My Dearest Dr. Quagga,
In regards to my recently-
In an unrelated matter, have you had your satellites serviced recently? The LingSTAR J-series are notoriously fickle concerning their GPS positioning.
Thank you for the opportunity to be educated by so eminent a scholar as yourself.
We forwarded your message on to Dr. Quagga, again, in order to allow him to respond directly, again:
Speculative Grammarian accepts well-
Why on earth did SpecGram run an ad for frog food in the last issue? What does frog food have to do with linguistics?
Dear Chico (& the Man),
Okay, so Morgenstern’s Frog Food may not, on the surface, seem like a particularly SpecGram-appropriate advertisement. However, many of Dr. Morgenstern’s lectures are of great interest to linguists. And while the matter of the frog food may be the least linguisticky of the bunch, behaviorism is at least tangentially relevant to linguistics at certain points in the time-
Also, it’s an ad, so it doesn’t have to be perfectly relevant as long as the check clears. (Which it did. Thanks Dr. Morgenstern!)
I am writing to you concerning some much-
According to the words of Grammatikus, the footnote, which mandates the acceptance of the Oxford Comma, was added at a much later date than the original. It is likely that it was put in by those suffering from a form of comical OCD. The fact that it suggests the protest, of “editors,” is proof of it’s more recent insertion into the text, as stone tablet editors had not yet been invented at the time of Moses.
For a moment we were going to seriously consider “you’re” comment, until we noticed your use of “it’s” for “its”
Grammatikus would not be happy to have his words so casually tossed about by a punctuation heretic.