On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Jeffrey S. Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 17:30:43 +0200, Andreas Johansson
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Nothing to do with Conlanging, but I figured there's a better chance
>> of people here knowing the answer than anywhere else that I frequent.
> Wouldn't this be USAGE or THEORY, not OT? It seems relevent to naturalistic
> conlanging.

Only in the sense everything pertaining to natlangs is relevant to
naturalistic conlanging, methinks.

It might be useful to label stuff like this as NATLANG - indeed I used
to do so, until a discussion about filtering made me stop, I don't
recall quite why - but it seems weird to shoehorn it into USAGE or
THEORY: it's hardly a theoretical issue I raised, and while it
concerns usage in a sense, it's rather a historiographical than a
linguistic one.

Andreas Johansson

Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?