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?