Text:	Read:
(28) is very likely a universal constraint.	I know, for sure, that (28) works for English, French, and certain Lolo-Burmese dialects.
(14) provides a particularly striking confirmation of this hypothesis.	Without (14) and a few other examples, we probably couldn’t support this hypothesis at all.
There appears to be no available evidence to the contrary.	I’ve gone all the way back to about 1950, and I can’t find any evidence to the contrary.
Solution X is a widely accepted solution, but is it the correct solution?	It probably couldn’t matter less, one way or the other, but I haven’t had a paper out in six months.
See for example, Chomsky, 1951, 1959, 1964, 1965, 1968...	Grant me this one assumption, and I’ll show you a neat trick.
Since there is so little crucial evidence on this issue, I will leave the question open.	I have never understood this issue, the nature of the evidence, or the question.
These conclusions should also have important consequences for the study of Flathead noun phrases.	I know this paper didn’t turn out too well, but I’ve seen worse.
For ease of exposition I will use alphabetic symbols rather than distinctive feature matrices.	Why should I risk writing a rule that doesn’t work, if I can avoid it?
The behavior of nasal-initial clusters is, on the other hand, quite erratic, and a fuller account of them must await further data.	There’s no way I can hassle with these nasal-initial clusters and still make my deadline.
Weisgerber’s rules strike me as highly unnatural.	I can’t even read Weisgerber’s rules.

	Recent Advances in Linguistics—Metalleus
	Another Horrifying Cliché—Evan Smith
	Lingua Pranca Contents