Editor for this issue: <>
Alexis's critique of language games as evidence struck a chord. Too many of us, in reaction to the traditional reluctance to accept anything but "linguistic " (read "distributional") evidence, run to the opposite extreme: any other kind of evidence is decisive. Don Churma's anecdote about prenasalization is indicative of this sort of response. But non-distributional data should not be sacred either. Come to think of it, nothing is sacred (the curse of the postmodern world)!!Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue