{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023923444976076555, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.33939393939394, '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}}
Präteritumschwund in German: The Parsing Trigger

Any purely descriptive or contrastive (äs far äs I am concerned, also konfrontative') reference grammar of any of the well-described (Western) languages takes the risk of staying way short of the field-intrinsic, 'evolutionary', horizons of hunters and gatherers. Today's epistemological Claims force us to look far beyond such horizons. In other words, the collection and empirical observation of linguistic facts äs such can only be entertained against a clear decision in favor of applying a theoretical background and administering all the manipulating Instruments developed in the framework of such a theory. To assume that the working linguist stays closer to the truth of empirical observation and appreciation by abstaining from any theory is a severe, inexcusable atavism. Epistemologically, there is no choice for the linguist but to go about his descriptive and explanative work with the 'richest' theory — which is the one allowing the richest manipulatory access to empirical facts.