{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020637898686679174, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.680851063829787, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
From a diachronic perspective

As a historical linguist I welcome Martin Haspelmath's proposal that "[w]e need to consider diachronic change if we want to understand why OT constraints are the way they are". Haspelmath argues that grammars come to be adapted to speakers' needs in ways that do not suffer from some of the worst aspects of the Teleological Fallacy. This is an argument that deserves to be seriously pursued. But if this pursuit is ultimately to be successful, a number of empirical questions will need to be answered.