Vocabula

[Michael Adams]

By way of concurring with a couple of folks, here is another footnote from "Slayer Slang" (p. 118):

Readers have probably already guessed that I count Halpern among the grouchy language mavens mentioned earlier.  The views of linguists haven't silenced him much, since he has publihsed several articles on the general theme of "The End of Linguistics," which itself, as mentioned in the previous note, has not only been publihsed, but reprinted.  Clearly, I read these articles and I learn from them:  I never object to hearing others' views on language and I agree that the exercise of authority plays a role in usage and even language change.  Halpern objects to linguists so much, however, that he ignores what they've learned from intensive study of language.  Thus, I don't think that linguists shut down the Halperns of this world; rather, the Halperns hope to shut down professional linguists because they question the bases on which language mavens assert authority.  Perhaps, in some areas of life, we must accept authority; I never do this without questioning, though.  I think there's a big difference between running a red light and semantic inflation, and I may observe authority in one instance and not the other.  If there's meat to Halpern's thinking, take it with a grain of salt, whether you are a gangbanger, a Betarer, or a schoolteacher.

The last sentence makes more sense in context.  I agree with Peter Trudgill that these guys (Halpern and Fiske) are asking for it:  they are, as Dennis says, and as Mr. Fiske himself announced, convinced that they know better than the rest of us, and they seem to spend a lot of their time "skewering" the supposedly ignorant, obtuse, and permissive. They should expect some skewering in return.  Skewering the ignorant isn't a humane enterprise -- good teachers don't skewer their students (student on a spit?); skewering those who skewer, however, is great sport.

Geez, I'm not even a linguist.

Michael