[AndyJackson]

Actually, there isn't such a glut of unemployed PhDs as you imagine. Second, I am just pointing out, since you wish to debunk linguistics as a serious field of study, that some people in serious fields of study view it otherwise

Much of the linguistics that I have read is every bit as rigorous as the experimental physics research that I am familiar with.

And while I am an experimental physicist, your ignorance about physics is showing as well.

[Mamzelle]

We can't afford every "serious field of study" that passes itself off as such. The universities are already a hideously expensive hotbed of fraud and waste and dithering.

Understanding the inner workings of language acquisition is a fine thing...until I see those same linguists trying to prevent immigrant children from learning English due to some hairbrained "sociolinguistic" theory construct--or deconstruct. We've come a long way from the Oxford philolgists like Tolkein--now we have bossy nannies with lofty-sounding degrees formulating policies which should be left to local administrations.

And nattering on about the difference between "transformational" grammar and "generative" grammar is a fine enough hobby. But I'm not enough of a true believer to endow it with much seriousness.

As for there being no glut, I'd like some fries with that.