> I disagree with the notion that the novelty of a component of language can be best assessed by when it was first used. I think novelty is a bad choice of wor

> I disagree with the notion that the novelty of a component of language can be best assessed by when it was first used. I think novelty is a bad choice of word here, as that has a connotation of being related to time and exposure, which makes your statement seem somewhat contradictory... I think the word "controversial" that Thomas uses is more appropriate. I'll continue as if you had used that instead. I do agree, that length of attestation does not necessarily mean a feature is non-controversial. But I do think it is likely a prerequisite for being non-controversial, precisely because it allows the usage to be non-novel.