Leiter has some delicious early results of the 2009 PGR over here.
And here's a ranking of philosophy programs according to faculty productivity. Does anyone know anything about this ranking? Is it credible? Some of the results are surprising, and, if true, kind of interesting.
For those hungry for some DOOM: I just saw on a network TV commercial a conflation of "your" and "you're." But never fear. This fool has taken it upon herself to treat us all as her pupil. The fact that her own site is riddled with grammatical and conceptual errors provides yet another justification for the destruction of the world.
Monday Cranky Rant: Is it only in my city that the employees of large chain music stores take themselves to be deeply and importantly talented rock stars in virtue of the fact that they're employed by a large chain music store? Dude, I know you've spent years mastering the lead to "Crazy Train," but just turn it down, ok? And while you're at it, you can lose the attitude. You're a fucking sales clerk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Hahhahhaaaa! While I know nothing about the ranking, I must thank you for the grammar stuff. Together we can harass the Grammar Vandal within an inch of her life!
What commercial are you talking about? I told you about the Visa one, right?
-- PBK
Oh, and did you notice that she made yet ANOTHER typo in today's post? I'm gettin' a screen grab before she fixes it!
-- PBK
Ah, yes! What can we hope for when our grammar scolds are hopeless incompetents and our guitar salesmen are lickmaster nincompoops? One answer in the offing: a website with a philosophy journal ranking that has The Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain, Fichte Studien, and Epoche ranked higher than Analysis.
Perhaps we deserve the God of the Old Testament, floods, temper tantrums and all.
Oh, my. The Grammar Vandal's site is, indeed, riddled with grammatical and conceptual errors.
Why is it that all of the world's grammar scolds are idiots? Is it that they're either English teachers or molded by English teachers?
This just in from the tu quoque department.
Consider the Grammar Vandal's mission: "This blog is a record of my campaign to eradicate grammar errors in public in Boston and elsewhere."
Of course, since 'errors' is a noun, she needs an adjective to tell us the kind of errors she has in mind. But she gives us 'grammar', a noun, when we need 'grammatical'.
Normally, I'd let something like this go, but not for self-proclaimed grammar police.
Glaucon,
Well done. I should introduce you to PBK. Could be a match made in heaven. Or not.
Glaucon:
With apologies for playing pedant to one justly impatient with impertinent pedantry, “grammar errors” is a compound, not a phrase, so the noun-noun sequence is perfectly grammatical (cf. “toy car,” “house boat,” “strike committee,” “potty mouth,” etc.—not to mention “spelling errors”). But of course you (et alia) are quite right that this silly person needs to be schooled. I’ll make my own contribution presently.
In solidarity,
EJ
HOORAY! I love this! I hate the Grammar Vandal, but I love this!
Listen to me, everyone: That Grammar Vandal has, in the past, not allowed my comments to be shown on her blog... yet she took my corrections from them and fixed her work so no one among her readers was the wiser! Plus, she never answered my direct e-mail calling her out on her smug, stupid behavior!
Sorry; I just had to get that all off my chest!
-- PBK
English Jerk:
Word. Or whatever the youngsters say nowadays to indicate assent (or in the spirit of the GV, should I say 'ascent'?). Still, there's something about the form of 'grammar error' that's different from 'toy car', etc.: "grammar error" can be transformed into "error of grammar", but "car of toy" isn't even coherent. There's an adjectival form of 'grammar' but not of 'toy'... any connection here?
Glaucon:
That’s a keen observation. Compounds can be pretty irregular. For example, they usually have a modifier-head structure; so a “houseboat” is a kind of boat not a kind of house, and a “mead hall” is a kind of building not a kind of alcoholic honey. But a “nuthatch” is neither a kind of hatch nor a kind of nut. And the exact semantics of the relation are not always clear: “olive oil” is oil made out of olives, but “baby oil”? Ick.
As for the periphrastic genitive construction (“x of y”), it’s a consequence of the French influence (i.e., 1066). The native Germanic constructions are still productive and often there’s a perfectly synonymous (Romance) periphrastic genitive: “the doctor’s office” is equivalent to “the office of the doctor.” So, being in the middle of a historical change (from a synthetic to an analytic language), there are many irregularities.
For both of those reasons, compounds don’t always have corresponding periphrastic genitives: “hall of mead” is fine, but “boat of house” isn’t. In general, anything that is bound to lexical or phonological stipulations is going to be irregular to some extent.
Post a Comment