Recently I had a phone call from an old acquaintance who wanted to know the status of our Japanese NT translation. (We're done with the 2nd draft.) He's a missionary who came to Japan under Peter Ruckman's mission board (and still is as far as I know). He's a nice guy, not the nasty, aggressive guy Ruckman is. I disarmed him by telling him we still had his old prayer card and prayed for him. At any rate he started talking about Gail Riplinger, calling her a linguist and offering information from her about what linguistic tools I was using. When I said, "I'm not a fan of Riplinger," I'm afraid that quenched him, because he never did send the email. But it got me thinking about Riplinger as a...linguist? Really? There are two kinds of linguists: one who is an expert in a given language, and one who is on the scholarly side studying and/or teaching linguistics. Let's say you wanted to be a linguist in Japanese. You might go to my alma mater for two years, the Tokyo School of the Japanese Language. You'd take 15 hours of classwork and at least that much study, ending up with around 3000 hours of study. On the other hand, if you went for an MA in linguistics you'd do about the same. But what makes Gail Riplinger a linguist? She taught English as a foreign language for three years! Here it is: http://www.av1611.org/kjv/ripwhit3.html (first page). http://www.biblefortoday.org/PDF/StringerOnRiplinger.pdf (p. 8). I mentioned this to my wife, who has taught English to Japanese for many years, as I have in the past, and she immediately knew the fallacy. Being a teacher of English as a second language does NOT make you a linguist. Gail Riplinger is not a linguist, nor does she know linguistics, nor are the linguistic sources she uses very reliable. More on that later.