<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Some further terms to watch out for, Hedvig, in "What exactly is ...?", Linguist. Typol., 17: 267-8, 2003. Only CONATIVE got sorted out so far, thanks to Nigel Vincent, LT 17, 269--289. PLURACTIONAL had not been put on this initial list: with hindsight an inexcusable omission, for IS everybody agreed that pluractionals are indeed verbal NUMBERS, in Africa, America, and Eurasia and Oceania too? Looking forward to a further instalment of "What exactly is ...?" Submissions can be freestyle, within reason; but once you're accepted you must follow the LT style (attached). <div><br></div><div>What Bernhard probably had in mind, like Aristotle and Cicero before him, was that variatio delectat in RHETORICAL styles, a quality of scholarly publishing not easy to define but still perceptible, and usually correlated with national academic traditions. Journal publishing in linguistics and elsewhere clearly favours the Anglo-American rhetorical style, putting the rest of us at an additional, rhetorical as well as grammatical and lexical, disadvantage.</div><div><br></div><div>As to TEXT-STRUCTURE styles, which Martin, et multi alii, would like to see unified, ain't they already? I don't see Linguist. Typol. differ dramatically from his recommendations at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.frank-m-richter.de/freescienceblog/2015/03/18/how-to-make-linguistics-publication-more-efficient-use-discipline-wide-style-rules" style="font-family: LucidaGrande;">http://www.frank-m-richter.de/freescienceblog/2015/03/18/how-to-make-linguistics-publication-more-efficient-use-discipline-wide-style-rules</a>, and I can't believe this journal is unique. (Well, in other senses it IS.)</div><div><br></div><div>TYPOGRAPHICAL styles can remain diverse, Bernhard -- though you won't have much of a say here, unless you do do-it-yourself publishing. Which reminds me, since we're at it, I've long wanted to know from (French) French writers whether it is for them a typographical or a text-structural matter to leave a (non-breaking, originally thin) space before bi-partite punctuation marks (i.e., all other than period and comma). Assuming they are text-structural, deleting these damn spaces has cost me a lot of work over 20 years of editing Linguist. Typol., for despite everything we do get submissions from France. But what if they were merely typographical, or on the contrary were intended as making a rhetorical statement -- and should have remained on both grounds?! </div><div><br></div><div>Does LaTeX have a solution ? By the way, the editorial office as well as the typesetters of Linguist. Typol. are able to deal with LaTeX as well as with other reasonable formats in use among reasonable typologists (including Word). </div><div><br></div><div>Frans </div><div> </div></body></html>