. Stay abreast of breaking research in satirical linguistics with Speculative Grammarian.

Joshua Marker


Q363. It isn’t easy studying linguistics at university. Not only do you have to keep on coming up with creative answers to the frequently asked question, “so which languages do you speak?” (pi?) but often, you can’t even find your textbooks in a library or a bookshop (linguistics books are found variably with the philosophy, modern languages, psychology, science and even new age sections). No matter how many times you explain that linguistics is “the science of language” or that it involves the study of the evolution, structure, form, history, acquisition and variation of language (among other things), you are invariably met with a look of scepticism. “That’s a real subject?”

There is help, however. Or, at least, company. I was in my third year at university when I discovered Speculative Grammarian (AKA SpecGram), a wonderful, hysterical, satirical, online linguistics journal. A fellow linguist (yes, linguist; linguistician is such an ugly word) pointed me in the direction of the Choose Your Own Career in Linguistics page and once I’d stopped laughing, I managed to move my mouse pointer towards some of the earlier issues of the journal and it’s been keeping me in in-jokes ever since.

Bex


Q362. Some of my favourite articles include:
Why Linguistics Is Not a Science and Why Linguistics Doesn’t Care (some variation of the essay title, “linguistics is a science; discuss” was guaranteed to come up in my Ling101 exam).
What Is Linguistics Good for, Anyway? (picking up chicks, apparently; damn. To be followed by Love Queries of a Linguist and How They Do It in Linguistics.
Murphy’s Law as Applied to Field Linguistics (this is why Chomsky wasn’t interested in the language spoken by real people).
Autodescriptives (this will be wholly unfunny to anyone who has no knowledge of linguistic processes but contains a list of words describing sound changes that have themselves undergone the sound change; rhotacism, for example, means “bunging in an extra r sound” so in this article, it is written as rhotarcism. This article was one of my main revision sources before my historical linguistics exam).

Bex


Q361. Jag snubblade över en lite annorlunda handledning på nätet. Den ger tjugo praktiska råd, om inte i konsten att övertyga så i varje fall i konsten att inte svara på frågor. Mycket lämplig för ministrar, ledarskribenter och annat löst folk.

Max Andersson


Q360. Everyone knows that umpteen is 61
or 29,101
or 30,505
or 47,318
or 48,020

—SteveKay


Q359. Poczytaj sobie SpecGrama to się dowiesz/domyślisz. Swoją drogą, strona ta jest po prostu genialna, jakby ktoś jeszcze jej nie znał...

Kwadracik


Q358. LOOOL. ciekawe, czy ta bibliografia jest prawdziwa.

varpho


Q357. Swoją drogą, przypomniał mi się najbardziej leniwy język świata z Gramatyka-Spekulanta.

pittmirg


Q356. I take it you’ve never heard of Palinilap Cimordromic.

—TomHChappell


Q355. Now that we are at the end of the semester some of you may be wondering where a career in linguistics can take you. I urge you not to rule out modelling for book covers. Alternatively, take this illuminating quiz.

Piers Kelly


Q354. Thanks for SpecGram! It’s a great read.

—Arlen Cuss


Q353. Your journal is awesome!

—Laura Aldridge


Q352. To me this feels very judgmental.

Molodoi chelovek


Q351. And how is “euphoniousness” not the epitome of subjectiveness. The only way I can think of that last “measurement” as being in any way scientific is if there were some way to gauge positive mental reactions according to a variety of sounds. Perhaps this is possible, but otherwise the idea of euphoniousness is so absurdly opinion-based that it would be impossible to judge according to the different languages.

Molodoi chelovek


More ...


Last updated Mar. 18, 2017.