“Modern and Historical Graphical Representations of Structural Relationships in Spoken and Written English Sentential Utterances”—by Nattapoŋ Yunloŋ Seuŋyoŋ—Reviewed by the Society for the Topological and Extensional Modelling of Pseudopositivist & Ontological Statements Evaluating UR Research SpecGram Vol CLXXI, No 1 Contents Linguistically-Themed Pseudo-Nihonese Puzzles—Reviewed by Ἔλλειψις Ἀστερίσκος and Ἔλλειψις Ἀπόστροφος

Review!*

Reviewed by Miranda Nuncalea
Departamento de Conocimientos Extraordinarios y Obras Inefables
Universidad Sabelomas
Quito, Ecuador

I am pleased by the opportunity taken here to review this article, as it represents, I believe, my first publication in this not only august but also auspicious journal. I should like to be clear at the outset that I have done all necessary preparation for this debut. Having painstakingly counted the letters in all author(s) names† and cross-referenced these with the birth dates of all editors whose names appear on the cover of the journal, I have used the percentage derived from measurement of my own most favorable latitude divided by the presumed latitude at which the article was published,‡ and thereupon proceeded to add together the number of characters in the article’s URL and cross-tabulate this result with the average daytime high temperature in Quito (71° F) and the melting point of silicon (S)§, the major component of the laptop upon which I shall write this review (1410° C).‖ See figure 1.

I am thus ready to commence, and I thank the editor(s) for this most graciously given occasion.

I should like to declare as boldly as possible that there are, in fact, several premises in this work which appear to me to be statements or propositions from which another follows—or could be inferred as a conclusion, or if you prefer, one might characterize them as assertions which form the basis for the work or theory. Such premises lead the thoughtful reader inevitably to an analysis or proposition which must also lead to an assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion. Herein, of course, lies the quintessence or intrinsic nature and central element of the article’s character. I trust you will be able to see, as I have, that this article never strays far from a kind of meaningfulness which is not only potentially paradigm-shifting but, also, if viewed from another perspective, of little consequence.

Clearly, there is little more which need be said here. I would, of course, be glad to expand, republish or further clarify these remarks should that eventuality arise.


* Honestly, we lost the title of the article being reviewed here, but it seems almost as if it could apply to any article, and so we suggest you take it as an exhortation to spelunk the entire SpecGram Archives. —Eds.

†, ‡, §, ‖, I am not certain whether a convention as mundane as a footnote is desirable in an article review, but in the case that there are any officious unschooled pedagogues assessing this text for publication, I should wish to offer reassurance here that, in a truly scholarly review such as the one before you, minutiae such as measurement scales, accuracy of geographic and other measurements, missing supporting figures, or specificity of knowledge one might glean from reading the article assigned, are, of course, less important than the erudite presentation of theory and elaborate duplication of any and all qualifiers and appositives embedded in complex and, (one is generally given to hope) obfuscatory lexical choice and syntax.

“Modern and Historical Graphical Representations of Structural Relationships in Spoken and Written English Sentential Utterances”—by Nattapoŋ Yunloŋ Seuŋyoŋ—Reviewed by the Society for the Topological and Extensional Modelling of Pseudopositivist & Ontological Statements Evaluating UR Research
Linguistically-Themed Pseudo-Nihonese Puzzles—Reviewed by Ἔλλειψις Ἀστερίσκος and Ἔλλειψις Ἀπόστροφος
SpecGram Vol CLXXI, No 1 Contents