Why I never write about linguistics

It is thoroughly impossible for me to make linguistics sound interesting to anyone who might theoretically read this blog. Most people who manage to find their way to this place are either name Sarah or Karen, and to everyone else I say: I’m sorry. Wait, even to Sarah and Karen I give my apologies. I don’t like to think as I write these stupid things, I just let the words vomit out of my brain without checking to see what the chunky stuff is.

And writing about linguistics requires examining the chunky stuff. I dont like to do that more often than I have to. The chunks are smelly and ill-formed. And considering my two readers will probably have no idea what I am talking about, I figure why bother? It’ll just make me sound snooty.

Nevertheless, linguistic brain vomit is a huge part of my life nowadays, so I think it would be kind of ingenuous if I didn’t mention it even a little.

I think Chomsky has gone off his rocker, and not in the Dumbledore way. I am neither the first nor the most eloquent to express such an opinion, but since I am in the middle of procrastinating for my Government and Binding Theory class, I seriously have to just take a moment to say: wtf, Chomsky. W. T. F?

Now I know you’re a smart fellow. The field of linguistics has much to thank you for. But, and I don’t think I’m being too harsh here, I think you let it go to your head. Then your head inflated. And exploded. And started to rot. And the east coast called it brilliant. All of your arguments are circular, for monkey buddha’s sake! Something is proved because of the evidence, but the evidence follows those parameters because you proved it!

Listen to that Ocham Razer guy, dude.