Dear “Editors”,

We would like to alert you to a subterfuge which apparently escaped your notice: namely, that an article recently appeared in Speculative Grammarian, entitled “PIE Is the Only Proto-Language”. As we understand the editorial process in academia, it would normally be expected that persons bearing the title “editor” would actually read materials before they are included in the publication. This you apparently do not do, else you would certainly have noticed the egregious breach of logical thinking which appears in this article.

We refer, of course, to the tense of the verb in the title of this piece.

As PIE is represented in the present merely by a proposed reconstruction, it is not currently a proto-language. Therefore, the use of the present tense verb “is” is, plain and simple, incorrect.

Since you made no attempt to exercise basic editorial control, we are volunteering a bit of our valuable time to demonstrate what a responsible editorial process would look like.

PIE is not a proto-language in the present, so present tense is inappropriate. What (real editors should ask themselves) is appropriate instead?

In fact, English is is not “present” but more precisely “non-past”. And PIE is a reconstruction of a past state of a language. Should the title therefore be framed in past tense, as “PIE was the Only Proto-Language”?

We think not, because (as any real editor might realize) the state of the language which we attempt to describe in a PIE reconstruction was, at its time of existence, not yet a proto language. It was most surely a candidate for such a future status; it would be pure anachronism to recognize the eventual success of that candidacy to apply the label proto to the language in its original state.

The simple fact is that there is no logically coherent verb tense for the title your marketing department chose for this article. We strongly recommend that you either invent one which is appropriate, or print a retraction and revision of the title ASAP.

✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢

Dear Proto–Language Experts,

It’s nice to see such imminent linguists making the time to participate in the vetting of speculative ideas. We understand the value you place on your time, and we thank you for your input.

Of course, we have to note that what we have taken as input is, from your frame of reference, output. You should work on getting better input of your own. (Whether that would be, from our frame of reference, best described as meta-input, pre-input, proto-input, or input² is left as an exercise for the navel-gazing reader/recipient, which you clearly are.)

More concretely, if you want to make it out of your larval stage, you’ll need better input in order to grow properly as linguists. Maybe digest a glossary of linguistics terms, for example. We’re sure you can find one that properly defines proto-language as the actual postulated/reconstructed language, revealing your tense discussion as being a bit too relaxed.

To be fair, Grimm and Rask do play a bit fast and loose with terminology in their article, occasionally conflating the reconstructed map with the linguistic territory. (Of course you get that reference—you lot are always overly influenced by Korzybski... and by Rand... and by misreading Dostoyevsky.) Ask one of your professors to help you identify all the semantic relationships and rhetorical devices at play in Grimm and Rask’s prose. Unless you are still in high school—you are at least in high school, right? Ugh.

❦ ❦ ❦ ❦ ❦

Dear Sirs,

The tone of your recent piece on Sumer is icumen in was frivolous, blithe, trivial and trivialising and, worst of all, banal. Middle English poetry is a deadly serious subject which, despite social prejudice, is colourful (not grey, monochrome and wiltingly moribund), sprightly (not desperately, soul-sappingly dull) and profoundly relevant; it is not, however, grist for the mill of a frivolous editorial.

Let’s treat this subject with the respect it deserves!

✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢

Dear Dullhead,

Page turned.

❦ ❦ ❦ ❦ ❦

Dear Editors,

I am quite unnerved by the “So am I, so am I” attitude demonstrated by Gen-Z generativists concerning whom. Leading experts to Whit Sunday claim immunity from prosecution for morpho­phono­logi­phoria-induced lexicalization. Anti-sustainability-wise, prescriptivists whom I resemble are unimpeachably and exotically esoteric. Thus, given cake, whom should a poor generativist squeeze?

✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢

Dear Jimboree,

Your letter seems to consist of a jumble of randomly selected words. Are you, by chance, a Large Language Model?

❦ ❦ ❦ ❦ ❦

Dear SpecGram,

The “Middle English” poem Sumer is icumen in dates from 4870 BCE, was written in what we now call southern Spain, and refers to the gradual expansion of Phoenician civilization westwards across the Mediterranean. It might be roughly translated as “The Sumerians are coming in.”

✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢

Dear Fun Shun,

The Mediterranean is a relatively shallow body of water—but you’re right out of your depth.

Keep sailing westwards!

❦ ❦ ❦ ❦ ❦

Dear Editors,

You mention yoga classes in your recent—and, I must say, spellbinding—editorial on Sumer is icumen in. While I don’t do yoga classes, I do have some Yoda classes. Is this OK in context?

✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢ ✢

Dear Princess Han 3PO,

There is another!

❦ ❦ ❦ ❦ ❦

Speculative Grammarian accepts well-written letters commenting on specific articles that appear in this journal or discussing the field of linguistics in general. We also accept poorly-written letters that ramble pointlessly. We reserve the right to ridicule the poorly-written ones and publish the well-written ones... or vice versa, at our discretion.

	SpecGram’s Endorsement for President—The Editorial Board of Speculative Grammarian
	/nuz baɪts/
	SpecGram Vol CXCIV, No 2 Contents