Nothing but a quimming linguanophile

Posted on Wed 03 Jul 2013 @ 6.41am UTC

THE newest entry in our Glossary page:—

linguist (n)

Related: academic wankery; Adam Henrylingo lolicon; native fluency; peevologist.

A language perversionist (i.e. a pervert all the same):—

“A general term used […] seemingly to refer to one or more of the following: a lazy linguistics student, a pompous polyglot, a commie conlanger, a presumptuous prescriptivist, or any other general Neanderthalic ne’er-do-well.” (O’Wulf, 2011)

In polite society, a linguist is usually given to mean a specialist in linguistics, a perverse (and perverted) artificial construction rooted in Liberal Arts studies (Rushkoff, 2009) but masquerading as ‘the scientific study of human language.’ (Is there any other kind?)

going in dryIn terms of useless WTF-ness, linguistics is the non-monetary and non-monetised (unmoneyed?) counterpart of economics — in that economics (“let’s assume there is competition”) also masquerades as a natural science the likes of physics, biology, chemistry, etc.

Indeed, both linguistics and economics are the Castor and Pollux of the academic world: they try to arrogate immortality by browbeating all known forms of sentient beings (and relegates them as outsiders) through the use of:—

  • impenetrable language (itself masquerading as English),
  • unintelligible, exclusionary discourse,
  • badly produced PowerPoint slides,
  • bullshit charts with non-standard x and y axes, and
  • bullshit circle-jerking rank conformity.

We could just as well summarise all that like this:—

“For one day, when amusing herself with this whim: The carrot it snapped, and part stuck in her quim.”
— James Joyce, Ulysses (1922), page 938

If economics really is “the TECHNOLOGY of SOCIAL science” (Richardson, 2001), then linguistics has to be the technologicalisation of social language studies. In both fields, “properties are determined by and limited only by the beliefs of the ‘players’ ” (Richardson, 2001).

It’s not even pseudo-science, whichever way we look at it, for pete’s sakes! You just foot the bill with economics, and get the boot with linguistics — in spite of the spirited (read: raging) assertion down your throat from 99% of linguistics (and economists) that their fields ARE science.

mewling quim bangle


James Joyce, Ulysses (Paris, France: Sylvia Beach, 1922; ISBN 0-679-72276-9).

B.E. O’Wulf, “Hu ða Æþelingas? or, Who are the Linguists?—A ‘Monolingual’ Analysis,” in Speculative Grammarian, November 2011, vol. CLXIII [163], no. 2.

R.H. (Dick) Richardson, Economics is NOT Natural Science! (Austin, Texas, USA: University of Texas, School of Biological Science, 28 Jan 2001).

Douglas Rushkoff, “Economics Is Not Natural Science,” in Edge, 11 Aug 2009 (USA: Edge Foundation Inc.)


© Learn English or Starve, 2013.

Images: Going In Dry via cap-that-king-hiddles. Mewling quim bangle by emerydrive via Etsy.

Posted in: Colour Section