MILC 2

 

And, as a special one-time only offer, a peek at the (undated and unverified) correspondence of the abstract review committee:

Dear Colleagues,

As fellow members of the abstract review committee, I feel I must draw your attention to a reprehensible submission just received. I have reviewed it and must recommend rejection, possibly drawing and quartering. I of course refer to "Your Phonology May be Redneck if..."

The authors begin with the premise that Foxworthy's law has not been adequately stated in phonological terms. They clearly have not done their research, having missed my seminal article, "Red Phonology in the Neck: A Better Pain." This can be found in Moni's Journal of Her Papers (MJHP) 43(2):666-666.

Their data is adequate (although one prefers to see more data when such dirty words are at hand), but they fail to account for one of the most salient features: the replacement of vowels by *. How can any account based on sonority peaks not take into account the quality and quantity of *? Here, see my ovular article, "* in Syntax, * in Phonology: the Same or Different?" MJHP 43(2):667-667.

I must add that the authors are apparently not speakers of the dialect, and it is well known that only native-speaker intuitions are acceptable, and furthermore, that no one but a native speaker may study any given dialect. This is a fundamental ethical tenet of our field, violated by these monsters.

I might also point out that it is I who publishes under the pseudonym "M. Dullard" (stress on the final syllable), and resent the unfounded and ungrounded digs at that masterpiece. (Need I also give those ignorant authors the correct reference to that?)

Finally, the authors are clearly foreigners, that alone being grounds for rejection.

I leave the final decision up to you, of course, and you may override my recommendations, although Joe you know what the best course to take is if you know which side your bread is buttered on if you know what I mean and I think that you do.

Professor Macaulay
Insane U