Dear editors, I would like to ask Jonathan van der Meer whether he is Dutch, and what effect Dutch accents have on picking up dates in the US (assuming he lives in the US, as implied by his easy strewing-around of shockingly high coffee prices in NYC). I can easily pull off a very heavy and very lifelike Dutch accent, and would like to know what is likely to happen if I tried. Also, would you please publish another list of people portrayed in the front cover pictures? I am frustrated every month as I realize these people were probably real linguists, and I don’t have a clue who they are. Kind regards and thank you for the regular laughs, Nynke —— Dear Nynke, Señor van der Meer is from the American South and has a native Southern Drawl. We’re sort of afraid to dig too deeply into his past in general and specifically whether he uses his real name. He definitely does not have a Dutch accent. If you use your Dutch accent when trying to pick up dates in the US, let us know how it goes! (A thought, though: most Americans probably couldn’t reliably identify a Dutch accent. Alas, we’d bet money on most of them not being able to connect “Dutch” and “The Netherlands”.) As for recent linguists featured on the cover, here’s the list beginning in 2008: CLIII.3: Ludwik Łazarz Zamenhof CLIII.4: Berthold Delbrück CLIV.1: Keith X. Slater CLIV.2: Wilhem Bleek CLIV.3: Lucy Lloyd CLIV.4: Edward William Lane CLV.1: Ivar Aasen CLV.ε: Charles Hockett CLV.2: Carl Magnus Zander CLV.3: Timothy K. Pulju CLV.4: Antonio de Nebrija CLVI.1: Benjamin Ide Wheeler And, of course, Jules Oppert is on the cover of the current issue. —Eds. ********** In his recent article, No Escape From the Bremley Bump, Milton B. Radley wrote: I will scream in agony if I read or hear anyone summarizing this paper as, “Radley argues that ‘linguists’ have missed the entire point of language and linguistic analysis by unifying the goalie and the bumping mechanism.” —— Dear Editors, With respect to Radley’s recent article, “No Escape From the Bremley Bump”, Radley argues that ‘linguists’ have missed the entire point of language and linguistic analysis by unifying the goalie and the bumping mechanism. What balderdash! Xixi Yuri Zane —— Dear SpecGram, My only comment after reading “No Escape From the Bremley Bump” is that Radley argues that ‘linguists’ have missed the entire point of language and linguistic analysis by unifying the goalie and the bumping mechanism. What schizophrenia! Alex Blythe Carey —— Dear Eds, I just finished reading “No Escape From the Bremley Bump”, and all I have to say is that Radley argues that ‘linguists’ have missed the entire point of language and linguistic analysis by unifying the goalie and the bumping mechanism. What haberdashery! Parker Quinn Rowan —— The author, Milton B. Radley, Ph.D., replies: Rrrrraaaaaauugh! -MBR ********** We received a considerable amount of mail about the recent announcement concerning Panini Press. Below is a representative sampling. —Eds. ********** To the Editors of Speculative Grammarian, I was rather disturbed by the attack ad placed by Panini Press in your last issue. It’s one thing to criticize your competition, but quite another to resort to ad hominem smears against the editors of such a prestigious publishing house. I also resent the implication that authors published by PsPress are somehow of a lesser quality. And I see you’ve given Panini their own home page on your website. What gives? Sincerely, Constantine Köprülü (author of Linguistic Linguistics: An Intradisciplinary Introduction) —— Con$t¥, bab¥! It’$ ju$t bu$ine$$. The world i$ more than big enough for two powerhou$e a¢ademi¢ lingui$ti¢$ publi$her$ (and even $everal $maller a¢ademi¢ publi$her$, too, like Benjamin$, Cambridge, £in¢om, Mouton, Oxford, $pringer, and the re$t of the little gu¥$). $o don’t get ¥our kni¢ker$ in a knot. P$ammeti¢u$ and Panini are both our publi$hing partner$ now. There’$ more than enough $pe¢Gram publi$her lovin’ to go around. —The SpecGram Accounting Dept. ********** Dear SpecGram, I read your recent announcement re: Panini Press with great interest. Finally, real linguists will have an outlet worthy of our genius! I’m already preparing a manuscript for publication, and am looking forward to the first PP publications. And while I bear no malice towards Psammeticus Press or their editorial staff, I will say that it seems to me that the PsP editorial staff is nothing but a bunch of rank lexicalists who deserve to be neutered and potty-trained like the dogs they are! With Respect for Both Publishing Houses, Alec Marantz —— Dear SpecGram, I read your recent announcement re: Panini Press with great disgust. The gall! I am—and always have been—a fair man, willing to let every side have its say, but if you or anyone else lets the PP editorial board (an obvious band of lexicalists, if I’ve ever smelt one!) publish even a single word, it will not only drag down the field of linguistics as a whole, but it will once and for all pull asunder Speculative Grammarian itself! I for one will not sit idly by, and will do everything I can to aid the editorial staff of Psammeticus Press in its quest to bring about the utter and total destruction of this upstart, caninical publishing house! With Undying Respect for All Parties Concerned, Ima Morontz —— Dear Mssrs. MVrVntz, Thank you for your insightful words. We here at SpecGram appreciate the opportunity to air fair and balanced opposing viewpoints from our readers and subscribers, especially those that point out the dangers of lexicalism while threatening the downfall of our cherished institution. —Eds **********

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.

	“A Linguist’s Life is Pretty Dull”: A Letter from the Editor-at-Bat
	ODE TO ALCUIN—ANONYMOUS
	SpecGram Vol CLVI, No 2 Contents