Of the many linguistic theories to have been put forward to explain the singular stylistics of academic theory, none have been as controversial as n-Bar Theory. This theory proposes that all academic research in the social sciences and humanities is the result of the ongoing cerebral effects of the presence of researchers at n bars, where n corresponds to the number of facilities serving dilute dicarbon pentahydrogen hydroxide to said researchers.
n-Bar Theory has at long last satisfactorily explained the dramatic positive correlation (R = 0.96, P < 0.000002) between campus size and the number of such establishments within staggering distance of the main administrative buildings on campus.
Despite the controversial nature of n-Bar Theory, and its small number of adherents, there is a deep philosophical division among followers that has split proponents into two camps. One group seeks to more quickly gain acceptance of the theory by declaring the above-
“In fact, my research has shown that the presence of academic institutions is predicated upon the existence of nearby distilleries and mead distribution centers,” claims Nathaniel Barleycorn of the International Philolinguological Association of Chico, California. “Furthermore, the relative prestige of a given academic institution is directly proportional to the distance one has to stagger in order to get to a public house from any point on campus, traveling in any direction.”
It should be noted that, contrary to popular belief, m—bar theory is neither an approach in opposition to work on n-Bar, nor one formed later as an explicit reaction to it; rather, it began merely as a slightly reduced version of it that did not require quite so many notational shifts, and whose formalism was easier to read in dimly-
A competing theory entitled Universal Glugger claims that it is not the specific nature of the fluids imbibed that makes a difference but merely the action used to imbibe them. Thus, those who receive any liquids while sounding unvoiced sibilants tend towards having fewer academic ideas in the above fields than those who drink liquids while making sounds with more of a /ɠʌᵑʛʌᵑɠʌᵑʛʌᵑ/ nature. Results also show that academic output in the humanities is also positively correlated (R = 0.98, P < 0.00001) with the subsequent emission of repeated rectal plosives (cf. Clover’s “Ruminating on Consonants”, SpecGram CLXIV.1).
Despite the near-
While gesticulating wildly to make a point, one of the syntacticians knocked a pitcher of beer out of the hand of a nearby member of the ΣΟΒ fraternity. Within seconds, as predicted by n-Bar Theory, the entire pub was consumed in fisticuffs. A mere two weeks later, the linguists who had been in the bar were quite happily able to publish a squib in Language about their experience.
“LMFAO! It’s like... they all, like, thought that scene was like all our fault, dude, and they were all: ‘you guys party too much so this is like super awesome,’ ” said undergraduate business/
Indeed, Kip. We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.